Had the case been heard, and had Metabolite's patent been invalidated, the case would have had broad implications for biotechnology companies, which may have extended far beyond patentability of correlations of
biomarkers to
disease states.
Lori Andrews outlined various concerns regarding how routine academic practices might become actionable under the results of the case. Metabolite's brief to the court suggested that overturning the patent might lead to invalidation of all drug patents on the grounds that the inventors
"merely discovered that certain chemicals interact with the human body in ways directed by chemistry." This statement is flawed, because it refers to process claims, while pharmaceutical are claimed as compositions-of-matter. In
Mayo v. Prometheus in 2012 the Supreme Court unanimously held what the dissenting Justices argued for in this case. That did not lead, however, to invalidation of all drug patents on the grounds that the inventors "merely discovered that certain chemicals interact with the human body in ways directed by chemistry." The only issue affected by Mayo v. Prometeus is the eligibility of method/process claims. Claims on articles of manufacture or compositions of matter are believed to be unaffected. ==See also==