US Supreme Court rejects blood monitoring patents

Biotechnology industry officials are warning that a US Supreme Court ruling on patent rights this week could have a chilling effect on the development of personalized medicine.

The Supreme Court rejected two patents covering medical tests for monitoring patients' blood, saying they are too similar to natural phenomena to receive .

The patents were held by Prometheus Laboratories, a subsidiary of Swiss food maker Nestle.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision said, "Laws of nature, and abstract ideas are not patentable" under provisions of the US Patent Act.

To be covered by a patent, "an application of a law of nature... must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply it.' It must limit its reach to a particular, inventive application of the law," said the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

"The claims are consequently invalid," said the court's decision, which reversed an earlier ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The patents covered a method developed by Prometheus Laboratory for adjusting dosages of thiopurine treatment for patients with immune system diseases, such as Crohn's disease, a chronic .

The dosages must be adjusted precisely to ensure the drug is effective and avoids side effects.

The Supreme Court said the Prometheus patents merely followed natural laws by establishing a link between levels of certain chemicals in the blood and too high or insufficient dosages of thiopurine.

Officials from the $4 billion a year biotechnoloy industry say the court's decision could remove incentives for development of other personalized medicine devices.

"It's a major shift and will have a profound effects on personalized medicine," said Michael Samardzija, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property for the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani.

The ruling will make it "a lot more difficult" for diagnostic test makers to claim their new products are eligible for patents, Samardzija told The Wall Street Journal.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court rules against inventors in patent case

Jun 28, 2010

(AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to weigh in on whether software, online-shopping techniques and medical diagnostic tests can be patented, saying only that inventors' request for protection of a method of hedging ...

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

US Supreme Court hears Microsoft case on patents

Apr 19, 2011

The US Supreme Court has immersed itself in patent rules in a case pitting Microsoft against a Canadian technology company that claims some versions of Word violated its patent.

Recommended for you

What are the chances that your dad isn't your dad?

Apr 16, 2014

How confident are you that the man you call dad is really your biological father? If you believe some of the most commonly-quoted figures, you could be forgiven for not being very confident at all. But how ...

New technology that is revealing the science of chewing

Apr 15, 2014

CSIRO's 3D mastication modelling, demonstrated for the first time in Melbourne today, is starting to provide researchers with new understanding of how to reduce salt, sugar and fat in food products, as well ...

After skin cancer, removable model replaces real ear

Apr 11, 2014

(HealthDay)—During his 10-year struggle with basal cell carcinoma, Henry Fiorentini emerged minus his right ear, and minus the hearing that goes with it. The good news: Today, the 56-year-old IT programmer ...

Italy scraps ban on donor-assisted reproduction

Apr 09, 2014

Italy's Constitutional Court on Wednesday struck down a Catholic Church-backed ban against assisted reproduction with sperm or egg donors that has forced thousands of sterile couples to seek help abroad.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

210
not rated yet Mar 22, 2012
" The ruling will make it "a lot more difficult" for diagnostic test makers to claim their new products are eligible for patents, Samardzija told The Wall Street Journal."

NOT REAL ONES! YOU need to read the ruling again AND the Supreme Court is bumping into the area of the patent environment that has needed closer scrutiny and a total rewrite for a LONG time. They are saying, stuff that is derived from a known biological process MUST address specific aspects of remedial or preventive care other than the fact and need of remedial or preventable disease dialog. 'What makes this 'cure' any different than known naturally occurring biological processes?! The answer to that question is made more complicated by the intrinsic inclusion of a biological process, a process that may itself be contributing to the ailment or condition (genes), as opposed to, as we have done it for 8000 years, INTRODUCING a biological or chemical agent that assists or constitutes a remedy or palliative.
word-