Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  566 U. S. ____ (2012) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–1150 
_________________ 

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, DBA MAYO 

MEDICAL LABORATORIES, ET AL., PETITION-

ERS v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC.
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
 

[March 20, 2012]

 JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject 

matter.  It says: 

“Whoever  invents  or  discovers  any  new  and  useful 
process,  machine,  manufacture,  or  composition  of
matter,  or  any  new  and  useful  improvement  thereof, 
may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions 
and requirements of this title.”  35 U. S. C. §101. 

The  Court  has  long  held  that  this  provision  contains  an
important  implicit  exception.    “[L]aws  of  nature,  natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable.   Dia-
mond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); see also Bilski v. 
Kappos, 561 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5); Diamond 
v.  Chakrabarty,  447  U. S.  303,  309  (1980);  Le  Roy  v.  Tat-
ham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 
62,  112–120  (1854);  cf.  Neilson  v.  Harford,  Webster’s 
Patent  Cases  295,  371  (1841)  (English  case  discussing 
same).  Thus,  the  Court  has  written  that  “a  new  mineral 
discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is 
not  patentable  subject  matter.  Likewise,  Einstein  could