The question raised in the case brought by the Mayo Clinic against a patent held by Prometheus Laboratories is whether the claims embodied more than ordinary laws of nature, which are not patentable. The court issued a unanimous decision that the description did not add sufficient correlation between laws of nature and the process to be patented. While this finding was disappointing to the patent holder, which expressed concern that this will discourage companies from investing in research and development, the outcome clarifies the fact that claims must cover the innovations developed, not the laws of nature being applied.
