Opinion ID: 209543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Subsequent Supreme Court authority reinforced the breadth of Section 101

Text: In J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 122 S.Ct. 593, 151 L.Ed.2d 508 (2001), the Court described Section 101 as a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions, id. at 135, 122 S.Ct. 593, that case arising in the context of eligibility of newly developed plant varieties for patenting. The Court stated: As in Chakrabarty, we decline to narrow the reach of  101 where Congress has given us no indication that it intends this result. Id. at 145-46, 122 S.Ct. 593. The Court reiterated that Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope, id. at 130, 122 S.Ct. 593 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308, 100 S.Ct. 2204), and that the language of Section 101 is extremely broad, id. This is not language of restriction, and it reflects the statutory policy and purpose of inclusion, not exclusion, in Section 101.