Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

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

manded the case in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. 
Prometheus  Laboratories,  Inc.,  566  U. S.  ___  (2012). 
See  Association  for  Molecular  Pathology  v.  Myriad  Genet-
ics, Inc., 566 U. S. ___ (2012).

On  remand,  the  Federal  Circuit  affirmed  the  District 
Court  in  part  and  reversed  in  part,  with  each  member  of 
the  panel  writing  separately.    All  three  judges  agreed 
that  only  petitioner  Ostrer  had  standing.    They  reasoned 
that  Myriad’s  actions  against  him  and  his  stated  ability 
and willingness to begin BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing if Myr- 
iad’s patents were invalidated were sufficient for Article III 
standing.  689  F. 3d,  at  1323;  id.,  at  1337  (opinion  of
Moore, J.); id., at 1348 (opinion of Bryson, J.). 

With  respect  to  the  merits,  the  court  held  that  both
isolated DNA and cDNA were patent eligible under §101.
The  central  dispute  among  the  panel  members  was 
whether  the  act  of  isolating  DNA—separating  a  specific
gene  or  sequence  of  nucleotides  from  the  rest  of  the 
chromosome—is an inventive act that entitles the individ-
ual who first isolates it to a patent.  Each of the judges on
the  panel  had  a  different  view  on  that  question.    Judges
Lourie and Moore agreed that Myriad’s claims were patent
eligible under §101 but disagreed on the rationale.  Judge
Lourie  relied  on  the  fact  that  the  entire  DNA  molecule  is 
held  together  by  chemical  bonds  and  that  the  covalent
bonds  at  both  ends  of  the  segment  must  be  severed  in
order to isolate segments of DNA.  This process technically
creates new molecules with unique chemical compositions.
See  id.,  at  1328  (“Isolated  DNA  . . .  is  a  free-standing 
portion of a larger, natural DNA molecule.  Isolated DNA 
has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone 
chemically  severed)  or  synthesized  to  consist  of  just  a
fraction  of  a  naturally  occurring  DNA  molecule”).    Judge
Lourie  found  this  chemical  alteration  to  be  dispositive,
because  isolating  a  particular  strand  of  DNA  creates
a  nonnaturally  occurring  molecule,  even  though  the