IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v22y2025i2p144-162.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Colleen V. Chien
  • Jenna Clark
  • Arti K. Rai

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Colleen V. Chien & Jenna Clark & Arti K. Rai, 2025. "Molecular Diagnostic Patenting After Mayo v. Prometheus: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 144-162, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:2:p:144-162
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12409
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2017. "Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Microlevel Application Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 550-563, July.
    2. Simon N. Wood, 2011. "Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 73(1), pages 3-36, January.
    3. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    4. Jeffrey M. Kuhn & Neil C. Thompson, 2019. "How to Measure and Draw Causal Inferences with Patent Scope," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 5-38, January.
    5. Mezzanotti, Filippo & Simcoe, Timothy, 2019. "Patent policy and American innovation after eBay: An empirical examination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1271-1281.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li Yao & He Ni, 2023. "Prediction of patent grant and interpreting the key determinants: an application of interpretable machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 4933-4969, September.
    2. deGrazia, Charles A.W. & Pairolero, Nicholas A. & Teodorescu, Mike H.M., 2021. "Examination incentives, learning, and patent office outcomes: The use of examiner’s amendments at the USPTO," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    3. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2023. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 54(3), pages 416-442, September.
    4. Raffiee, Joseph & Teodoridis, Florenta & Fehder, Daniel, 2023. "Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    5. Michael J. Andrews, 2021. "Historical patent data: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 368-397, May.
    6. Gaétan De Rassenfosse & Paul H. Jensen & T'Mir Julius & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2023. "Is the Patent System an Even Playing Field? The Effect of Patent Attorney Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 124-142, March.
    7. Cesare Righi & Timothy Simcoe, 2022. "Patenting inventions or inventing patents? Continuation practice at the USPTO," Economics Working Papers 1820, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    8. Timothy Simcoe & Cesare Righi, 2022. "Patenting Inventions or Inventing Patents? Continuation Practice at the USPTO," Working Papers 1320, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. H. Colleen Stuart & Roman V. Galperin, 2026. "The Quantity-Quality Tradeoff: How Incentives and Monitoring Shape Gender Differences at Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 71-89, January.
    10. Juranek, Steffen & Otneim, Håkon, 2021. "Using machine learning to predict patent lawsuits," Discussion Papers 2021/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    11. Daniel E. Ho & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, 2020. "Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 190-223, June.
    12. Martinelli, Arianna & Mazzei, Julia, 2025. "Death squad or quality improvement? The impact of introducing post-grant review on U.S. patent legal quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(5).
    13. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    14. Frakes, Michael D. & Wasserman, Melissa F., 2021. "Knowledge spillovers, peer effects, and telecommuting: Evidence from the U.S. Patent Office," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Fabian Gaessler & Dietmar Harhoff & Stefan Sorg & Georg von Graevenitz, 2025. "Patents, Freedom to Operate, and Follow-on Innovation: Evidence from Post-Grant Opposition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(2), pages 1315-1334, February.
    16. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2025. "Strategic Patenting: Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry," NBER Working Papers 34024, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Eduardo Melero & Neus Palomeras & David Wehrheim, 2020. "The Effect of Patent Protection on Inventor Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5485-5504, December.
    18. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2024. "Deadlines Versus Continuous Incentives: Evidence from the Patent Office," NBER Working Papers 32066, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Juranek, Steffen & Otneim, Håkon, 2024. "Predicting patent lawsuits with machine learning," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Corinne Langinier & Stéphanie Lluis, 2021. "Departure And Promotion Of U.S. Patent Examiners: Do Patent Characteristics Matter?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 416-434, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:22:y:2025:i:2:p:144-162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.