Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Natera, Inc., and DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc. have filed briefs in opposition to Sequenom’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court for review of the Federal Circuit’s decision holding Sequenom’s fetal DNA diagnostic patent ineligible under Section 101 and the test set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).  In the petition, Sequenom, supported by twenty-two amici, argued that the Mayo test as applied by the Federal Circuit is too restrictive of patents that involve newly discovered scientific phenomena and will stifle innovation in the life science industry in particular.  In response, Ariosa, Natera and DDC argue that the Federal Circuit correctly applied the Mayo test.  The respondents argue that there is no reason for the Court to revisit the doctrine, and stare decisis dictates that it should not.  In response to Sequenom’s policy argument that the Federal Circuit’s test threatens too many legitimate inventions, Ariosa argues that the Mayo standard does not preclude “truly meritorious” inventions, such as those predicated on manmade innovations rather than the discovery of natural phenomena.  Natera and DDC simply argue that the desirability of more or less patent protection in this area is an issue for Congress, not the courts.