The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States. The justices had to grapple with a crucial question: can laws of nature, like the relationship between chemicals and health, be patented even if applied in a new way?

The Court sided with Mayo Clinic. They established a new test, similar to the Alice test (mentioned previously), to determine if an invention that uses a law of nature is truly patentable. The Mayo test asks:

• Does the invention involve using a law of nature to solve a specific problem?
• Does it do something significantly more than just telling you what the law of nature is?

In the case of Prometheus, the Court ruled that their blood test analysis was simply applying a known scientific principle. It didn't meet the threshold of being inventive enough for a patent.

The Mayo v. Prometheus case had a significant impact. It made it harder to patent inventions that rely heavily on laws of nature, even with a new application. This decision aimed to ensure patents are used to protect genuine innovation, not just new ways of using well-understood scientific principles.

So, the next time you hear about a patent debate, remember the curious case of Mayo v. Prometheus. It's a reminder that striking the right balance between encouraging innovation and protecting established scientific knowledge is a constant challenge in the world of intellectual property.

Learn More - Top Interesting Patent Lawsuits