Many predicted that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus would have a major impact on the patenting of personalized medicine inventions, such as those at issue in Sequenom. In their Patently-O Patent Law Journal essay, Professor Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes (Denver ’17) take a look at the data:
The percentage of office actions that contain § 101 subject matter eligibility rejections abruptly increased after Mayo [for Personalized Medicine patent applications]. . . . The percentage of such rejections then continued to gradually increase every year until last year. . . . Mayo has significantly increased patent eligibility rejection rates at the patent office for at least one class of patents.
Chao & Mapes present this early look as a mechanism for providing some context for the Sequenom v. Ariosa case whose petition for writ of certiorari is pending before the United States Supreme Court.
Read the Article: Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes, An Early Look at Mayo’s Impact on Personalized Medicine, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 10.