Molecular Diagnostic Patenting After Mayo v. Prometheus: An Empirical Analysis

Colleen V. Chien, Jenna Clark and Arti K. Rai

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2025, vol. 22, issue 2, 144-162

Abstract: Since the United States Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus announced a new legal test for patent‐eligible subject matter, policymakers, and scholars have vigorously debated the decision's impact on molecular diagnostics innovation. Molecular diagnostics serve as the cornerstone of personalized medicine and its promise of treatments with fewer side effects and better outcomes for patients. This article contributes to the presently thin evidence base on the impact of Mayo by using data on patent applications, examinations, and grants from 2010 to 2019 to comprehensively trace the effects of the test and subsequent related developments. Using descriptive data as well as a difference‐in‐difference (DID) design we evaluate the extent to which the decision was followed by one of three expected outcomes: a decline in patent quantity (“retrenchment”); increase in patent prosecution “toughness”; and applicant “adaptation” with respect to submitted claims. We find substantial support for our toughness and adaptation hypotheses, but not our retrenchment hypothesis: molecular diagnostic patenting did not decline in aggregate, though there is some evidence of a decline, relative to a control, in the number of diagnostic patent applications and grants associated with small, U.S.‐based firms. These results suggest that molecular diagnostic patents are harder to get but they are still being applied for and granted, with their narrowed scope making them less likely to block follow on innovation.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12409

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:2:p:144-162

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().