People believe that the product may infringe on intellectual property, and there is a reason why. First of all, it is worth talking about how the market and intellectual property objects are connected. Intangible property, such as an idea, innovation, business model, chemical formula, or the like, is referred to as intellectual property. Successful innovations are often the result of solving a common issue, but they may moreover be the result of a stroke of inspiration or an accident. Intellectual Property Law protects and enforces the rights of diverse creators. Regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or any other distinguishing attribute, any original creator can get a patent.
It should be borne in mind that intellectual property has its specifics within the framework of patent law. Trademarks are words, symbols, or even sounds that are used to identify and differentiate a product or service (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). Patents protect intellectual property, but they do not protect rights-owners against infringement lawsuits. A trademark is vital for a company’s brand recognition and may be used to justify higher prices. Copyright can grant offensive rights to a specific arrangement of words, but it does not cover the content, message, or teachings (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). It makes it illegal for others to use original works by authors, musicians, programmers, and others. Furthermore, it can assist in recovering damages resulting from the use of their work without their consent.
There is an exemplifying court case between Prometheus laboratories and Mayo laboratories. In its evidence, the first party claims to have invented and patented a technique in which the doctor reports when the Thiopurine is given, and the results are in the xxx range. According to Mayo, its respondent is merely adding a conceptual step to a standard procedure (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). Prometheus is attempting to argue that the range 400-infinity is patentable for their application and, by extension, for all autoimmune diseases (Supreme Court of United States, 2012). Thus, doctors can only accept test results from one business in the United States. Other firms that disagree with these ideals or have more specialized solutions for people with different diseases must sue Prometheus in court (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). Prometheus’ patent covers Hepatitis, Lupus, Hashimoto’s, Graves, Addison’s, Diabetes, Arthritis, Organ Transplants, and more with the spectrum they utilize. For doing a standard range test with Mayo Clinic’s test kit and therapy suggestions, a doctor might be sued for infringement.
The Supreme Court was vehemently against Prometheus, stating that they had to add enough to it to patent a natural phenomenon. The Tilghman case was able to get a patent because they had a patent procedure for removing glycerin using high-pressure water (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). Prometheus allegedly violated sections 101, 102, and 103 of the patent law statute. The Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s decision in favor of Prometheus, deciding in favor of Mayo Clinic, and agreed that the procedure was not patentable (Supreme Court of United States, 2012). Based on the preceding, it can be understood that particular intellectual objects may infringe on intellectual property rights. Despite the result of the court case, the very fact of its conduct speaks of the ability to violate intellectual property rights by the existence of such objects.
Group Opinion
We do not believe that Mayo violated intellectual property rights in the case in question because Prometheus did not properly patent the idea, though the company claimed it was original. According to the federal judge, the patent did not cover how the body reacted to the drugs (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012). Therefore, the patent was invalid, and the law stood on Mayo’s side.
Reference
Supreme Court of the United States. (2012). Mayo collaborative services, DBA Mayo medical laboratories, et al., petitioners v. Prometheus laboratories, inc. (No. 10–1150). Web.