LabCorp v. Metabolite started as a humdrum case involving unpaid royalties for a medical test, but it's snowballing rapidly:

... the Supreme Court may dredge up a bombshell question not asked when the lower courts considered the case: Have inventors been busy patenting laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas?

At stake, attorneys on both sides of the case say, are 25 years of patent law and literally tens of thousands of patents on drugs, medical devices, computer software and other inventions. If the court reins in what can be patented, they say, it could be among the most important patent law decisions ever made.

What's fascinating here is that the Court raised the issue when it asked the Solicitor General's office about whether Metabolite had patented "a law of nature, natural phenomenon or abstract idea." All of those things are unpatentable, but the argument wasn't a part of the lower court proceedings. So even though the SG told the court that these topics couldn't properly be discussed in this particular proceeding, it shows that the Court harbors some significant concerns about the reach of our patent system.

Thanks, Jim!