I already admitted to scanning Supreme Court rulings for entertainment. Unfortunately, one of the rulings I was waiting for won't be issued. After getting legal briefs, friend of court briefs, and hearing arguments, the Court decided that it made a mistake in agreeing to hear LabCorp v. Metabolite (LabCorp is based in Burlington, NC, a few blocks from our house, and yes, that Metabolite).

The case is about Metabolite getting a patent that effectively covers a law of nature, even though patent law states you can't get a patent on a law of nature. Metabolite got around this by patenting the process of taking a blood test, or a series of blood tests, and then using the information in those tests to determine that, according to a law of nature, the patient was likely to have a certain condition. LabCorp originally paid royalties to Metabolite when it used the blood test Metabolite's doctors developed, but did not pay royalties when it used other blood tests that determined the same thing.

The lower courts decided that Metabolite really did have a patent on the process of using any blood tests that determined levels of certain chemicals to diagnose this particular condition. Most courts don't like hypertechnical patent law, and the Supreme Court is no exception. Getting the Court to take a patent case was an uphill battle, and now the Court has decided that it didn't take the case after all.

As technology becomes more important, laws about technology, especially patent law, will become more important. It's important that the Court make sure the laws mean what they say, and if the law says you can't patent a law of nature, then the Court needs to make sure nobody sneaks around that provision with clever legal wording.