User:Abwiki232

Ruling of Federal Circuit

Panel decision

One of the most important factors in the decision of this case was the result of the Mayo v. Prometheus case. This case set a precedent on many cases relating to patenting, especially in Ariosa v. Sequenom. In the article “An Overview of Patentable Subject Matter and the Effect of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc,” which was written by Veronica Lambillotte (1), it can be seen how much impact the Mayo v. Prometheus case had on the Ariosa case, as the author explains the use of the patent laws and why it is impossible to use a patent on natural laws such as Einstein’s energy equation, (Lambillotte 638). The Mayo v. Prometheus case set a line on what can be patented and what cannot, and that heavily affected the Ariosa v. Sequenom case.

Impact

The result of the Ariosa v. Sequenom case had tremendous impact on the future propisitions and laws related to patenting. This case was often used as a precedent to decide the outcome of legal situations. Author Naira R. Simmons, in the article “Why the Supreme Court Should Use Ariosa v. Sequenom to Provide Further Guidance on U.S.C. § 101 Patent Eligibility, (2)” explains that “one should consider how the courts have answered ethical, moral, economic, and technical challenges to the statute,” (Simmons 180). The ruling of this case was essential, as it determined the lagality of many areas of science and also has an effect on patent related statutes. The ruling of this case determined some of the laws and statutes that were later passed that all had a heavy impact on how patenting on biological scientific technology works. In addition, the text “Federal Circuit Holds Sequenom Diagnostic Method Patent Invalid Under 101” (3) states that “This decision is going to have a ripple effect across the diagnostic and personalize medicine industry,” (Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff). Not only will this court case result affect the legalities of science, but it will also change the medical industry and how the procedures related to the industry are performed. This particular court case, along with Mayo, had a huge impact on the science in society, more specifically the process of patenting technology related to biological life. In this case, the court has a role in defining this process.

References

1. Lambillotte, Veronica. "An Overview of Patentable Subject Matter and the Effect of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.," Case Western Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2., 2012.
2. Simmons, Naira. "Why the Supreme Court Should Use Ariosa v. Sequenom to Provide Further Guidance on U.S.C. § 101 Patent Eligibility," Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 16 No.1., 2016
3. LLP, Foley & Lardner. “Federal Circuit Holds Sequenom Diagnostic Method Patent Invalid Under 101: Blogs: PharmaPatents: Foley & Lardner LLP.” Blogs | PharmaPatents | Foley & Lardner LLP, Foley & Lardner LLP, 15 June 2015.