Search

The article discusses the origins of natural law and natural rights in patents through English and U.S. legal history, along with the U.S. Supreme Court cases Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories and d Alice v. CLS Bank on patent.

US Supreme Court decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. caused US and European law on what is patentable subject matter to diverge significantly. Both cases related to molecular tests and changed decades of patent practice. Whether the decisions adversely affect the development of molecular tests in the United States and Europe has been a matter of much speculation but limited empirical investigation. This interview-based study has three main findings. First, Myriad and Mayo have negatively affected the development of some molecular tests. Notably, half of the US university technology-transfer offices interviewed decided not to develop tests, and many other organizations have found the legal uncertainty following the cases problematic. Second, small "patent-precarious" organizations--those that rely heavily on patents for competitive advantages, such as technology-transfer offices--have been the most affected because patent protection is now often weaker and more difficult to obtain. Third, US-headquartered organizations have been more affected by 35 U.S.C. § 101 case law developments than European organizations, even though both types of organizations file for US patents. This Article refrains from advising law reform, however, because this study only focused on the adverse effects of the decisions and the positive effects remain unexamined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses forum shopping within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by placing the problem in the broader context of forum shopping in other areas of law. Topics include how patent drafters are using creative drafting to gain more a favorable patent classification; patent forum shopping at the appellate level, and creation and the impact of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories on same.

The article provides an overview of brief and informative scientific overview of DNA, RNA, and cDNA, and a history of gene patents in the U.S. It mentions about the development of a judicial exception to patent ineligibility using the framework provided by court cases Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l.

In this article, the author argues that the U.S. Congress should abolish the Supreme Court promulgated, non-statutory exceptions to 35 U.S.C. section 101 of the Patent Act. It mentions about the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Sers. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. in which the court held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

The article focuses on the impact the patentability of advancement of biotechnology and medical innovation in the U.S. Topics discussed include development of the modern patent statute and the inconsistent judicial treatment of the eligible subject matter requirement; use of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International court case test on patent eligibility; and enactment of Patent Act of 1952 for addressing patent issues in the ocuntry.

The article focuses on the role of courts in shaping patent law and policy in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Patent Act of 1952 for governing patents in the country; guidance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to help examiners and applicants who struggle with patent issues; and the U.S. Supreme Court cases Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories on patentability.

The landscape for patenting products and processes tied to the natural world has changed dramatically in recent times as a result of a series of decisions of the US Supreme Court, particularly Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (Myriad). This article critically analyses these decisions and the multitude of lower court decisions that have followed them. This analysis provides support for the growing concern in the United States that it will be increasingly difficult to use the patent system to encourage the development of therapies and research intermediates useful in developing new therapeutic interventions. One option being posited in the industry to deal with this problem is to lobby Congress to reform the threshold patent eligibility standard in US patent law. It is argued in this paper that a more nuanced approach is preferable. Using the experience in Australia as a case study, this paper argues that such an approach is feasible. Australia has been chosen for analysis because the threshold patent eligibility standard is similar in both countries, much more so that with the European Union, and because the highest court in Australia has ruled on essentially the same patent as in Myriad, in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics, Inc [2015] HCA 35. In addition to the nuanced approach to eligibility currently exercised by the Australian courts and patent office, Australia also has a number of post-grant options for addressing the dynamics of patent monopolies. These include experimental use, compulsory licensing, and government use. It is concluded that, while it would be impractical to attempt to replicate the Australian environment in the United States, there is no reason why some lessons can't be learned from the Australian experience with patenting nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deciding a patent's validity is costly, and so is deciding it incorrectly. Judges and juries must expend significant resources in order to reach a patent validity determination that is properly informed by the relevant facts. At the same time, patent validity determinations reached quickly and cheaply may conserve resources today while creating future costs. Wrongly preserving an invalid patent can distort the competitive market and enable abuses, such as nuisance litigation. Meanwhile, wrongly striking down a valid patent can undermine incentives for continued investment and commercialization in knowledge assets. Courts facing patent validity issues have begun to strike this balance in favor of conserving resources today--in a manner that is strikingly similar to the per se analysis in antitrust law. A per se rule disposes of supposedly easy cases without engaging in the more fact-intensive "rule of reason" analysis. However, although antitrust jurisprudence cautions against per se rules because of the risk of error and imposes important requirements for the use of per se rules, recent patent jurisprudence has borrowed incautiously from antitrust. This Article explains how the requirements for patentability enable the use of per se analysis, describes how the proper conditions for antitrust per se analysis would translate into patent law, and argues that the current use of antitrust-style judicial shortcuts does not satisfy these conditions in patent law. This Article concludes with a set of proposals for recalibrating the present costs of reaching informed patent validity decisions against the future costs that arise from generating decisions incorrectly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the patent law of the U.S., and discusses Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., and Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. court case on same; and looming challenges for trademark law as a result of technological and legal change.

The article focuses on the treatment of biotechnology method patent claims in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Patent Act for addressing the challenges of the same; use of machine-or-transformation test for determining patent eligibility; and court cases Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l on the same.

The article analysis the scope of patent eligibility of diagnostic tests in the U.S. focusing on Ariosa v. Sequenom and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. court case. Topics discussed include issues of patent law and medical innovation; analysis of Ariosa v. Sequenom and its implications for decisions on the patent eligibility of diagnostic tests; and analysis of current patent subject-matter eligibility test by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

One aspect of Justice Stephen Breyer's discomfort with patents, as expressed in his opinion for the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus and his dissent from the order dismissing certiorari in LabCorp v. Metabolite, is strikingly similar to one of his critiques of copyright law in The Uneasy Case for Copyright, a well-known article he wrote as Professor Breyer more than forty-five years ago. In The Uneasy Case, Breyer argued that the burdens on duplication of technical articles imposed by copyright law restrict the flow of information and prevent scientists from enjoying spillover benefits of published research. His patent opinions on the Supreme Court, too, talk of diminished access to information resulting from intellectual property protection. In this Article, I contend that the parallel that Justice Breyer implicitly draws between the harms of copyright and patent is a questionable one. In particular, Justice Breyer's opinions on patentable subject matter do not address the notion that inducement of disclosure and dissemination of information is one of the very purposes of patent law, nor the idea that there are many noninfringing uses of information contained in patents. I argue that these omissions may provide an insight into Justice Breyer's patent law jurisprudence?particularly, the recent reinvigoration of limits on patentable subject matter in his opinion for the Court in Mayo. To be sure, Justice Breyer's position can be defended. For even though patent law does not generally place barriers on access to information, claims like those at issue in Mayo and LabCorp may create narrow, subtle informationflow problems through recitation of mental steps at the point of the invention's novelty. I argue, however, that these problems can be solved by applying correspondingly narrow rules of novelty or claim construction to invalidate such patents or to limit their scope, making resort to the overbroad rule announced in Mayo unnecessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the patent eligibility of biomedical diagnostic methods dealing on topics including the court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., and formulation of patent-eligibility exclusions for specific biological material and diagnostic methods.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. regarding the development of the patent eligibility doctrine. It mentions that Supreme Court's policy objectives for the recent reinvigoration of the patent eligibility doctrine with the subject matter eligibility threatens the availability of patent protection. It also mentions that availability of meaningful patent protection.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in the case Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. which have eviscerated patent eligibility for molecular diagnostic technologies. It also mentions that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad which jeopardizes patent eligibility for molecular diagnostics.

The article explore the laws for patentable subject matter eligibilty in the U.S. in the context of software-implemented inventions. Topics discussed include statutory structure of anticipation and obviousness related to unpatentable subject matter, need for a legal framework for the identification of patentable subject matter, and opinion of the U.S. Supreme Courts on the issue including 'Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.Inc.,' 'Diamond v. Diehr' and 'Parker v. Flook.'

The article offer information on the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., in which the Court addressed the patentability issues related to human genes under the Patent Act of 1952. Topics discussed include the legal suit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) related to genetic testing services, laws for analysis of DNA sequences, and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. case.

The article report on several court cases of the U.S. Supreme Court, that shapes the the laws for patentable subject matter eligibilty in the U.S., including 'Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.Inc.,' 'Neilson v. Harford' and 'Parker v. Flook.' Topics discussed include statutory structure related to unpatentable subjects, need for a legal framework on identification of patentable subjects in the U.S., and difference between unpatentable principle and a patent-eligible invention.

The article analyzes the current law concerning patentable subject matter under section 101 of the United States Patent Act in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. It provides an overview of patent law and examines the impact of the decisions on biotechnology companies. It also addresses the requirements for patentable subject matter under section 101.

Many of the problems with modern patent-eligibility analysis can be traced back to a fundamental philosophical divide between judges who treat eligibility as the primary tool for effectuating patent policy and those who take patent-eligibility as nothing more than a coarse filter to be invoked in rare cases. After several years in which the coarse filter approach seemed to have the upper hand, the eligibility-as-king approach now is firmly in ascendancy. This Article, resists that trend, exploring more centrist approaches to patenteligibility, particularly in the context of process inventions. This Article first examines the practice of undertaking an eligibility analysis with no antecedent claim construction; then concludes that this practice is problematic, drawing on the authors' prior work concerning the design of patent law rules in view of the audience for those rules. This Article also assesses the unfortunate renaissance of the "inventive concept" inquiry, arguing that the Court's new embrace of that inquiry is a mistake that permits judges to privilege eligibility to the virtual exclusion of all other patentability doctrines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Virtual" molecular compounds, created in molecular modeling software, are increasingly useful in the process of rational drug design. When a physical compound is patented, however, virtual use of the compound allows researchers to circumvent the protection granted to the patentee. To acquire protection from unauthorized use of compounds in their virtual form, patentees must directly claim the virtual compound. But Supreme Court decisions such as Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. call into question whether virtual compound claims are patentable subject matter under § 101. Using the guidance offered by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, this Issue Brief argues that virtual compound claims are not abstract ideas and therefore, consistent with patent policy, qualify as patentable subject matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., that dealt with the validity of gene patents in the U.S. Topics discussed include claims in issued patents owned by Myriad Genetics that covered genomic DNA sequences (gDNA) extracted and purified from human cells, case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. that addressed patentable subject matter, and patent eligibility issues.

The article offers information on the history, scope and significant legal framework for patentable subject matter as applied for patent protection of biotechnology entities under the patent law of the U.S. It discusses the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases including Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., in which the Court determined the patentable subject matter in biotechnology patent claims.

The article discusses the American court case, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. It focuses on the shocking decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that adjudicated a profound medical claim in the case. It details the judgment and its effects on the rulings of the Federal Circuit, as well as District Courts, and its effect on medical claims.

35 U.S.C. § 101 allows a patent for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Recently, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions affecting the doctrine of patentable subject matter under § 101. Starting with Bilski v. Kappos (2011), and continuing with Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012), Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) and, most recently, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014), every year has brought another major change to the way in which the Court assesses patentability. In Myriad, the Court directly addressed the patentability of isolated genetic material. Due to the underlying biological phenomena involved, this decision split genetic material into two groups. Large, complex animal, plant, and fungal genes remain patentable under some limited circumstances, while viral, bacterial, and simple eukaryotic genes are categorically unpatentable. The biotechnology industry evolved in an era in which gene patents were freely granted. As a result, legal and regulatory pathways have emerged that allow existing biotechnology products to be protected in many of the same ways as traditional pharmaceutical products. However, entirely new areas of biotechnology, those emerging in the shadow of Myriad, may be threatened by a deprivation of the incentives and protection that the patent system offers. This Note discusses one such new area of biotechnology, non-coding RNA therapeutics and diagnostics, and the ways in which the categorical exclusion of some genes threatens this promising area of innovation. In addressing this, I propose a re-ordering of the patentable subject matter analysis that would ameliorate many of these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of U.S. Supreme Court cases Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Labs and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, which dealt with patent law in the U.S. Topics include the patentability of medical methods in the U.S., the patent eligibility of natural laws, and the impact of precedent on the development of patent law.

The article focuses on patent law and patent examiners in the U.S. in 2014. Topics include the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the consequences of a decline in the quality of patents, and patents' impact on competitiveness in the U.S. in 2014.

The article focuses on the existence of knowledge and embodiment dichotomy in the contemporary patent opinions and treatises. Topics discussed include presence of knowledge as a de facto limit in the patent protection, prohibiting patent of knowledge works and role of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the regulation of laws related to patent eligibility. It further discusses the decision on the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the American patent law-related cases Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. and Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, focusing on the impacts of the judgments on patent licensees and licensors. Patent-eligible subject matter is addressed in relation to Section 101 of the nation's Patent Act. The preemption of laws of nature and U.S. federal circuit court decisions are examined.

Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trade Office sent shockwaves through the legal community, when the US. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a series of patents held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. The court invalidated all of Myriad's compositional patents for human genes and its method patents for diagnosing genetic predispositions to breast cancer. While commentators have discussed the ethical implications of allowing patent rights to human genes in great detail, the Court's ruling on Myriad's method claims went by comparatively unnoticed. The ability to test a patient ~s genetic profile for predisposition to cancer and other diseases is an incredible achievement in the field of personalized medicine. Whether these tests deserve patent protection is a hotly debated issue that involves weighing the interests of both incentivizing research and making these tests available to the general public. This Comment analyzes the legal framework established by the Supreme Court and US. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to decide patent eligibility for genetic diagnostic tests. It concludes that, while the world was spellbound by the ethical quandary of compositional claims on human genes, the recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have surreptitiously eliminated genetic diagnostic tests as patentable subject matter under § 101 of the United States Patent Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the functional and jurisdictional views articulated in Federal Circuit courts of the U.S. related to section 101 of the U.S. patent law following the judgment of U.S. Supreme Court case Bilski v. Kapposan. It further emphasizes the impact of its application at an early stage of litigation, its role in patent litigation, and its influence on district court practices in patent cases. The authors conclude that jurisdictional view is better than the functional view.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories holding that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug were not patent eligible subject matter. It describes the requirement for patent eligibility and analyzes the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on future patent infringement cases.

The article focuses on the patentability of isolated human enhancer elements and its utility requirement for the patenting in the U.S. It explains on the fundamentals of genetics and compares the differences between coding and noncoding DNA It discusses the current legal framework for patenting polynucleotides under several cases of the U.S. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad), In re Fisher and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. where the Court rejected patents for a method of treating autoimmune disease. It informs that the Court argued that Prometheus objection related to patent for intense effects in the fields of diagnostics and personalized medicine. It further mentions other cases in the same context including Roy Zwahlen, Mayo v. Prometheus and Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

The article presents information on the statutory bounds of patentable subject matter. It discusses the Supreme Court case of MayoCollaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. in which the court reversed the decision of Federal Circuit. It explains the interpretation of court regarding the patent eligibility of natural laws and the impact Mayo ruling on patent examination procedures at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. which was related to a patent claiming a method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of a disorder as a patentable subject matter. It describes that the court rejected the claim in Prometheus and reflects on the decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics, Inc. in light of Prometheus case.

The Supreme Court's latest pronouncements on patentable subject matter in Mayo v. Prometheus have already created a firestorm of controversy. The Court found that various limitations did not add enough to the law of nature that lies at the heart of Prometheus' medical diagnostic patents to render the claims patent eligible. Because the Supreme Court never explained what "enough" is, critics have been quick to deride Mayo and warn that it would radically limit patent eligibility in a wide-ranging number of industries. Although I agree with the ultimate result reached by the Supreme Court, I am also concerned that its reasoning unnecessarily jeopardizes too many deserving patents. But the decision does not have to create the havoc that so many fear. There is room for a more restrained understanding of Mayo. This Essay offers a moderate interpretation of Mayo by building on recent efforts to revive the out-of-favor "point-of- novelty" analysis. For years, patent law has refused to consider an invention's point of novelty in its decisionmaking. In other words, the law does not attribute any special significance to a subset of claim limitations regardless of how important those limitations are to the invention; patent law treats all the limitations as equally important. However, it makes no sense for patent law to take such a formalistic approach and ignore the fundamental idea underlying a patent's invention. Fortunately, the Mayo decision implicitly adopts some point-of-novelty thinking. This Essay builds on these ideas to develop a fuller point-of-novelty framework that explains when a claim has added enough to an unpatentable concept to make it patent eligible. By applying this approach to both Prometheus' claims and a hypothetical claim that Prometheus could have drafted, this Essay explains how Mayo can be interpreted as only a modest rejection of a particular type of abstract claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several developments involving U.S. patent laws in cyberspace as of November 2012, focusing on an analysis of various legal matters such as the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. which deals with the patentability of a physician's drug dosage process. The relationship between technology and the law is addressed, along with Section 101 of Title 35 of the U.S. Code which covers patentable subject matter.

This article identifies connections between the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories and two doctrines that federal appellate courts have used to curb the reach of patent protection: the historical mental steps doctrine and the contemporary printed matter doctrine. These connections suggest a new way of thinking about what the Court is doing in its Prometheus Laboratories opinion. On its rhetorical surface, the opinion clearly addresses the role that "laws of nature" have long played in restricting the reach of patentable subject matter. However, beneath its laws-of-nature rhetoric, Prometheus Laboratories can also be construed as a case that explores the impact of the unpatentability of the human mind on the reach of patent protection. The Court's Prometheus Laboratories opinion resonates strongly with both historical limits on the patentability of newly invented mental processes (mental steps) and contemporary limits on the patentability of information that is meaningful to the human mind (printed matter). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses patentable subject matter in America in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc. which deals with patent eligibility and inventive concepts and applications under Section 101 of the nation's Patent Act. The physical application of the naturally-occurring legal principle in patent eligibility matters is addressed, along with a historical overview of patent protections in England.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs Inc. which deals with the U.S. standards for patent grants on items related to natural phenomena and the laws of nature. The impact of the court's ruling on biopharmaceutical innovation, including the development of large-molecule drugs is examined.

The article focuses on traditional role of patent system in blocking essential avenues of research and treatment. It states that main purpose of patent system is recoup money spent on research and development by corporations and block competitors from making similar diagnostic method. It discusses two U.S. Supreme Court cases Prometheus Labs Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., and Bilski v. Kappos concerning effect on diagnostic method patent eligibility.

The article reflects on an approach for analyzing biological molecules under the Section 103 of the Title 35 of the U.S. Code. It discusses earlier events in the U.S. patent law and the potential effects of the Supreme Court's decision in the court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. It mentions that patent eligibility of human genes is examined which concluded that isolated human genes are not patentable.

Recently, two important decisions affecting patent litigation and prosecution were handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the asserted claims in Prometheus's patents to a diagnostic method were not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they covered laws of nature and "the steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field." In Kappos v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court addressed the procedures a district court follows under 35 U.S.C. § 145--a longstanding, but relatively unknown, provision that allows an applicant whose claims have been rejected by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to file a new action in federal district court challenging the rejection. The Court ruled that an applicant's presentation of new evidence to the district court requires that court to make de novo factual findings that consider both the new evidence and the administrative record. However, the Court clarified that deference should be given to PTO factual findings if the applicant fails to present any new contradictory evidence at trial. This is the second in a series of quarterly updates on cases that involve or have implications for nanotechnology patent litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented which explores the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases related to intellectual property Golan v. Holder regarding the 1976 Copyright Act and Mayo v. Prometheus on the patent law and the patent-eligible subject matter.