Legal Opinion
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 20, 2012No. 10-1150PublishedCited by 881 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
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…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Diamond v. DiehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Gottschalk v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Parker v. FlookSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by881 opinions
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Berkheimer v. Hp Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo BankCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
876 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.