The “Inventive Concept” after Mayo: Where Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Went Wrong

Authors

Jared Koch, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. Development of § 101 ... 1. Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Abstract Ideas ... 2. The “Inventive Concept” ... B. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. ... 1. Facts ... 2. The Mayo Test ... C. Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International ... D. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. ... 1. Facts ... 2. The Federal Circuit’s Decision

III. Analysis ... A. The Inventive Concept after Mayo ... B. Discovery as an Inventive Concept ... 1. Conformity with the Inventive Concept Framework ... 2. Addressing the Federal Circuit’s Concerns ... 3. Public Policy ... C. Implications for Patentability

IV. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Jared Koch, The “Inventive Concept” after Mayo: Where Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Went Wrong, 96 Neb. L. Rev. 221 (2017)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol96/iss1/7