By: Daniel A. Geselowitz, Ph.D.

In Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC (U.S. Circuit Court, D. Mass., decided on August 25, 2017), plaintiff Athena Diagnostics, Inc. and others (“Athena”) had filed a complaint that two diagnostics tests developed by Mayo Collaborative Services (“Mayo”) had infringed Athena‟s U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 (“the „820 patent”). Mayo had filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss this complaint, arguing that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed method applies routine and conventional techniques to a law of nature, and therefore unpatentable.

Discussed in the patent‟s specification are, for example, Figures 4 and 5 shown below. Figure 4 is an illustration of the results obtained from tests to confirm the specificity of the test for Myasthenia gravis set out in the described examples; and Figure 5 is an illustration of the results obtained from a test to detect MuSK antibodies in mothers of babies with developmental defects. —click here to read more—