Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12PDF/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

But isolation is necessary to conduct genetic testing, and
Myriad was not the only entity to offer BRCA testing after 
it discovered the genes.  The University of Pennsylvania’s
Genetic Diagnostic Laboratory (GDL) and others provided 
genetic  testing  services  to  women.    Petitioner  Dr.  Harry
Ostrer,  then  a  researcher  at  New  York  University  School 
of  Medicine,  routinely  sent  his  patients’  DNA  samples  to 
GDL  for  testing.    After  learning  of  GDL’s  testing  and 
Ostrer’s  activities,  Myriad  sent  letters  to  them  asserting
that  the  genetic  testing  infringed  Myriad’s  patents.    App.
94–95  (Ostrer  letter).  In  response,  GDL  agreed  to  stop
testing and informed Ostrer that it would no longer accept
patient  samples.  Myriad  also  filed  patent  infringement 
suits against other entities that performed BRCA testing,
resulting in settlements in which the defendants agreed to 
cease all allegedly infringing activity.  689 F. 3d, at 1315. 
Myriad,  thus,  solidified  its  position  as  the  only  entity
providing BRCA testing. 

Some  years  later,  petitioner  Ostrer,  along  with  medical 
patients,  advocacy  groups,  and  other  doctors,  filed  this 
lawsuit  seeking  a  declaration  that  Myriad’s  patents  are
invalid  under  35  U. S. C.  §101.    702  F. Supp.  2d,  at  186. 
Citing this Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genen-
tech,  Inc.,  549  U. S.  118  (2007),  the  District  Court  denied 
Myriad’s  motion  to  dismiss  for  lack  of  standing.    Associa-
tion  for  Molecular  Pathology  v.  United  States  Patent  and 
Trademark  Office,  669  F. Supp.  2d  365,  385–392  (SDNY 
2009).  The  District  Court  then  granted  summary  judg-
ment  to  petitioners  on  the  composition  claims  at  issue  in 
this  case  based  on  its  conclusion  that  Myriad’s  claims, 
including  claims  related  to  cDNA,  were  invalid  because 
they covered products of nature.  702 F. Supp. 2d, at 220– 
237.  The Federal Circuit reversed, Association for Molecu-
lar  Pathology  v.  United  States  Patent  and  Trademark 
Office,  653  F. 3d  1329  (2011),  and  this  Court  granted
the  petition  for  certiorari,  vacated  the  judgment,  and  re-