Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v. 
MYRIAD GENETICS, INC.
 
Syllabus
 

Held: A  naturally  occurring  DNA  segment  is  a  product  of  nature  and
not patent eligible merely because it has  been isolated,  but cDNA is
patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.  Pp. 10–18. 

(a) The  Patent  Act  permits  patents  to  be  issued  to  “[w]hoever  in-
vents  or  discovers  any  new  and  useful  . . .  composition  of  matter,” 
§101,  but  “laws  of  nature,  natural  phenomena,  and  abstract  ideas”
“ ‘are basic tools of scientific and technological work’ ” that lie beyond
the  domain  of  patent  protection,  Mayo,  supra,  at  ___.  The  rule 
against  patents  on  naturally  occurring  things  has  limits,  however. 
Patent protection strikes a delicate balance between creating “incen-
tives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery” and “imped[ing]
the  flow  of  information  that  might  permit,  indeed  spur,  invention.” 
Id., at ___.  This standard is used to determine whether Myriad’s pa-
tents  claim  a  “new  and  useful  . . .  composition  of  matter,”  §101,  or
claim naturally occurring phenomena.  Pp. 10–11.   

(b) Myriad’s  DNA  claim  falls  within  the  law  of  nature  exception.
Myriad’s  principal  contribution  was  uncovering  the  precise  location
and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.  Diamond v. 
Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, is central to the patent-eligibility inquiry
whether  such  action  was  new  “with  markedly  different  characteris-
tics from any found in nature,” id., at 310.  Myriad did not create or
alter  either  the  genetic  information  encoded  in  the  BCRA1  and
BCRA2  genes  or  the  genetic  structure  of  the  DNA.    It  found  an  im-
portant  and  useful  gene,  but  groundbreaking,  innovative,  or  even
brilliant  discovery  does  not  by  itself  satisfy  the  §101  inquiry.   See 
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127.  Finding
the  location  of  the  BRCA1  and  BRCA2  genes  does  not  render  the
genes patent eligible “new . . . composition[s] of matter,” §101.  Myri-
ad’s  patent  descriptions  highlight  the  problem  with  its  claims:  They 
detail the extensive process of discovery, but extensive effort alone is
insufficient to satisfy §101’s demands.  Myriad’s claims are not saved 
by  the  fact  that  isolating  DNA  from  the  human  genome  severs  the 
chemical  bonds  that  bind  gene  molecules  together.    The  claims  are 
not  expressed  in  terms  of  chemical  composition,  nor  do  they  rely  on 
the chemical changes resulting from the isolation of a particular DNA 
section.  Instead, they focus on the genetic information encoded in the 
BRCA1  and  BRCA2  genes.    Finally,  Myriad  argues  that  the  Patent 
and Trademark Office’s past practice of awarding gene patents is en-
titled to deference, citing J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred 
Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124, a case where Congress had endorsed a PTO
practice in subsequent legislation.  There has been no such endorse-
ment here, and the United States argued in the Federal Circuit and 
in  this  Court  that  isolated  DNA  was  not  patent  eligible  under  §101. 
Pp. 12–16.