Genetics researchers, pay close attention to Mayo v. Prometheus.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Dec. 7, The Economist reports, noting that the final decision may affect the future of biotech patents and genetics research even more than a landmark Supreme Court decision over the summer that ruled genes could be patented.

Here are the facts: The Mayo Clinic and California's Prometheus Laboratories (now owned by Nestlé) are butting heads over Prometheus' decision to patent a process more than a decade ago involved in maximizing the dosage of thiopurine drugs to treat Crohn's disease and other gastrointestinal disorders. The company's test helps determine if a particular dose produces the recommended level of metabolites. But The Economist points out that the Mayo Clinic came out with its own version of the test in 2004 that recommended different levels of metabolites.

Prometheus sued. And now here we are.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization says the case is a big deal. BIO's Hans Sauer told The Economist that the case could affect studies on how genetics determine what causes a given disease, or predict a drug's effectiveness. In other words, if those methods are deemed patentable, then how can such research be conducted efficiently and cost-effectively?

Will the Supreme Court agree with the Mayo Clinic, which The Economist says, sees the Prometheus patent as invalid, because it covers only an observation of an element of how the body functions? Or will it support Prometheus, which asserts that overturning the patent could threaten investment in personalized medicine and mess up other patents in the field. (Both sides argue that their opponent's position threatens innovation.) Or will the Supreme Court issue a decision so narrow that everyone ends up being more confused?

Stay tuned.

- here's The Economist's story

Related Article:
Supreme Court hears patent-description fight