The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine?: Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289

Timo Minssen; David Nilsson

doi:10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

On 20 March 2012, the US Supreme Court handed down its much awaited patent eligibility- ruling in the dispute between Prometheus Laboratories Inc (“Prometheus”), acting as plaintiffs, and Mayo Medical Laboratories (“Mayo”), as alleged infringers of Prometheus’ licensed patents. This case review will first briefly describe the background to the case and the patents at issue (1), the procedural history (2), and the judgment of the Supreme Court (3). This is followed by a brief discussion of the decision’s actual and potential implications for the patentability of biomedical methods and products including some comparative European views (4). The paper concludes with general remarks (5).

Original language	English
Journal	Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property
Volume	2
Issue number	4
Pages (from-to)	376-388
Number of pages	13
ISSN	2045-9807
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05
Publication status	Published - 2012

Access to Document

10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property (Journal)
Timo Minssen (Review editor)
1 Mar 2013
Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work types › Peer review of manuscripts › Research

Cite this

Minssen, T., & Nilsson, D. (2012). The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2(4), 376-388. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289. / Minssen, Timo; Nilsson, David.

In: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2012, p. 376-388.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › peer-review

Minssen, T & Nilsson, D 2012, 'The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289', Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 376-388. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

Minssen T, Nilsson D. The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2012;2(4):376-388. doi: 10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

Minssen, Timo ; Nilsson, David. / The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289. In: Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2012 ; Vol. 2, No. 4. pp. 376-388.

@article{0929207ea1294112b1dfd6b944e1bafb,

title = "The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine?: Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289",

abstract = "On 20 March 2012, the US Supreme Court handed down its much awaited patent eligibility- ruling in the dispute between Prometheus Laboratories Inc (“Prometheus”), acting as plaintiffs, and Mayo Medical Laboratories (“Mayo”), as alleged infringers of Prometheus{\textquoteright} licensed patents. This case review will first briefly describe the background to the case and the patents at issue (1), the procedural history (2), and the judgment of the Supreme Court (3). This is followed by a brief discussion of the decision{\textquoteright}s actual and potential implications for the patentability of biomedical methods and products including some comparative European views (4). The paper concludes with general remarks (5).",

author = "Timo Minssen and David Nilsson",

year = "2012",

doi = "10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05",

language = "English",

volume = "2",

pages = "376--388",

journal = "Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property",

issn = "2045-9807",

publisher = "Edward Elgar Publishing",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine?

T2 - Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289

AU - Minssen, Timo

AU - Nilsson, David

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - On 20 March 2012, the US Supreme Court handed down its much awaited patent eligibility- ruling in the dispute between Prometheus Laboratories Inc (“Prometheus”), acting as plaintiffs, and Mayo Medical Laboratories (“Mayo”), as alleged infringers of Prometheus’ licensed patents. This case review will first briefly describe the background to the case and the patents at issue (1), the procedural history (2), and the judgment of the Supreme Court (3). This is followed by a brief discussion of the decision’s actual and potential implications for the patentability of biomedical methods and products including some comparative European views (4). The paper concludes with general remarks (5).

AB - On 20 March 2012, the US Supreme Court handed down its much awaited patent eligibility- ruling in the dispute between Prometheus Laboratories Inc (“Prometheus”), acting as plaintiffs, and Mayo Medical Laboratories (“Mayo”), as alleged infringers of Prometheus’ licensed patents. This case review will first briefly describe the background to the case and the patents at issue (1), the procedural history (2), and the judgment of the Supreme Court (3). This is followed by a brief discussion of the decision’s actual and potential implications for the patentability of biomedical methods and products including some comparative European views (4). The paper concludes with general remarks (5).

U2 - 10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

DO - 10.4337/qmjip.2012.04.05

M3 - Review

SN - 2045-9807

VL - 2

SP - 376

EP - 388

JO - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

JF - Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

IS - 4

ER -

The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Activities

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property (Journal)

Cite this