LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak.
In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.
Klein
Roger D
RD
Yale University School of Medicine, USA.
Mahoney
Maurice J
MJ
D056246:Chemistry, Analytic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005494:Folic Acid Deficiency / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005820:Genetic Testing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006710:Homocysteine / Q000097:blood; D006801:Humans; D010330:Patents as Topic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States; D014806:Vitamin B 12 Deficiency / Q000175:diagnosis*
D006710:Homocysteine