Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

BRCA2 genes.  If the patents depended upon the creation
of  a  unique  molecule,  then  a  would-be  infringer  could 
arguably  avoid  at  least  Myriad’s  patent  claims  on  entire
genes (such as claims 1 and 2 of the ’282 patent) by isolat-
ing  a  DNA  sequence  that  included  both  the  BRCA1  or 
BRCA2  gene  and  one  additional  nucleotide  pair.    Such  a 
molecule would not be chemically identical to the molecule 
“invented” by Myriad.  But Myriad obviously would resist
that outcome because its claim is concerned primarily with
the  information  contained  in  the  genetic  sequence,  not 
with  the  specific  chemical  composition  of  a  particular 
molecule. 

Finally,  Myriad  argues  that  the  PTO’s  past  practice  of 
awarding  gene  patents  is  entitled  to  deference,  citing 
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 
U. S. 124 (2001).  See Brief for Respondents 35–39, 49–50. 
We  disagree.  J.  E.  M.  held  that  new  plant  breeds  were 
eligible  for  utility  patents  under  §101  notwithstanding 
separate  statutes  providing  special  protections  for  plants,
see 7 U. S. C. §2321 et seq. (Plant Variety Protection Act);
35  U. S. C.  §§161–164  (Plant  Patent  Act  of  1930).    After 
analyzing  the  text  and  structure  of  the  relevant  statutes, 
the Court mentioned that the Board of Patent Appeals and 
Interferences had determined that new plant breeds were
patent  eligible  under  §101  and  that  Congress  had  recog-
nized  and  endorsed  that  position  in  a  subsequent  Patent 
Act  amendment.  534  U. S.,  at  144–145  (citing  In re  Hib-
berd,  227  USPQ  443  (1985)  and  35  U. S. C.  §119(f)).    In 
this case, however, Congress has not endorsed the views of
the PTO in subsequent legislation.  While Myriad relies on
Judge  Moore’s  view  that  Congress  endorsed  the  PTO’s 
position  in  a  single  sentence  in  the  Consolidated  Appro-
priations  Act  of  2004,  see  Brief  for  Respondents  31,  n. 8;
689 F. 3d, at 1346, that Act does not even mention genes,
much less isolated DNA.  §634, 118 Stat. 101 (“None of the 
funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this