Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12PDF/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v.
 
MYRIAD GENETICS, INC.
 
Opinion of the Court 

of  the  structural  differences  between  isolated  DNA  and 
naturally  occurring  DNA,  especially  where  the  structural 
differences are merely ancillary to the breaking of covalent 
bonds, a process that is itself not inventive.”  Ibid.  More- 
over,  Judge  Bryson  gave  no  weight  to  the  PTO’s  position
on  patentability  because  of  the  Federal  Circuit’s  position
that  “the  PTO  lacks  substantive  rulemaking  authority  as 
to issues such as patentability.”  Id., at 1357. 

Although  the  judges  expressed  different  views  concern-
ing the patentability of isolated DNA, all three agreed that 
patent  claims  relating  to  cDNA  met  the  patent  eligibility 
requirements  of  §101.  Id.,  at  1326,  and  n. 9  (recognizing
that  some  patent  claims  are  limited  to  cDNA  and  that 
such  claims  are  patent  eligible  under  §101);  id.,  at  1337 
(Moore,  J.,  concurring  in  part);  id.,  at  1356  (Bryson,  J.,
concurring  in  part  and  dissenting in  part)  (“cDNA  cannot 
be isolated from nature, but instead must be created in the 
laboratory  . . .  because  the  introns  that  are  found  in  the
native  gene  are  removed  from  the  cDNA  segment”).3    We  
granted certiorari.  568 U. S. ___ (2012). 

II
 
A 

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides: 

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful . . .
composition  of  matter,  or  any  new  and  useful  im-
provement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, sub-
ject  to  the  conditions  and  requirements  of  this  title.” 

—————— 

3 Myriad  continues  to  challenge  Dr.  Ostrer’s  Declaratory  Judgment
Act standing in this Court.  Brief for Respondents 17–22.  But we find 
that, under the Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 
Dr. Ostrer has alleged sufficient facts “under all the circumstances, [to]
show  that  there  is  a  substantial  controversy,  between  parties  having
adverse  legal  interests,  of  sufficient  immediacy  and  reality  to  warrant
the  issuance  of  a  declaratory  judgment.”    549  U. S.  118,  127  (2007) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).