Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Prometheus v. May FedCir Remand

Prometheus v. May FedCir Remand

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Doug Hudson
Cases related to software patents
Cases related to software patents

More info:

Published by: Doug Hudson on Mar 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
 __________________________ PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC.,
 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES (
DOINGBUSINESS AS
MAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES)
 AND
 MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER,
 Defendants-Appellees.
 __________________________ 
2008-1403
 __________________________ 
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates.
 ____________________________ 
Decided: December 17, 2010
 ____________________________ 
R
ICHARD
P.
 
B
RESS
, Latham & Watkins LLP, of Wash-ington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him onthe brief were J.
 
S
COTT
B
 ALLENGER
,
LEXANDER
M
 ALTAS
,and G
 ABRIEL
K.
 
B
ELL
. Of counsel was F.T.
 
 A 
LEXANDRA 
M
 AHANEY 
, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, of SanDiego, California.J
ONATHAN
E.
 
S
INGER
, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Min-neapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendants-appellees.With him on the brief were D
EANNA 
J.
 
R
EICHEL
and J
OHN
 
PROMETHEUS LAB
v.
MAYO COLLABORATIVE
 2
 A.
 
D
RAGSETH
. Of counsel were T
IMOTHY 
S.
 
B
ISHOP
andS
TEPHEN
M.
 
S
HAPIRO
, Mayer Brown, LLP, of Chicago,Illinois.C
HRISTOPHER
M.
 
H
OLMAN
, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, of Kansas City, Missouri, foramicus curiae Christopher M. Holman, et al.J
ENNIFER
G
ORDON
, Baker Botts L.L.P., of New York,New York, for amicus curiae Novartis Corporation.J
 AY 
Z.
 
Z
HANG
, Myriad Genetics, Inc., of Salt LakeCity, Utah, for amicus curiae Myriad Genetics, Inc. Withhim on the brief was B
ENJAMIN
G.
 
J
 ACKSON
.E
DWARD
R.
 
R
EINES
, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, of Redwood Shores, California, for amicus curiae AmericanIntellectual Property Law Association. With him on thebrief were J
ILL
J.
 
H
O
; and T
ERESA 
S
TANEK 
R
EA 
, AmericanIntellectual Property Law Association, of Arlington, Virginia.
 ATHERINE
J.
 
S
TRANDBURG
, DePaul University Col-lege of Law, of Chicago, Illinois, for amici curiae The American College of Medical Genetics, et al.R
OY 
T.
 
E
NGLERT
,
 
J
R
.,
 
Robbins, Russell, Englert,Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, of Washington, DC, foramici curiae Arup Laboratories, Inc., et al. With him onthe brief was D
 ANIEL
R.
 
W
 ALFISH
.J
EFFREY 
P.
 
USHAN
, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washing-ton, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Or-ganization. With him on the brief were P
 AUL
J.
 
Z
EGGER
 
PROMETHEUS LAB
v.
MAYO COLLABORATIVE
 3
and P
ETER
S.
 
C
HOI
. Of counsel on the brief was H
 ANS
S
 AUER
, Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washing-ton, DC. Of counsel was D
 AVID
L.
 
F
ITZGERALD
, of McLean, Virginia.
 __________________________ 
Before R
 ADER
,
Chief Judge
, L
OURIE
and B
RYSON
,
CircuitJudges
.L
OURIE
,
Circuit Judge
.This case returns to this court on remand from theSupreme Court for further consideration in light of theCourt’s decision in
 Bilski v. Kappos
, 561 U.S. -- , 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010). In
 Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. MayoCollaborative Services
, 581 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009), wedecided an appeal by Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.(“Prometheus”) from a final judgment of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Californiagranting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We held that the districtcourt erred as a matter of law in finding Prometheus’sasserted medical treatment claims to be drawn to non-statutory subject matter under this court’s machine-or-transformation test, which we had held in
In re Bilski
,545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), to be the definitive test fordetermining the patentability of a process under § 101.Following our decision in this case, the Supreme Courtheld that the machine-or-transformation test, although “auseful and important clue,” was not the sole test fordetermining the patent eligibility of process claims.
 Bilski
, 130 S. Ct. at 3226-27. Based on that decision, theCourt vacated and remanded our
 Prometheus
decision.
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
, 130S. Ct. 3543 (2010) (“
GVR Order
”). On remand, we againhold that Prometheus’s asserted method claims are drawn

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->