Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  569 U. S. ____ (2013) 

3 

Syllabus 

(c) cDNA is not a “product of nature,” so it is patent eligible under
§101.  cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as
naturally  occurring,  isolated  DNA  segments.    Its  creation  results  in 
an exons-only molecule, which is not naturally occurring.  Its order of 
the exons may be dictated by nature, but the lab technician unques-
tionably  creates  something  new  when  introns  are  removed  from  a 
DNA sequence to make cDNA.  Pp. 16–17.

(d) This  case,  it  is  important  to  note,  does  not  involve  method
claims,  patents  on  new  applications  of  knowledge  about  the  BRCA1 
and BRCA2 genes, or the patentability of DNA in which the order of 
the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered.  Pp. 17–18. 

689 F. 3d 1303, affirmed in part and reversed in part. 

THOMAS,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, 
JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined in part.  SCALIA, J., filed an 
opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.