October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1150
Can a patent cover a natural law plus standard medical steps?
Prometheus claims a patent on a drug-dosing method. Mayo argues the claim covers a natural law and blocks public use.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mayo's lawyer argued the patent claims a natural law.
Prometheus's lawyer argued the patent covers a specific process.
Justices questioned the scope of the patent claim.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 36-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 36-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Prometheus Laboratories holds a patent on a method for dosing a drug. The method involves measuring blood levels and adjusting the dose based on those levels. Mayo Collaborative Services uses a similar method. Prometheus sued for patent infringement. The lower courts found the patent invalid. They ruled the claim covers a natural law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 7, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 34-38
What each side wants
Prometheus wants the Court to restore its patent on the dosing method.
Mayo wants the Court to keep the patent invalid and allow public use.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
What each side says
Prometheus argues the patent covers a specific, useful process.
Mayo argues the patent claims a natural law and blocks public research.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the patent covers a specific machine or just a range.
Justice Kennedy asked how this case compares to previous patent cases involving machines.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 36-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 36-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-8
Why it matters
This case defines what medical methods can be patented. It affects how doctors and researchers use drug-dosing information. It shapes the balance between private patents and public knowledge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 20-20 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 20-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 26-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 26-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 36-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 36-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-48 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 48-4 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 48-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 18-26 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 18-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-44 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 30-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 30-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 4-8
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 46-10 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 46-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 46-22 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 46-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 36-46 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 36-46
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.