Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).
3.
Id. at 1294.
4.
Id.
5.
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
6.
Id. at 2351.
7.
Id. at 2355.
8.
USPTO, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (July 30, 2015) [PTO July 2015 Update]. Available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (Last accessed November2015).
9.
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
10.
Id. at 1067.
11.
In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
12.
Id. at 761.
13.
Id.
14.
Id.
15.
Id. at 763.
16.
Id. at 764.
17.
Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC, 88 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Wis. 2015), reconsideration denied, No. 13-CV-832-WMC, 2015 WL 1272280 (W.D. Wis. Mar.19, 2015).
18.
Id. at 917.
19.
Id. at 913–914.
20.
Id.
21.
Id.
22.
PTO July 2015 Update.
23.
PTO July 2015 Update, at *5. PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd. (“PerkinElmer”), 496 F. App'x 65, 70 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential). PerkinElmer is a post-Mayo case that invalidated a claim under both the Abstract Idea exception and the Law of Nature exception.
