Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Mayo_Collaborative_Services_v._Prometheus_Laboratories,_Inc. an entity of type: Thing
Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was controversial, with proponents claiming it frees clinical pathologists to practice their medical discipline, and critics claiming that it destabilizes patent law and will stunt investment in the field of personalized medicine, preventing new products and services from emerging in that field.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
rdf:langString
Mayo Collaborative Services,DBAMayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
xsd:integer
36620679
xsd:integer
992249408
xsd:integer
10
rdf:langString
unanimous
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
66
xsd:integer
566
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-07
xsd:integer
2011
rdf:langString
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-20
xsd:integer
2012
rdf:langString
Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
rdf:langString
Claims directed to a diagnostic method that involved observing a natural correlation were not patent eligible subject matter.
rdf:langString
Mayo v. Prometheus
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was controversial, with proponents claiming it frees clinical pathologists to practice their medical discipline, and critics claiming that it destabilizes patent law and will stunt investment in the field of personalized medicine, preventing new products and services from emerging in that field.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
29626