How does the Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC case exemplify meaningful limitations?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

The Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC case provides another important example of meaningful limitations in patent eligibility. This case involved methods related to immunization schedules and their effects on chronic immune-mediated disorders.

MPEP 2106.05(e) explains:

“Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method ‘moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application.’”

This case demonstrates how combining an abstract idea (data analysis) with a concrete, practical step (immunization) can create meaningful limitations that transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. It highlights the importance of integrating abstract concepts into specific, tangible applications.