@article{42121,
      recid = {42121},
      author = {Holman, Christopher M.},
      title = {The Mayo Framework Is Bad for Your Health},
      pages = {40 pages},
      abstract = {This Article begins by providing a brief historical  retrospective of the development of the patent eligibility  doctrine, and then delves into the related questions of:  (1) what are the Supreme Court’s policy objectives for the  recent reinvigoration of the patent eligibility doctrine;  and (2) has it achieved those objectives? The article then  discusses three important out-standing questions regarding  the application of the new test for patent eligibility: (1)  what constitutes a natural phenomenon; (2) what constitutes  an inventive step; and (3) what, if any, role does  preemption play in the analysis? The article then provides  four examples of recent lower court decisions that have  applied the new test, often referred to as the Mayo  Framework, in a literal manner. This application has  resulted in the invalidation of claims directed towards  processes that would have easily passed patent eligibility  muster prior to the most recent wave of Supreme Court  decisions. The Article concludes by suggesting that the  Supreme Court should revisit the question of patent  eligibility and re-articulate the standard in a manner  better-suited to ensure the availability of meaningful  patent protection for the next generation of innovation,  particularly in the life sciences. If the Court fails to do  so, Congress should seriously consider addressing the  problem through an amendment of the statute.},
      url = {http://tind.wipo.int/record/42121},
}