Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

SmartGene Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories SA

Representative Claim(s)

1. A method for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition, said method comprising:

(a) providing patient information to a computing device comprising:

a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;

a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;

a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and

(b) generating in said computing device a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and

(c) generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.

Posture:

Appeal from decision of the District Court that patents were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101

Exception Category: Abstract Idea

“Whatever the boundaries of the ‘abstract ideas’ category, the claim at issue here involves a mental process excluded from section 101: the mental steps of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options.”

Significantly More: No

“Mayo demanded that, when a claim involves an abstract idea (or, in Mayo itself, a law of nature), eligibility under section 101 requires that the claim involve ‘enough’ else—applying the idea in the realm of tangible physical objects (for product claims) or physical actions (for process claims)—that is beyond ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity.’ 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1298, 1299.  The claim here does not do so.  It calls on a computer to do nothing that is even arguably an advance in physical implementations of routine mental information-comparison and rule-application processes.  In this context, the concern about preempting public use of certain kinds of knowledge, emphasized in Mayo, is a grave one.”