LabCorp v. Metabolite: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Case Questioning Patentability Of Medical Method

InfringingProducts008Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp) v. Metabolite Laboratories (Supreme Court 2005).

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear LabCorp’s appeal that will again question the scope of patentability in the U.S.  Specifically, the High Court will review the question of whether a patent can claim rights to a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment if the claim is limited to “correlating” test results.

The question on review is as follows:

Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to “correlat[e]” test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result.

Patent in suit: This case revolves around claim 13 of Metabolite’s U.S. Patent No. 4,940,658

13. A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps of:

assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total homocysteine; and

correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in said body fluid with a deficiency of cobalamin or folate.

Thus, the method comprises two steps, (i) assaying a body fluid and (ii) correlating the measure with a mineral deficiency.

LabCorp’s argument: LabCorp argues that claim 13 is invalid for a number of reasons.  Most pointedly, although the claim requires a step of “correlating,” there is no description of how the correlation would take place. According to the petitioner, “[s]uch a vague claim cannot be valid; for if it could be, parties could claim patent monopolies over basic scientific facts rather than any novel inventions.” In addition, the claim arguably fails the written description requirement because “the specification does not describe what a practitioner must do to perform the active ‘correlating’ step.”

Comment: The Supreme Court appears bent on making this case a question of subject matter patentability.  If it takes that course, it will likely answer many of the questions left open by Lundgren and Fisher.  Of course, as a general rule the decisions from the Court raise more questions than they answer.

7 thoughts on “LabCorp v. Metabolite: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Case Questioning Patentability Of Medical Method

  1. 6

    links for 2006-03-23

    HealthFolio – Personal Medical Record Software – roll your own pdf PHR (tags: phr pdf) Clinical Cases and Images – Blog: Google Health in the Works? (tags: google health) Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: LabCorp v. Metabolite: Supreme Court To Hear Patent…

  2. 5

    [en] Patents and the Law

    There is a great opinion piece on patents and the law in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. It is by Michael Crichton and it highlights how patents are starting have a negative effect on research. There is currently a case presented to the Supre…

  3. 4

    Este artículo es ilegal (en EE.UU.)

    Michael Crichton escribe en el New York Times un artículo que, según la decisión pendiente del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, podría ser ilegal, y de paso ilustra la locura de cierto tipo de patentes que se permiten en…

  4. 3

    Today in the Supreme Court: Patentability; Antitrust; Eolas

    Patentability The Supreme Court will review Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp) v. Metabolite Laboratories (Fed. Cir. 2004), which presents the question (as framed by Petitioner):…

  5. 2

    Cert Grant Today

    The Supreme Court granted review today in LabCorp v. Metabolite. The case turns on the scope of what processes are patentable, and what processes are not, under section 101 of the Patent Act. Dennis Crouch has already put up a thorough post about th…

  6. 1

    Today in the Supreme Court

    Patentability The Supreme Court will review Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp) v. Metabolite Laboratories (Fed. Cir. 2004), which presents the question (as framed by Petitioner):…

Comments are closed.