Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS 

LABORATORIES, INC.
 
Syllabus
 

gardless  of  whether  he  changes  his  dosage  in  the  light  of  the  infer-
ence  he  draws  using  the  correlations.    And  they  threaten  to  inhibit
the  development  of  more  refined  treatment  recommendations  that
combine  Prometheus’  correlations  with  later  discoveries.    This  rein-
forces the conclusion that the processes at issue are not patent eligi-
ble, while eliminating any temptation to depart from case law prece-
dent.  Pp. 16–19.

(c) Additional  arguments  supporting  Prometheus’  position—that 
the process is patent eligible because it passes the “machine or trans-
formation  test”;  that,  because  the  particular  laws  of  nature  that  the
claims embody are narrow and specific, the patents should be upheld;
that  the  Court  should  not  invalidate  these  patents  under  §101  be-
cause  the  Patent  Act’s  other  validity  requirements  will  screen  out 
overly broad patents; and that a principle of law denying patent cov-
erage here will discourage investment in discoveries of new diagnos-
tic laws of nature—do not lead to a different conclusion.  Pp. 19–24. 

628 F. 3d 1347, reversed. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.