SCOTUS dismisses LabCorp v. Metabolite
In LabCorp v. Metabolite, LabCorp claimed that Metabolite infringed on its patent for assaying total homocysteine levels and correlating an elevated level with one of two vitamin B deficiencies in patients. Â [Homocysteine is an amino acid in the blood, elevated levels of which may indicate cardiovascular or neurodegenerative diseases.] Â
The Supreme Court granted cert to resolve the question of whether LabCorp’s patent was valid since it involves detecting a natural correlation between homocysteine and vitamin B, noting that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas†are not patentable. Recently, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the LabCorp v. Metabolite case as being “improvidently†taken in the first place. Â
Â
It has been argued that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the case will encourage defendants to raise the issue of patentability of scientific principles whenever possible.  I am not sure I understand this argument, as the claim does not appear to be for the phenomenon of the natural correlation itself, but for an assay that will identify it.  It is a diagnostic tool. LabCorp’s patent required utilizing scientific principles in a medical treatment, and the creation of a process shaped by knowledge of a biological system. Most diagnostic tools and pharmaceuticals take advantage of the workings of biological systems; one must understand the system in order to manipulate it.  It is unclear to me why this assay is different. Now it is left to the lower courts to hash it out for awhile until the Supreme Court is ready to grant cert again.
October 2, 2006 11:19 pm 
Subscribe