Mayo Collaborative Services, Dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (566 U.S. 66)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 20, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 566 U.S. 66 · 132 S. Ct. 1289
- Decided
- March 20, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter. It says: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U. S. C. § 101. The Court has long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception. “[Ljaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U. S. 593, 601 (2010); Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-120 (1854); cf. Neilson v. Harford, Webster’s Patent Cases 295, 371 (1841) (English case discussing same). Thus, the Court has written that “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are ‘manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.’ ” Chakrabarty, supra, at 309 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 130 (1948)). “Phenomena of nature, though just…
Excerpt of a 43,256-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.