Supreme Court Leaves Us Hanging On Crucial Patent Case

from the big-surprise-there dept

Thu, Jun 22nd 2006 2:07pm — Joseph Weisenthal

We've become used to the Supreme Court avoiding major patent issues, as it tends to rule on peripheral aspects of the law or refuse such cases outright. So it's no surprise that the Supreme Court has punted in the case of LabCorp Vs. Metabolite on the question of whether medical facts can be patented. In the case, LabCorp had argued that it wasn't guilty of patent infringement by employing a therapy that relied upon a specific medical phenomenon patented by Metabolite. Unfortunately, instead of resolving this important issue, the court dismissed the case over an undisclosed technicality. In the minority, three judges seemed to grasp the gravity of the case, noting that the failure to resolve it "threatens to leave the medical profession subject to the restrictions imposed by this individual patent and others of its kind". In the meantime, the best we can hope for is that more restrictions prompt another case to wind its way through the courts.

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

J.R., 22 Jun 2006 @ 2:26pm

The Supreme Court shows once again that it doesn't always grasp the true gravity of a case... I sometimes wonder about this particular Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JM, 22 Jun 2006 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re:
  Well look at the judges who make it up for Christ's sake!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Smith, 22 Jun 2006 @ 2:47pm

Read the dissent
The dissenting opinion seems to have a very clear understanding of the stakes and talks about the possibility of patents creating obstacles to innovation and the problem of transaction costs.

The majority has apparently not said why they decided to not decide the case. It may be that the record (body of evidence) in the case did not provide an appropriate basis for deciding the underlying patent law issue.

There is something profoundly screwy about the underlying decision at the trial and appeal and that may be part of the reason that SCOTUS decided to abandon the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2006 @ 2:48pm

Must of been a tie on who threw the most money there way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- satan, 22 Jun 2006 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re:
  that's my thinking too
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
william williams, 22 Jun 2006 @ 2:50pm

the cure
Imagine going to the doctor and being told I'm sorry I can't treat you this other company has a patent on the treatment that would cure you. You'll have to go to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, for one, 22 Jun 2006 @ 3:13pm

seems familiar
We're seeing rather a lot of this. EFF v AT&T and LabCorp v Metabolite are just the latest cases where the courts and judges are buckling on very important high profile decisions. They are either: i) Properly on the side of popular justice and waiting for a 100% decisive victory rather than risking a loss on a technicality. ii) Procrastinating under political pressure. In which case there is no longer any basis for confidence in the courts.

@#3
Must of been a tie on who threw the most money their way. [ /spelling nazi]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2006 @ 4:13pm

corporatism
it is corporatism at its best

sounds like a decision a ceo or manager would make in a corporation

just pass the buck and don't decide anything

I am sad for our country - it ran by nothing but middle managers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2006 @ 4:58pm

Chief Justice Roberts has said that he is avoiding most devisive issues this session in order to build a consistent viewpoint across the court and bring some predictability to a previously unpredictable court. He has avoided taking important cases in a number of disciplines with the intent of tackling more important cases next session. Its important for him to build a good foundation within the court prior to moving forward to abortion, patents, tort reform, etc. Hopefully next session, he will tackle patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DV Henkel-Wallace, 22 Jun 2006 @ 5:49pm

These method patents are very hard to enforce
In general people won't take out this sort of patent because it's hard to enforce (we come up with similar stuff all the time and don't even want to publish it in since then it's public knowledge). Let's say I learn that drinking a glass of salt water makes my headache tablet be absorbed faster, but it works for asprin and all the other painkillers too (don't try that -- I just made it up). You can't stop 400,000 doctors from telling their patients to do it. OK, only my company could advertise it, but all the other companies would benefit. So I just don't bother to investigate it further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2006 @ 5:57pm

In this case Roberts recused himself because his old law firm represented LabCorp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gunjin, 22 Jun 2006 @ 6:48pm

This particular court?
May I remind you that, with the exception of a couple of members, this is the same court that has been deciding cases for the last 15 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clair Ching, 22 Jun 2006 @ 8:44pm

Silly
I find this a little too silly and impractical. Would this mean that we can't share any facts freely anymore? Or how about research? Geez. Wouldn't this be the death of r&d?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomason, 26 Jun 2006 @ 7:01am

Split
Congress has shown it is split on reforming the patent statute, and so too, is the Supreme Court split on whether or how to recast the law on patenting methods.
Is everything becoming a 50/50 proposition - the popular vote for president, the party makeup of the Senate, whether a patent will be upheld in court or not, the numbers of people for and against patenting business methods, whether Anna Nicole will get to keep the love money........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discount viagra, 27 Sep 2006 @ 1:55pm

discount viagra
discount viagra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]