Case Law Analysis - Tort Law Ant

profilekimdevore
cf_case_analysis_report_executive_briefing_exemplar1.docx

Below is a SAMPLE case law analysis for you to use as a guide. You may not use this case (Mayo Collaborative Services vs. Prometheus Laboratories) for either of the two case law analysis assignments because it would be difficult not to plagiarize this analysis and briefing. The SAMPLE applies to the topic of intellectual property law (not to contracts or torts).

Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

Parties: Mayo Collaborative Services and Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Court and Date Decided: United States Supreme Court (Decided March 20, 2012)

Background Facts: Prometheus Laboratories sued Mayo Collaborative Services for patent infringement. The drug thiopurine, used for autoimmune disorders, is metabolized differently by different people, making dosing difficult. Prometheus created a process to check the level of the drug in a person’s body. Prometheus obtained a patent for the blood testing process. Mayo was a customer of Prometheus until Mayo decided to create its own measuring process for dosing. Prometheus then proceeded with the lawsuit for infringement. At the federal district court where the trial occurred, the court found that there was patent infringement, but that the patent should not have been granted in the first place because the tests for toxicity are based on natural laws and natural phenomena and are not patentable. On appeal to the circuit court of appeals, the federal circuit reversed, finding that the test was patentable. Lastly, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the court reversed again and found that natural processes cannot be patented because this would inhibit future scientific discovery by “improperly tying up the use of the laws of nature.”

Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court

The majority opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Breyer with no dissent. The opinion looked at the law governing what can be patented. It noted that Einstein could not have patented E=MC² and neither could Newton have patented the law of gravity. So, why was this matter even taken to court? Or, perhaps a better question is, why did the appeals court find the toxicity test patentable? The reason is that the existing patent law legal test used by the courts (called the “machine or transformation” test) requires that something be transformed (and not just in its natural state) to receive a patent. The appeals court thought that the human body was changed or transformed when the blood test was administered so the blood could be analyzed. However, the Supreme Court found that the test itself, which is what was patented, did not change the human body. It was only the potentially toxic drug that changed the body, and the test was developed using laws of nature to determine if there was toxicity. The court also discussed that when it comes to patent law, there are always going to be two competing interests: the interest of society to grant patents to incentivize investment of time and money into creating innovative products and processes vs. the interest of society in not tying up natural laws and processes to allow for more innovation by inventors.

Conclusion- Importance to Business Law & Ethical Implications

I agree with this decision. I have long thought that things like genes, for example, should not be patentable because they exist in nature. Neither should math be patentable. However, experts who know a lot more than I do have criticized this decision because it is said to create confusion about just what is patentable subject matter, since evidently there are sometimes patents given to those who have reproduced natural processes (Eisenberg, 2011).

This case has strong application to business because it’s very important to know what is and what is not patentable since businesses invest vast resources into research and development of products and ideas. This case can negatively affect businesses that invest money and talent in analyzing genes only to find they cannot patent genes because they are naturally occurring.  On the other hand, the case can positively affect businesses that use those genes that are naturally occurring, knowing that they will not be infringing on a patent. Our company, Intellia Therapeutics, develops therapies by editing genes (in a way that is not naturally occurring) to heal diseased cells. We might be impacted by this decision because such a product would require a patent in order to be profitable and marketed exclusively. Any attempt to interfere with the ability to patent our products (as Prometheus experienced) would threaten the company’s profitability.  I would recommend that Intellia Therapeutics monitor legal cases regarding patentability of medicines that use biotechnology to ensure their patents are safe from challenges of validity.

I think the parties in the case conducted themselves ethically. Prometheus might have felt that Mayo, its former customer, was stepping on its toes by copying its test, but this is not necessarily unethical because it’s a competitive world out there. According to Teleology Theory, a theory of ethics, no one acted unethically here because this theory judges the morality of an action based on the outcome. Here, the outcome was that the test was not patentable; therefore, Mayo was not doing anything wrong.

References

Eisenberg, R. S. (2011). Wisdom of the ages or deadhand control? Patentable subject matter for diagnostic methods after In re Bilski. University of Michigan Law Review.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&con text=law_econ_current

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 U.S. 1289 (2012).