Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12PDF/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

been  removed.”    Brief  for  Petitioners  49.    They  neverthe-
less argue that cDNA is not patent eligible because “[t]he
nucleotide sequence of cDNA is dictated by nature, not by
the lab technician.”  Id., at 51.  That may be so, but the lab
technician  unquestionably  creates  something  new  when
cDNA  is  made.    cDNA  retains  the  naturally  occurring 
exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which 
it  was  derived.    As  a  result,  cDNA  is  not  a  “product  of 
nature”  and  is  patent  eligible  under  §101,  except  insofar 
as  very  short  series  of  DNA  may  have  no  intervening
introns to remove when creating cDNA.  In that situation, 
a  short  strand  of  cDNA  may  be  indistinguishable  from 
natural DNA.9 

III 
It  is  important  to  note  what  is  not  implicated  by  this
decision.  First,  there  are  no  method  claims  before  this 
Court.  Had  Myriad  created  an  innovative  method  of 
manipulating  genes  while  searching  for  the  BRCA1  and 
BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method pat- 
ent.  But  the  processes  used  by  Myriad  to  isolate  DNA
were well understood by geneticists at the time of Myriad’s 
patents  “were  well  understood,  widely  used,  and  fairly
uniform insofar as any scientist engaged in the search for
a gene would likely have utilized a similar approach,” 702 
F. Supp. 2d, at 202–203, and are not at issue in this case. 

Similarly,  this  case  does  not  involve  patents  on  new 
applications  of  knowledge  about  the  BRCA1  and  BRCA2 
genes.  Judge Bryson aptly noted that, “[a]s the first party
with  knowledge  of  the  [BRCA1  and  BRCA2]  sequences, 
Myriad  was  in  an  excellent  position  to  claim  applications 
of  that  knowledge.    Many  of  its  unchallenged  claims  are 

—————— 

9 We  express  no  opinion  whether  cDNA  satisfies  the  other  statutory
requirements  of  patentability.    See,  e.g.,  35  U. S. C.  §§102,  103,  and 
112; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19, n. 5.