8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
1/106
b. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303
U.S. Supreme Court
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
!o. 79"13#
$r%ued &ar'h 17, 1980
De'ided une 1#, 1980
447 U.S. 303
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS
AND PATENT APPEALS
Syllabus
Title 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who
invents or discovers "any" new and useful "manufacture" or "composition of
matter." espondent !led a patent application relatin to his invention of a
human#made$ enetically enineered %acterium capa%le of %rea&in downcrude oil$ a property which is possessed %y no naturally occurrin %acteria. '
patent e(aminer)s re*ection of the patent application)s claims for the new
%acteria was a+rmed %y the ,atent -+ce oard of 'ppeals on the round
that livin thins are not patenta%le su%*ect matter under § 101. The Court of
Customs and ,atent 'ppeals reversed$ concludin that the fact that micro#
oranisms are alive is without leal sini!cance for purposes of the patent
law.
Held: ' live$ human#made micro#oranism is patenta%le su%*ect matter under
§ 101. espondent)s micro#oranism constitutes a "manufacture" or
"composition of matter" within that statute. ,p. // U. S. 30#31.
2a 4n choosin such e(pansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of
matter$" modi!ed %y the comprehensive "any$" Conress contemplated that
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#308https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#308
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
2/106
the patent laws should %e iven wide scope$ and the relevant leislative
history also supports a %road construction. hile laws of nature$ physical
phenomena$ and a%stract ideas are not patenta%le$ respondent)s claim is not
to a hitherto un&nown natural phenomenon$ %ut to a nonnaturally occurrin
manufacture or composition of matter ## a product of human inenuity"havin a distinctive name$ character 6and7 use." Hartranft v !"e#$ann% 181
U. S. 90:$ 181 U. S. 915. Fun& 'r(t)ers Seed C( v *al( In(+ulant C(% 333 U.
S. 18$ distinuished. ,p. // U. S. 30#310.
2% The passae of the 1:30 ,lant ,atent 'ct$ which a;orded patent
protection to certain ase(ually reproduced plants$ and the 1:0 ,lant $ @G>HU4ST$ and ST@S$ AA.$ *oined. @>>'>$ A.$ !led a
dissentin opinion$ in which G4T@$ F'SG'DD$ and ,-@DD$ AA.$
*oined$ ,(st% p.// U. S. 31.
,ae // U. S. 305
F. CG4@B AUST4C@ U@ delivered the opinion of the Court.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#308https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#310https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#314https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#318https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#308https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#310https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#314https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#318
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
3/106
e ranted certiorari to determine whether a live$ human#made micro#
oranism is patenta%le su%*ect matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
)
4n 1:8$ respondent Cha&ra%arty$ a micro%ioloist$ !led a patent application$
assined to the eneral @lectric Co. The application asserted 39 claims
related to Cha&ra%arty)s invention of
"a %acterium from the enus ,seudomons containin therein at least two
sta%le enery#eneratin plasmids$ each of said plasmids providin a
separate hydrocar%on deradative pathway. 6Bootnote 17"
This human#made$ enetically enineered %acterium is capa%le of %rea&in
down multiple components of crude oil. ecause of this property$ which is
possessed %y no naturally occurrin %acteria$ Cha&ra%arty)s invention is
%elieved to have sini!cant value for the treatment of oil spills. 6Bootnote 87
Cha&ra%arty)s patent claims were of three typesI !rst$ process claims for the
method of producin the %acteriaJ
,ae // U. S. 309
second$ claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material Koatin onwater$ such as straw$ and the new %acteriaJ and third$ claims to the %acteria
themselves. The patent e(aminer allowed the claims fallin into the !rst two
cateories$ %ut re*ected claims for the %acteria. Gis decision rested on two
roundsI 21 that micro#oranisms are "products of nature$" and 28 that$ as
livin thins$ they are not patenta%le su%*ect matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Cha&ra%arty appealed the re*ection of these claims to the ,atent -+ce oard
of 'ppeals$ and the oard a+rmed the e(aminer on the second round.
6Bootnote 37 elyin on the leislative history of the 1:30 ,lant ,atent 'ct$ inwhich Conress e(tended patent protection to certain ase(ually reproduced
plants$ the oard concluded that § 101 was not intended to cover livin
thins such as these la%oratory created micro#oranisms.
The Court of Customs and ,atent 'ppeals$ %y a divided vote$ reversed on the
authority of its prior decision in In re 'er#y% 593 B.8d 1031$ 103 21:$
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F3
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
4/106
which held that "the fact that micro#oranisms . . . are alive . . . 6is7 without
leal sini!cance" for purposes of the patent law. 6Bootnote /7 Su%se?uently$
we ranted the 'ctin Commissioner of ,atents and Trademar&s) petition for
certiorari in 'er#y%vacated the *udment$ and remanded the case "for further
consideration in liht of Par&er v Fl((&% /3 U. S. 5/ 21:." /3 U.S. :0821:. The Court of Customs and ,atent 'ppeals then vacated its *udment
in C)a&rabarty and consolidated the case with'er#y for reconsideration.
'fter ree(aminin %oth cases in the liht of our holdin in Fl((&% that court$
with one dissent$ rea+rmed its earlier *udments. 5:9 B.8d :58 21::.
,ae // U. S. 30
The Commissioner of ,atents and Trademar&s aain souht certiorari$ and we
ranted the writ as to %oth ery and Cha&ra%arty. /// U.S. :8/ 21::.Since then$ 'er#y has %een dismissed as moot$ /// U.S. 108 21:0$
leavin only C)a&rabarty for decision.
))
The Constitution rants Conress %road power to leislate to
"promote the ,roress of Science and useful 'rts$ %y securin for limited
Times to 'uthors and 4nventors the e(clusive iht to their respective
ritins and Liscoveries."
'rt. 4$ § $ cl. . The patent laws promote this proress %y o;erin inventors
e(clusive rihts for a limited period as an incentive for their inventiveness
and research e;orts. *e-anee O"l C( v '"+r(n C(r,% /19 U. S. /0$ /19 U.
S. /0#/1 21:/J Un"versal O"l C( v .l(be C(% 388 U. S. /1$ 388 U. S.
// 21://. The authority of Conress is e(ercised in the hope that
"6t7he productive e;ort there%y fostered will have a positive e;ect on society
throuh the introduction of new products and processes of manufacture into
the economy$ and the emanations %y way of increased employment and
%etter lives for our citi=ens."
*e-anee% su,ra% at/19 U. S. /0.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.html#484https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.html#484https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.html#484https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/471/case.html#484https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/470/case.html#480
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
5/106
The ?uestion %efore us in this case is a narrow one of statutory interpretation
re?uirin us to construe 35 U.S.C. § 101$ which providesI
"hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process$ machine$
manufacture$ or composition of matter$ or any new and useful improvementthereof$ may o%tain a patent therefor$ su%*ect to the conditions and
re?uirements of this title."
Speci!cally$ we must determine whether respondent)s micro#oranism
constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meanin
of the statute. 6Bootnote 57
,ae // U. S. 30
)))
4n cases of statutory construction we %ein$ of course$ with the lanuae of
the statute. S(ut)eastern C($$un"ty C(lle#e v Dav"s% //8 U. S. 3:$ //8 U.
S. /05 21::. 'nd "unless otherwise de!ned$ words will %e interpreted as
ta&in their ordinary$ contemporary$ common meanin." Perr"n v Un"ted
States% /// U. S. 3$ /// U. S. /8 21::. e have also cautioned that courts
"should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the
leislature has not e(pressed." Un"ted States v Dub"l"er C(ndenser
C(r,% 8: U. S. 1$ 8: U. S. 1:: 21:33 .
uided %y these canons of construction$ this Court has read the term
"manufacture" in § 101 in accordance with its dictionary de!nition to mean
"the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials %y ivin
to these materials new forms$ ?ualities$ properties$ or com%inations$ whether
%y hand la%or or %y machinery."
A$er"+an Fru"t .r(-ers% In+ v 'r(#de/ C(% 83 U. S. 1$ 83 U. S. 11 21:31.Similarly$ "composition of matter" has %een construed consistent with its
common usae to include
"all compositions of two or more su%stances and . . . all composite articles$
whether they %e the results of chemical union$ or of mechanical mi(ture$ or
whether they %e ases$ Kuids$ powders or solids."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F5https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.html#405https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.html#405https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/37/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/37/case.html#42https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/178/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/178/case.html#199https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/1/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/1/case.html#11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F5https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.html#405https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/397/case.html#405https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/37/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/37/case.html#42https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/178/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/178/case.html#199https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/1/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/1/case.html#11
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
6/106
S)ell Devel(,$ent C( v !ats(n% 1/: B.Supp. 8:$ 80 2LC 1:5 2citin 1 '.
Leller$ al&er on ,atents § 1/$ p. 55 21st ed.1:3. 4n choosin such
e(pansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter$" modi!ed %y
the comprehensive "any$" Conress plainly contemplated that the patent
laws would %e iven wide scope.
The relevant leislative history also supports a %road construction. The
,atent 'ct of 1:3$ authored %y Thomas Ae;erson$ de!ned statutory su%*ect
matter as "any new and useful art$ machine$ manufacture$ or composition of
matter$ or any new or useful improvement 6thereof7." 'ct of Be%. 81$ 1:3$ §
1$ 1 Stat. 31:. The 'ct em%odied Ae;erson)s philosophy that "inenuity
should receive a li%eral encouraement."
,ae // U. S. 30:
5 ritins of Thomas Ae;erson 5#9 2ashinton ed. 11. See .ra)a$ v
0()n Deere C(% 33 U. S. 1$ 33 U. S. #10 21:99. Su%se?uent patent
statutes in 139$ 10$ and 1/ employed this same %road lanuae. 4n
1058$ when the patent laws were recodi!ed$ Conress replaced the word
"art" with "process$" %ut otherwise left Ae;erson)s lanuae intact. The
Committee eports accompanyin the 1:58 'ct inform us that Conress
intended statutory su%*ect matter to "include anythin under the sun that is
made %y man." S ep. >o 1::$ 8d Con.$ 8d Sess.$ 5 21:58J G..ep. >o.1::$ 8d Con.$ 8d Sess.$ 9 21:58. 6Bootnote 97
This is not to suest that § 101 has no limits$ or that it em%races every
discovery. The laws of nature$ physical phenomena$ and a%stract ideas have
%een held not patenta%le. See Par&er v Fl((&% /3 U. S.
5/ 21:J.(tts+)al& v 'ens(n% /0: U. S. 93$ /0: U. S. 9 21:8JFun&
'r(t)ers Seed C( v *al( In(+ulant C(% 333 U. S. 18$ 333 U. S.
130 21:/JO1Re"lly v M(rse% 15 Gow. 98$59 U. S. 118#181 215/J Le R(y v
Tat)a$% 1/ Gow. 159$55 U. S. 15 2153. Thus$ a new mineral discovered in
the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patenta%le su%*ect matter.
Di&ewise$ @instein could not patent his cele%rated law that @Mmc8J nor could
>ewton have patented the law of ravity. Such discoveries are
"manifestations of . . . nature$ free to all men and reserved e(clusively to
none."Fun&% su,ra at333 U. S. 130.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.html#7https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F6https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/63/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/63/case.html#67https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/56/62/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/56/62/case.html#112https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.html#175https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.html#7https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F6https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/63/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/63/case.html#67https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/56/62/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/56/62/case.html#112https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55/156/case.html#175https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#130
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
7/106
Auded in this liht$ respondent)s micro#oranism plainly ?uali!es as
patenta%le su%*ect matter. Gis claim is not to a hitherto un&nown natural
phenomenon$ %ut to a nonnaturally occurrin manufacture or composition of
matter ## a product of human inenuity "havin a distinctive name$ character
6and7
,ae // U. S. 310
use." Hartranft v !"e#$ann% 181 U. S. 90:$ 181 U. S. 915 21. The point
is underscored dramatically %y comparison of the invention here with that
in Fun& There$ the patentee had discovered that there e(isted in nature
certain species of root nodule %acteria which did not e(ert a mutually
inhi%itive e;ect on each other. Ge used that discovery to produce a mi(ed
culture capa%le of inoculatin the seeds of leuminous plants. Concludinthat the patentee had discovered "only some of the handiwor& of nature$"
the Court ruled the product nonpatenta%leI
"@ach of the species of root#nodule %acteria contained in the pac&ae infects
the same roup of leuminous plants which it always infected. >o species
ac?uires a di;erent use. The com%ination of species produces no new
%acteria$ no chane in the si( species of %acteria$ and no enlarement of the
rane of their utility. @ach species has the same e;ect it always had. The
%acteria perform in their natural way. Their use in com%ination does notimprove in any way their natural functionin. They serve the ends nature
oriinally provided$ and act ?uite independently of any e;ort of the
patentee."
333 U.S. at 333 U. S. 131. Gere$ %y contrast$ the patentee has produced a
new %acterium with mar&edly di;erent characteristics from any found in
nature$ and one havin the potential for sini!cant utility. Gis discovery is not
nature)s handiwor&$ %ut his ownJ accordinly it is patenta%le su%*ect matter
under § 101.
)*
Two contrary aruments are advanced$ neither of which we !nd persuasive.
2A3
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#131https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/121/609/case.html#615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/127/case.html#131
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
8/106
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
9/106
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
10/106
>or does the passae of the 1:0 ,lant
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
11/106
considerations involved$ and to determine whether livin oranisms
produced %y enetic enineerin should receive patent protection. 4n support
of this position$ the petitioner relies on our recent holdin in Par&er v
Fl((&% /3 U. S. 5/ 21:$ and the statement that the *udiciary "must
proceed cautiously when . . . as&ed to e(tend
,ae // U. S. 315
patent rihts into areas wholly unforeseen %y Conress." Id at/3 U. S. 5:9.
4t is$ of course$ correct that Conress$ not the courts$ must de!ne the limits
of patenta%ilityJ %ut it is e?ually true that$ once Conress has spo&en$ it is
"the province and duty of the *udicial department to say what the law
is." Marbury v Mad"s(n% 1 Cranch 13$5 U. S. 1 2103. Conress hasperformed its constitutional role in de!nin patenta%le su%*ect matter in §
101J we perform ours in construin the lanuae Conress has employed. 4n
so doin$ our o%liation is to ta&e statutes as we !nd them$ uided$ if
am%iuity appears$ %y the leislative history and statutory purpose. Gere$ we
perceive no am%iuity. The su%*ect matter provisions of the patent law have
%een cast in %road terms to ful!ll the constitutional and statutory oal of
promotin "the ,roress of Science and the useful 'rts" with all that means
for the social and economic %ene!ts envisioned %y Ae;erson. road eneral
lanuae is not necessarily am%iuous when conressional o%*ectivesre?uire %road terms.
>othin in Fl((& is to the contrary. That case applied our prior precedents to
determine that a "claim for an improved method of calculation$ even when
tied to a speci!c end use$ is unpatenta%le su%*ect matter under § 101." /3
U.S. at /3 U. S. 5:5$ n. 1. The Court carefully scrutini=ed the claim at issue
to determine whether it was precluded from patent protection under "the
principles underlyin the prohi%ition aainst patents for "deas1 (r ,)en($ena
(f nature6 Id at 789 U S ;8 !e )ave d(ne t)at )ere Fl((& d"d n(t
ann(un+e a ne- ,r"n+",le t)at "nvent"(ns "n areas n(t +(nte$,lated by
C(n#ress -)en t)e ,atent la-s -ere ena+ted are un,atentable ,er se
To read that concept into Fl((& would frustrate the purposes of the patent
law. This Court fre?uently has o%served that a statute is not to %e con!ned to
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#596https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html#177https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#595https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#593https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#596https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html#177https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#595https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#593
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
12/106
the "particular application6s7 . . . contemplated %y the leislators." 'arr v
Un"ted States% 38/ U. S. 3$ 38/ U. S. :021:/5. A++(rd% 'r(-der v Un"ted
States% 318 U. S. 335$ 318 U. S. 33: 21:/1JPuert( R"+( v S)ell C(%
,ae // U. S. 319
308 U. S. 853$ 308 U. S. 85 21:3. This is especially true in the !eld of
patent law. ' rule that unanticipated inventions are without protection would
conKict with the core concept of the patent law that anticipation undermines
patenta%ility. See .ra)a$ v 0()n Deere C(% 33 U.S. at33 U. S. 18#1. Fr.
Austice Loulas reminded that the inventions most %ene!tin man&ind are
those that "push %ac& the frontiers of chemistry. physics$ and the li&e." .reat
A < P Tea C( v Su,er$ar&et C(r,% 3/0 U. S. 1/$ 3/0 U. S. 15/ 21:50
2concurrin opinion. Conress employed %road eneral lanuae in draftin§ 101 precisely %ecause such inventions are often unforeseea%le. 6Bootnote
107
To %uttress his arument$ the petitioner$ with the support of a$"+us% points to
rave ris&s that may %e enerated %y research endeavors such as
respondent)s. The %riefs present a ruesome parade of horri%les. Scientists$
amon them >o%el laureates$ are ?uoted suestin that enetic research
may pose a serious threat to the human race$ or$ at the very least$ that the
daners are far too su%stantial to permit such research to proceed apace atthis time. e are told that enetic research and related technoloical
developments may spread pollution and disease$ that it may result in a loss
of enetic diversity$ and that its practice may tend to depreciate the value of
human life. These aruments are forcefully$ even passionately$ presentedJ
they remind us that$ at times$ human inenuity seems una%le to control fully
the forces it creates ## that$ with Gamlet$ it is sometimes %etter "to %ear
those ills we have than Ky to others that we &now not of."
4t is arued that this Court should weih these potential ha=ards in
considerin whether respondent)s invention is
,ae // U. S. 31
patenta%le su%*ect matter under § 101. e disaree. The rant or denial of
patents on micro#oranisms is not li&ely to put an end to enetic research or
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.html#90https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/335/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/335/case.html#339https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.html#257https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.html#12https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/147/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/147/case.html#154https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.html#90https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/335/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/335/case.html#339https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/253/case.html#257https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/1/case.html#12https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/147/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/147/case.html#154https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F10
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
13/106
to its attendant ris&s. The lare amount of research that has already
occurred when no researcher had sure &nowlede that patent protection
would %e availa%le suests that leislative or *udicial !at as to patenta%ility
will not deter the scienti!c mind from pro%in into the un&nown any more
than Canute could command the tides. hether respondent)s claims arepatenta%le may determine whether research e;orts are accelerated %y the
hope of reward or slowed %y want of incentives$ %ut that is all.
hat is more important is that we are without competence to entertain these
aruments ## either to %rush them aside as fantasies enerated %y fear of the
un&nown or to act on them. The choice we are ured to ma&e is a matter of
hih policy for resolution within the leislative process after the &ind of
investiation$ e(amination$ and study that leislative %odies can provide and
courts cannot. That process involves the %alancin of competin values and
interests$ which$ in our democratic system$ is the %usiness of elected
representatives. hatever their validity$ the contentions now pressed on us
should %e addressed to the political %ranches of the overnment$ the
Conress and the @(ecutive$ and not to the courts. 6Bootnote 117
,ae // U. S. 31
e have emphasi=ed in the recent past that
"6o7ur individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom of a particular
6leislative7 course . . . is to %e put aside in the process of interpretin a
statute."
T5A v H"ll% /3 U.S. at/3 U. S. 1:/. -ur tas&$ rather$ is the narrow one of
determinin what Conress meant %y the words it used in the statuteJ once
that is done$ our powers are e(hausted. Conress is free to amend § 101 so
as to e(clude from patent protection oranisms produced %y enetic
enineerin. Cf /8 U.S.C. § 8112a$ e(emptin from patent protectioninventions "useful solely in the utili=ation of special nuclear material or
atomic enery in an atomic weapon." -r it may choose to craft a statute
speci!cally desined for such livin thins. ut$ until Conress ta&es such
action$ this Court must construe the lanuae of § 101 as it is. The lanuae
of that section fairly em%races respondent)s invention.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/153/case.html#194https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/153/case.html#194
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
14/106
'ccordinly$ the *udment of the Court of Customs and ,atent 'ppeals is
A=r$ed
6Bootnote 17
,lasmids are hereditary units physically separate from the chromosomes of
the cell. 4n prior research$ Cha&ra%arty and an associate discovered that
plasmids control the oil deradation a%ilities of certain %acteria. 4n particular$
the two researchers discovered plasmids capa%le of deradin camphor and
octane$ two components of crude oil. 4n the wor& represented %y the patent
application at issue here$ Cha&ra%arty discovered a process %y which four
di;erent plasmids$ capa%le of deradin four di;erent oil components$ could
%e transferred to and maintained sta%ly in a sinle ,seudomonas %acterium$which itself has no capacity for deradin oil.
6Bootnote 87
't present$ %ioloical control of oil spills re?uires the use of a mi(ture of
naturally occurrin %acteria$ each capa%le of deradin one component of
the oil comple(. 4n this way$ oil is decomposed into simpler su%stances which
can serve as food for a?uatic life. Gowever$ for various reasons$ only a
portion of any such mi(ed culture survives to attac& the oil spill. y %rea&in
down multiple components of oil$ Cha&ra%arty)s microoranism promises
more e+cient and rapid oil#spill control.
6Bootnote 37
The oard concluded that the new %acteria were not "products of nature$"
%ecause ,seudomonas %acteria containin two or more di;erent enery#
eneratin plasmids are not naturally occurrin.
6Bootnote /7
'er#y involved a patent application for a pure culture of the
microoranism Stre,t($u+es vell(sus found to %e useful in the production of
lincomycin$ an anti%iotic.
6Bootnote 57
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T5https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T5
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
15/106
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
16/106
"4t is a little hard for plant men to understand why 6'rt. 4$ § 7 of the
Constitution should not have %een earlier construed to include the promotion
of the art of plant %reedin. The reason for this is pro%a%ly to %e found in the
principle that natural products are not patenta%le."
Blorists @(chane and Gorticultural Trade orld$ Auly 15$ 1:33$ p. :.
6Bootnote :7
4n 13$ the ,atent -+ce ranted Douis ,asteur a patent on "yeast$ free from
oranic erms of disease$ as an article of manufacture." 'nd in 1:9 and
1:9$ immediately prior to the passae of the ,lant ational 4nstitutes of Gealth released uidelines for >4G#sponsored enetic
research which esta%lished conditions under which such research could %e
performed. /1 Bed.e. 8:08. 4n 1:$ those uidelines were revised and
rela(ed. /3 Bed.e. 9000$ 9010$ 9013/. 'nd Committees of the Conress
have held e(tensive hearins on these matters. See% e#% Gearins on
enetic @nineerin %efore the Su%committee on Gealth of the Senate
Committee on Da%or and ,u%lic elfare$ :/th Con.$ 1st Sess. 21:5J
Gearins %efore the Su%committee on Science$ Technoloy$ and Space of the
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T9https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T11https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T9https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T11
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
17/106
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
18/106
capa%le of se(ual reproduction. Thus$ we are not dealin ## as the Court
would have it ## with the routine pro%lem of "unanticipated
inventions." Ante at // U. S. 319. 4n these two 'cts$ Conress has
addressed the eneral pro%lem of patentin animate inventions and has
chosen carefully limited lanuae rantin protection to some &inds ofdiscoveries$ %ut speci!cally e(cludin others. These 'cts stronly evidence a
conressional limitation that e(cludes %acteria from patenta%ility. 6Bootnote
8P87
,ae // U. S. 380
Birst$ the 'cts evidence Conress) understandin$ at least since 1:30$ that §
101 does not include livin oranisms. 4f newly developed livin oranisms
not naturally occurrin had %een patenta%le under § 101$ the plants includedin the scope of the 1:30 and 1:0 'cts could have %een patented without
new leislation. Those plants$ li&e the %acteria involved in this case$ were
new varieties not naturally occurrin. 6Bootnote 8P37 'lthouh the
Court$ ante at// U. S. 311$ re*ects this line of arument$ it does not e(plain
why the 'cts were necessary unless to correct a pree(istin situation.
6Bootnote 8P/7 4 cannot share the Court)s implicit assumption that Conress
was enaed in either idle e(ercises or mere correction of the pu%lic record
when it enacted the 1:30 and 1:0 'cts. 'nd Conress certainly thouht it
was doin somethin sini!cant. The Committee eports contain e(pansive
prose a%out the previously unavaila%le %ene!ts to %e derived from e(tendin
patent protection to plants. 6Bootnote 8P57 G..ep.
,ae // U. S. 381
>o. :1#1905$ pp. 1#3 21:0J S.ep. >o. 315$ 1st Con.$ 8d Sess.$ 1#3
21:30. ecause Conress thouht it had to leislate in order to ma&e
aricultural "human#made inventions" patenta%le$ and %ecause the
leislation Conress enacted is limited$ it follows that Conress never meant
to ma&e items outside the scope of the leislation patenta%le.
Second$ the 1:0 'ct clearly indicates that Conress has included %acteria
within the focus of its leislative concern$ %ut not within the scope of patent
protection. Conress speci!cally e(cluded %acteria from the coverae of the
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#311https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/5https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#311https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#F2/5
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
19/106
1:0 'ct. U.S.C. § 8/082a. The Court)s attempts to supply e(planations for
this e(plicit e(clusion rin hollow. 4t is true that there is no mention in the
leislative history of the e(clusion$ %ut that does not ive us license to invent
reasons. The fact is that Conress$ assumin that animate o%*ects as to
which it had not speci!cally leislated could not %e patented$ e(cluded%acteria from the set of patenta%le oranisms.
The Court protests that its holdin today is dictated %y the %road lanuae of
§ 101$ which cannot "%e con!ned to the ,art"+ular a,,l"+at"(n>s?
+(nte$,lated by t)e le#"slat(rs16 Ante at 779 U S 8@% u(t"n# 'arr v
Un"ted States% 8B7 U S 8% 8B7 U S ;2@;73 'ut as I )ave s)(-n% t)e
C(urt1s de+"s"(n d(es n(t f(ll(- t)e unav("dable "$,l"+at"(ns (f t)e statute
Rat)er% "t e/tends t)e ,atent syste$ t( +(ver l"v"n# $ater"al
Pa#e 779 U S 8BB
even t)(u#) C(n#ress ,la"nly )as le#"slated "n t)e bel"ef t)at @@ d(es n(t
en+($,ass l"v"n# (r#an"s$s It "s t)e r(le (f C(n#ress% n(t t)"s C(urt% t(
br(aden (r narr(- t)e rea+) (f t)e ,atent la-s T)"s "s es,e+"ally true
-)ere% as )ere% t)e +($,(s"t"(n s(u#)t t( be ,atented un"uely "$,l"+ates
$atters (f ,ubl"+ +(n+ern
6Bootnote 8P17
4 read the Court to admit that the popular conception$ even amon
advocates of aricultural patents$ was that livin oranisms were
unpatenta%le. See ante at// U. S. 311#318$ and n. .
6Bootnote 8P87
ut even if 4 areed with the Court that the 1:30 and 1:0 'cts were not
dispositive$ 4 would dissent. This case presents even more coent reasons
than Dee,s(ut) Pa+&"n# C( not to e(tend the patent monopoly in the face of
uncertainty. 't the very least$ these 'cts are sins of leislative attention to
the pro%lems of patentin livin oranisms$ %ut they ive no a+rmative
indication of conressional intent that %acteria %e patenta%le. The caveat
of Par&er v Fl((&% /3 U. S. 5/$ /3 U. S. 5:9 21:$ an admonition to
"proceed cautiously when we are as&ed to e(tend patent rihts into areas
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#315https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.html#90https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#311https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#596https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#315https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/83/case.html#90https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#311https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/584/case.html#596
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
20/106
wholly unforeseen %y Conress$" therefore %ecomes pertinent. 4 should thin&
the necessity for caution is that much reater when we are as&ed to e(tend
patent rihts into areas Conress has foreseen and considered$ %ut has not
resolved.
6Bootnote 8P37
The Court refers to the loic employed %y Conress in choosin not to
perpetuate the "dichotomy" suested %y Secretary Gyde. Anteat // U. S.
313. ut %y this loic$ the %acteria at issue here are distinuisha%le from a
"mineral . . . created wholly %y nature" in e(actly the same way as were the
new varieties of plants. 4f a new 'ct was needed to provide patent protection
for the plants$ it was e?ually necessary for %acteria. Qet Conress provided
for patents on plants$ %ut not on these %acteria. 4n short$ Conress decidedto ma&e only a su%set of animate "human#made
inventions$" "b"d% patenta%le.
6Bootnote 8P/7
4f the 1:30 'ct)s only purpose were to solve the technical pro%lem of
description referred to %y the Court$ ante at// U. S. 318$ most of the 'ct$
and in particular its limitation to ase(ually reproduced plants$ would have
%een totally unnecessary.
6Bootnote 8P57
Secretary Gyde)s letter was not the only e(plicit indication in the leislative
history of these 'cts that Conress was actin on the assumption that
leislation was necessary to ma&e livin oranisms patenta%le. The Senate
Audiciary Committee eport on the 1:0 'ct states the Committee)s
understandin that patent protection e(tended no further than the e(plicit
provisions of these 'ctsI
"Under the patent law$ patent protection is limited to those varieties of
plants which reproduce ase(ually$ that is$ %y such methods as raftin or
%uddin. >o protection is availa%le to those varieties of plants which
reproduce se(ually$ that is$ enerally %y seeds."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#313https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#313https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#312https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/5https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#313https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#313https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/4https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#312https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/case.html#T2/5
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
21/106
S.ep. >o. :1#18/9$ p. 3 21:0. Similarly$ epresentative ,oae$ spea&in
for the 1:0 'ct$ after notin the protection accorded ase(ually developed
plants$ stated that$ "for plants produced from seed$ there has %een no such
protection." 119 Con.ec. /08:5 21:0.
c. Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (The Myriad Case), 569 U.S. 12
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY,et al., PETITIONERS v. MYRIADGENETICS,
INC., et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the
federal circuit
[June 13, !13"
Ju#t$%e T&'(a# )el$*e+e) t&e '$n$'n '- t&e C'u+t.
Re#'n)ent M+$a) Genet$%#, In%. /M+$a)0, )$#%'*e+e) t&e +e%$#e l'%at$'n an)
#euen%e '- t2' &u(an ene#, (utat$'n# '- 2&$%& %an #u4#tant$all $n%+ea#e t&e +$#5#
'- 4+ea#t an) '*a+$an %an%e+. M+$a) '4ta$ne) a nu(4e+'- atent# 4a#e) u'n $t#)$#%'*e+. T&$# %a#e $n*'l*e# %la$(# -+'( t&+ee '- t&e( an) +eu$+e# u# t' +e#'l*e
2&et&e+ a natu+all '%%u++$n #e(ent '- )e'6+$4'nu%le$% a%$) /DNA0 $# atent el$$4le
un)e+ 37 U. S. C. 81!1 4 *$+tue '- $t# $#'lat$'n -+'( t&e +e#t '- t&e &u(an en'(e.
9e al#' a))+e## t&e atent el$$4$l$t '- #nt&et$%all %+eate) DNA 5n'2n a#
%'(le(enta+ DNA /%DNA0, 2&$%& %'nta$n# t&e #a(e +'te$n:%')$n $n-'+(at$'n -'un)
$na #e(ent '- natu+al DNA 4ut '($t# '+t$'n# 2$t&$n t&e DNA #e(ent t&at )' n't
%')e -'+ +'te$n#. F'+ t&e +ea#'n# t&at -'ll'2, 2e &'l) t&at a natu+all '%%u++$n DNA
#e(ent $# a +')u%t '- natu+e an) n't atent el$$4le (e+el 4e%au#e $t &a# 4een
$#'late), 4ut t&at %DNA $# atent el$$4le 4e%au#e $t $# n't natu+all '%%u++$n. 9e,
t&e+e-'+e, a--$+( $n a+t an) +e*e+#e $n a+t t&e )e%$#$'n '- t&e Un$te) State# C'u+t '-
Aeal# -'+ t&e Fe)e+al C$+%u$t.
I
A
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.html
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
22/106
Gene# -'+( t&e 4a#$# -'+ &e+e)$ta+ t+a$t# $n l$*$n '+an$#(#. See ene+all Association
for Molecular Pathology *. United States Patent and Trademark Office, ;! F. Su. )
111 /SDNY !1!0. T&e &u(an e:n'(e %'n#$#t# '- a+'6$(atel ,!!!
ene# a%5e) $nt' 3 a$+# '- %&+'('#'(e#. Ea%& ene $# en%')e) a# DNA, 2&$%& ta5e#
t&e #&ae '- t&e -a($l$a+ ?)'u4le &el$6@t&at D'%t'+# Ja(e# 9at#'n an) F+an%$# C+$%5
-$+#t )e#%+$4e) $n 1=73. Ea%& ?%+'##:4a+@ $n t&e DNA &el$6 %'n#$#t# '- t2' %&e($%all
'$ne) nu%le't$)e#. T&e '##$4le nu%le't$)e# a+e a)en$ne /A0, t&($ne /T0, %t'#$ne /C0,
an) uan$ne /G0, ea%& '- 2&$%& 4$n)# natu+all 2$t& an't&e+ nu%le't$)eB A a$+# 2$t& T
C a$+# 2$t& G. T&e nu%le't$)e %+'##:4a+# a+e %&e($%all %'nne%te) t' a #ua+:
&'#&ate 4a%54'ne t&at -'+(# t&e 'ut#$)e -+a(e2'+5 '- t&e DNA &el$6. Seuen%e# '-
DNA nu%le't$)e# %'nta$n t&e $n-'+(at$'n ne%e##a+ t' %+eate #t+$n# '- a($n' a%$)#,
2&$%& $n tu+n a+e u#e) $n t&e 4') t' 4u$l) +'te$n#. Onl #'(e DNA nu%le't$)e#,
&'2e*e+, %')e -'+ a($n' a%$)# t&e#e nu%le't$)e# a+e 5n'2n a# ?e6'n#.@ Nu%le't$)e#
t&at )' n't %')e -'+ a($n' a%$)#, $n %'nt+a#t, a+e 5n'2n a# ?$nt+'n#.@
C+eat$'n '- +'te$n# -+'( DNA $n*'l*e# t2' +$n%$al #te#, 5n'2n a# t+an#%+$t$'n an)
t+an#lat$'n. In t+an#%+$t$'n, t&e 4'n)# 4et2een DNA nu%le't$)e# #ea+ate, an) t&e DNA
&el$6 un2$n)# $nt' t2' #$nle #t+an)#. A #$nle #t+an) $# u#e) a# a te(late t' %+eate a
%'(le(enta+ +$4'nu%le$% a%$) /RNA0 #t+an). T&e nu%le't$)e# 'n t&e DNA #t+an) a$+
natu+all 2$t& t&e$+ %'unte+a+t#, 2$t& t&e e6%et$'n t&at RNA u#e# t&e nu%le't$)e 4a#e
u+a%$l /U0 $n#tea) '- t&($ne /T0. T+an#%+$t$'n +e#ult# $n a #$nle #t+an) RNA ('le%ule,
5n'2n a# +e:RNA, 2&'#e nu%le't$)e# -'+( an $n*e+#e $(ae '- t&e DNA #t+an) -+'(
2&$%& $t 2a# %+eate). P+e:RNA #t$ll %'nta$n# nu%le't$)e# %'++e#'n)$n t' 4't& t&e e6'n#
an) $nt+'n# $n t&e DNA ('le%ule. T&e +e:RNA $# t&en natu+all ?#l$%e)@ 4 t&e &#$%al
+e('*al '- t&e $nt+'n#. T&e +e#ult$n +')u%t $# a #t+an) '- RNA t&at %'nta$n#nu%le't$)e# %'++e#'n)$n 'nl t' t&e e6'n# -+'( t&e '+$$nal DNA #t+an). T&e e6'n#:
'nl #t+an) $# 5n'2n a# (e##ene+ RNA /(RNA0, 2&$%& %+eate# a($n' a%$)# t&+'u&
t+an#lat$'n. In t+an#lat$'n, %ellula+ #t+u%tu+e# 5n'2n a# +$4'#'(e# +ea) ea%& #et '-
t&+ee nu%le't$)e#, 5n'2n a# %')'n#, $n t&e (RNA. Ea%& %')'n e$t&e+ tell# t&e
+$4'#'(e# 2&$%& '- t&e ! '##$4le a($n' a%$)# t' #nt&e#$e '+ +'*$)e# a #t' #$nal
t&at en)# a($n' a%$) +')u%t$'n.
DNA# $n-'+(at$'nal #euen%e# an) t&e +'%e##e# t&at %+eate (RNA, a($n' a%$)#, an)
+'te$n# '%%u+ natu+all 2$t&$n %ell#. S%$ent$#t# %an, &'2e*e+, e6t+a%t DNA -+'( %ell#
u#$n 2ell 5n'2n la4'+at'+ (et&')#. T&e#e (et&')# all'2 #%$ent$#t# t' $#'late #e%$-$%
#e(ent# '- DNA-'+ $n#tan%e, a a+t$%ula+ ene '+ a+t '- a ene2&$%& %an t&en 4e
-u+t&e+ #tu)$e), (an$ulate), '+ u#e). It $# al#' '##$4le t' %+eate DNA #nt&et$%all
t&+'u& +'%e##e# #$($la+l 2ell 5n'2n $n t&e -$el) '- enet$%#. One #u%& (et&') 4e$n#
2$t& an (RNA ('le%ule an) u#e# t&e natu+al 4'n)$n +'e+t$e# '- nu%le't$)e# t'
%+eate a ne2, #nt&et$% DNA ('le%ule. T&e +e#ult $# t&e $n*e+#e '- t&e (RNA# $n*e+#e
$(ae '- t&e '+$$nal DNA, 2$t& 'ne $('+tant )$#t$n%t$'nB e%au#e t&e natu+al %+eat$'n
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
23/106
'- (RNA $n*'l*e# #l$%$n t&at +e('*e# $nt+'n#, t&e #nt&et$% DNA %+eate) -+'( (RNA
al#' %'nta$n# 'nl t&e e6'n #euen%e#. T&$# #nt&et$% DNA %+eate) $n t&e la4'+at'+
-+'( (RNA $# 5n'2n a# %'(le(enta+ DNA /%DNA0.
C&ane# $n t&e enet$% #euen%e a+e %alle) (utat$'n#. Mutat$'n# %an 4e a# #(all a# t&e
alte+at$'n '- a #$nle nu%le't$)ea %&ane a--e%t$n 'nl 'ne lette+ $n t&e enet$% %')e.
Su%& #(all:#%ale %&ane# %an +')u%e an ent$+el )$--e+ent a($n' a%$) '+ %an en)
+'te$n +')u%t$'n alt'et&e+. La+e %&ane#, $n*'l*$n t&e )elet$'n, +ea++ane(ent, '+
)ul$%at$'n '- &un)+e)# '+ e*en ($ll$'n# '- nu:%le't$)e#, %an +e#ult $n t&e el$($nat$'n,
($#la%e(ent, '+ )ul$%at$'n '- ent$+e ene#. S'(e (utat$'n# a+e &a+(le##, 4ut 't&e+#
%an %au#e )$#ea#e '+ $n%+ea#e t&e +$#5 '- )$#ea#e. A# a +e#ult, t&e #tu) '- enet$%# %an
lea) t' *alu:a4le (e)$%al 4+ea5t&+'u.
T&$# %a#e $n*'l*e# atent# -$le) 4 M+$a) a-te+ $t (a)e 'ne #u%& (e)$%al 4+ea5t&+'u&.
M+$a) )$#%'*e+e) t&e +e%$#e l'%at$'n an) #euen%e '- 2&at a+e n'2 5n'2n a# t&e
RCA1 an) RCA ene#. Mutat$'n# $n t&e#e ene# %an )+a(at$%all $n%+ea#e an
$n)$*$)ual# +$#5 '- )e*el'$n 4+ea#t an) '*a+$an %an%e+. T&e a*e+ae A(e+$%an 2'(an
&a# a 1: t' 13:e+%ent +$#5 '- )e*el'$n 4+ea#t %an%e+, 4ut -'+ 2'(en 2$t& %e+ta$n
enet$% (utat$'n#, t&e +$#5 %an +ane 4et2een 7! an)
an) RCA ene#, #%$ent$#t# 5ne2 t&at &e+e)$t lae) a +'le $n e#ta4l$#&$n a 2'(an#
+$#5 '- )e*el'$n 4+ea#t an) '*a+$an %an%e+, 4ut t&e )$) n't 5n'2 2&$%& ene# 2e+e
a##'%$ate) 2$t& t&'#e %an%e+#.
M+$a) $)ent$-$e) t&e e6a%t l'%at$'n '- t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene# 'n %&+'('#'(e# 1;
an) 13. C&+'('#'(e 1; &a# a+'6$(atel
%&+'('#'(e#, t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene# a+e ea%& a4'ut
u#t e6'n# a+e %'unte), t&e RCA1 ene $# 'nl a4'ut 7,7!! nu%le't$)e# l'n -'+ t&e
RCA ene, t&at nu(4e+ $# a4'ut 1!,!!. Ibid. n'2le)e '- t&e l'%at$'n '- t&e
RCA1 an) RCA ene# all'2e) M+$a) t' )ete+($ne t&e$+ t$%al nu%le't$)e
#euen%e. 1 T&at $n-'+(at$'n, $n tu+n, ena4le) M+$a) t' )e*el' (e)$%al te#t# t&at a+e
u#e-ul -'+ )ete%t$n (utat$'n# $n a at$ent# RCA1 an) RCA ene# an) t&e+e4
a##e##$n 2&et&e+ t&e at$ent &a# an $n%+ea#e) +$#5 '- %an%e+.
On%e $t -'un) t&e l'%at$'n an) #euen%e '- t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene#, M+$a) #'u&t
an) '4ta$ne) a nu(4e+ '- atent#. N$ne %'('#$t$'n %la$(# -+'( t&+ee '- t&'#e atent#
a+e at $##ue $n t&$# %a#e. 2 See id., at 13!=, an) n. 1 /n't$n %'('#$t$'n %la$(#0. Cla$(#
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-1https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-1https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-1https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-2https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-2https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-2https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-1https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-2
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
24/106
1, , 7, an) -+'( t&e
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
25/106
ut $#'lat$'n $# ne%e##a+ t' %'n)u%t enet$% te#t$n, an) M+$a) 2a# n't t&e 'nl ent$t
t' '--e+ RCA te#t$n a-te+ $t )$#%'*e+e) t&e ene#. T&e Un$*e+#$t '- Penn#l*an$a#
Genet$% D$an'#t$% La4'+at'+ /GDL0 an) 't&e+# +'*$)e) enet$% te#t$n #e+*$%e# t'
2'(en. Pet$t$'ne+ D+. Ha++ O#t+e+, t&en a +e#ea+%&e+ at Ne2 Y'+5 Un$*e+#$t S%&''l '-
Me)$%$ne, +'ut$nel #ent &$# at$ent# DNA #a(le# t' GDL -'+ te#t$n. A-te+ lea+n$n '-
GDL# te#t$n an) O#t+e+# a%t$*$t$e#, M+$a) #ent lette+# t' t&e( a##e+t$n t&at t&e
enet$% te#t$n $n-+$ne) M+$a)# atent#. A. =>=7 /O#t+e+ lette+0. In +e#'n#e, GDL
a+ee) t' #t' te#t$n an) $n-'+(e) O#t+e+ t&at $t 2'ul) n' l'ne+ a%%et at$ent
#a(le#. M+$a) al#' -$le) atent $n-+$ne(ent #u$t# aa$n#t 't&e+ ent$t$e# t&at
e+-'+(e) RCA te#t$n, +e#ult$n $n #ettle(ent# $n 2&$%& t&e )e-en)ant# a+ee) t'
%ea#e all allee)l $n-+$n$n a%t$*$t. 3;. T&e Fe)e+al C$+%u$t +e*e+#e), Association for Molecular
Pathology *. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 73 F. 3) 13= /!110, an)
t&$# C'u+t +ante)t&e et$t$'n -'+ %e+t$'+a+$, *a%ate) t&e u)(ent, an) +e:(an)e) t&e%a#e $n l$&t '- Mayo !ollaborative Services *. Prometheus "aboratories, Inc., 7 U. S.
/!10.See Association for Molecular Pathology *. Myriad enetics, Inc., 7 U. S.
/!10.
On +e(an), t&e Fe)e+al C$+%u$t a--$+(e) t&e D$#t+$%t C'u+t $n a+t an) +e*e+#e) $n a+t,
2$t& ea%& (e(4e+ '- t&e anel 2+$t$n #ea+atel. All t&+ee u)e# a+ee)t&at 'nl
et$t$'ne+ O#t+e+ &a) #tan)$n. T&e +ea#'ne) t&at M+$a)# a%t$'n# aa$n#t &$( an) &$#
#tate) a4$l$t an) 2$ll$nne## t' 4e$n RCA1 an) RCA te#t$n $- M+:$a)# atent#
2e+e $n*al$)ate) 2e+e #u--$%$ent -'+ A+t$%le III #tan)$n.
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
26/106
L'u+$e an) M''+e a+ee) t&at M+$a)# %la$(# 2e+e atent el$$4le un)e+ 81!1 4ut
)$#a+ee) 'n t&e +at$'nale. Ju)e L'u+$e +el$e) 'n t&e -a%t t&at t&e ent$+e DNA ('le%ule
$# &el) t'et&e+ 4 %&e($%al 4'n)# an) t&at t&e %'*alent 4'n)# at 4't& en)# '- t&e
#e(ent (u#t 4e #e*e+e) $n '+)e+ t' $#'late #e(ent# '- DNA. T&$# +'%e## te%&n$%all
%+eate# ne2 ('le%ule# 2$t& un$ue %&e($%al %'('#$t$'n#. See id., at 13< /?I#'late)
DNA . . . $# a -+ee:#tan)$n '+t$'n '- a la+e+, natu+al DNA ('le%ule. I#'late) DNA &a#
4een %lea*e) /i.e., &a) %'*alent 4'n)# $n $t# 4a%54'ne %&e($%all #e*e+e)0 '+
#nt&e#$e) t' %'n#$#t '- u#t a -+a%t$'n '- a natu+all '%%u++$n DNA ('le%ule@0. Ju)e
L'u+$e -'un) t&$# %&e($%al alte+at$'n t' 4e )$#'#$t$*e, 4e%au#e $#'lat$n a a+t$%ula+
#t+an) '- DNA %+eate#a n'nnatu+all '%%u++$n ('le%ule, e*en t&'u& t&e%&e($%al
alte+at$'n )'e# n't %&ane t&e $n-'+(at$'n:t+an#($tt$n ual$t '- t&e DNA. See id., at
133! /?T&e %la$(e) $#'late) DNA ('le%ule# a+e )$#t$n%t -+'( t&e$+ natu+al e6$#ten%e a#
'+t$'n# '- la+e+ ent$t$e#, an) t&e$+ $n-'+(at$'nal %'ntent $# $++ele*ant t' t&at -a%t. 9e
+e%'n$e t&at 4$'l'$#t# (a t&$n5 '- ('le%ule# $n te+(# '- t&e$+ u#e#, 4ut ene# a+e $n
-a%t (ate+$al# &a*$n a %&e($%al natu+e@0. A%%'+)$nl, &e +ee%te) et$t$'ne+#a+u(ent t&at $#'late) DNA 2a# $nel$$4le -'+ atent +'te%t$'na# a +')u%t '- natu+e.
Ju)e M''+e %'n%u++e) $n a+t 4ut )$) n't +el e6%lu#$*el 'n Ju)e L'u+$e# %'n%lu#$'n
t&at %&e($%all 4+ea5$n %'*alent 4'n)# 2a# #u--$%$ent t' +en)e+ $#'late) DNA atent
el$$4le. Id., at 131 /?T' t&e e6tent t&e (a'+$t +e#t# $t# %'n%lu#$'n 'n t&e %&e($%al
)$--e+en%e# 4et2een [natu+all '%%u++$n" an) $#'late) DNA /4+ea5$n t&e %'*alent
4'n)#0, I %ann't a+ee t&at t&$# $# #u--$%$ent t' &'l) t&at t&e %la$(# t' &u(an ene# a+e
)$+e%te) t' atenta4le #u4e%t (atte+@0. In#tea), Ju)e M''+e al#' +el$e) 'n t&e Un$te)
State# Patent an) T+a)e(a+5 O--$%e# /PTO0 +a%t$%e '- +ant$n #u%& atent# an) 'n t&e
+el$an%e $nte+e#t# '- atent &'l)e+#. Id., at 133. H'2e*e+, #&e a%5n'2le)e) t&at &e+*'te ($&t &a*e %'(e 'ut )$--e+entl $- #&e ?2e+e )e%$)$n t&$# %a#e 'n a 4lan5
%an*a#.@ Ibid.
F$nall, Ju)e +#'n %'n%u++e) $n a+t an) )$##ente) $n a+t, %'n%lu)$n t&at $#'late)
DNA $# n't atent el$:$4le. A# an $n$t$al (atte+, &e e(&a#$e) t&at t&e 4+ea5$n '-
%&e($%al 4'n)# 2a# n't )$#'#$t$*eB ?[T"&e+e $# n' (a$% t' a %&e($%al 4'n) t&at
+eu$+e# u# t' +e%'n$e a ne2 +'):u%t 2&en a %&e($%al 4'n) $# %+eate) '+
4+'5en.@ Id.,at 1371. In#tea), &e +el$e) 'n t&e -a%t t&at ?[t"&e nu%le't$)e #euen%e# '-
t&e %la$(e) ('le%ule# a+e t&e #a(e a# t&e nu%le't$)e #euen%e# -'un) $n natu+all
'%%u++$n &u(an ene#.@ Id., at 1377. Ju)e +#'n t&en %'n%lu)e) t&at enet$%
?#t+u%tu+al #$($la+$t )2a+-# t&e #$n$-$%an%e '- t&e #t+u%tu+al )$--e+en%e# 4et2een
$#'late) DNA an) natu+all '%%u++$n DNA, e#e%$all 2&e+e t&e #t+u%tu+al )$--e+en%e#
a+e (e+el an%$lla+ t' t&e 4+ea5$n '- %'*alent 4'n)#, a +'%e## t&at $# $t#el- n't
$n*ent$*e.@ Ibid . M'+e:'*e+, Ju)e +#'n a*e n' 2e$&t t' t&e PTO# '#$t$'n 'n
atenta4$l$t 4e%au#e '- t&e Fe)e+al C$+%u$t# '#$t$'n t&at ?t&e PTO la%5# #u4#tant$*e
+ule(a5$n aut&'+$t a# t' $##ue# #u%& a# atenta4$l$t.@ Id., at 137;.
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
27/106
Alt&'u& t&e u)e# e6+e##e) )$--e+ent *$e2# %'n%e+n$n t&e atenta4$l$t '- $#'late)
DNA, all t&+ee a+ee) t&at atent %la$(# +elat$n t' %DNA (et t&e atent el$$4$l$t
+eu$+e(ent# '- 81!1. Id., at 13, an) n. = /+e%'n$$n t&at #'(e atent %la$(# a+e
l$($te) t' %DNA an) t&at #u%& %la$(# a+e atent el$$4le un)e+ 81!10 id., at 133;
/M''+e, J., %'n%u++$n $n a+t0 id., at 137 /+#'n, J., %'n%u++$n $n a+t an)
)$##ent$n $n a+t0 /?%DNA %ann't 4e $#'late) -+'( natu+e, 4ut $n#tea) (u#t 4e %+eate)
$n t&e la4'+at'+ . . . 4e%au#e t&e $nt+'n# t&at a+e -'un) $n t&e nat$*e ene a+e +e('*e)
-+'( t&e %DNA #e(ent@0. 39e +ante) %e+t$'+a+$. 7< U. S. /!10.
II
A
Se%t$'n 1!1 '- t&e Patent A%t +'*$)e#B
?9&'e*e+ $n*ent# '+ )$#%'*e+# an ne2 an) u#e-ul . . . %'('#$t$'n '- (atte+, '+ an
ne2 an) u#e-ul $(+'*e(ent t&e+e'-, (a '4ta$n a atent t&e+e-'+, #u4e%t t' t&e
%'n)$t$'n# an) +eu$+e(ent# '- t&$# t$tle.@ 37 U. S. C. 81!1.
9e &a*e ?l'n &el) t&at t&$# +'*$#$'n %'nta$n# an $('+tant $(l$%$t e6%et$'n[B" La2#
'- natu+e, natu+al &en'(ena, an) a4#t+a%t $)ea# a+e n't atenta4le.@ Mayo, 7 U. S.,
at /#l$ '., at 10 /$nte+nal u'tat$'n (a+5# an) 4+a%5et# '($tte)0. Rat&e+, ? t&e
a+e t&e 4a#$% t''l# '- #%$ent$-$% an) te%&n'l'$%al 2'+5 @ t&at l$e 4e'n) t&e )'(a$n '-
atent +'te%t$'n. Id., at /#l$ '., at 0. A# t&e C'u+t &a# e6la$ne), 2$t&'ut t&$#
e6%et$'n, t&e+e 2'ul) 4e %'n#$)e+a4le )ane+ t&at t&e +ant '- atent# 2'ul) ?t$e u@
t&e u#e '- #u%& t''l# an) t&e+e4 ?$n&$4$t -utu+e $nn'*at$'n +e($#e) u'n t&e(.@ Id.,
at /#l$ '., at 1;0. T&$# 2'ul) 4e at '))# 2$t& t&e *e+ '$nt'- atent#, 2&$%& e6$#t
t' +'('te %+eat$'n. #iamond *. !hakrabarty , ; U. S. 3!3, 3!= /1=
natu+e a+e n't %+eate), an) ? (an$-e#tat$'n# . . . '- natu+e [a+e" -+ee t' all (en an)
+e#e+*e) e6%lu#$*el t' n'ne @0.
T&e +ule aa$n#t atent# 'n natu+all '%%u++$n t&$n# $# n't 2$t&'ut l$($t#, &'2e*e+, -'+
?all $n*ent$'n# at #'(e le*el e(4'), u#e, +e-le%t, +e#t u'n, '+ al la2# '- natu+e,
natu+al &en'(ena, '+ a4#t+a%t $)ea#,@ an) ?t'' 4+'a) an $nte++etat$'n '- t&$#
e6%lu#$'na+ +$n%$le %'ul) e*$#%e+ate atent la2.@ 7 U. S., at /#l$ '., at 0. A#2e &a*e +e%'n$e) 4e-'+e, atent +'te%t$'n #t+$5e# a )el$%ate 4alan%e 4et2een
%+eat$n ?$n%ent$*e# t&at lea) t' %+eat$'n, $n*ent$'n, an) )$#%'*e+@ an) ?$(e)[$n" t&e
-l'2 '- $n-'+(at$'n t&at ($&t e+($t, $n)ee) #u+, $n:*ent$'n.@ Id., at /#l$ '., at
30. 9e (u#t al t&$# 2ell:e#ta4l$#&e) #tan)a+) t' )ete+($ne 2&et&e+ M+:$a)#
atent# %la$( an ?ne2 an) u#e-ul . . . %'('#$t$'n'- (atte+,@ 81!1, '+ $n#tea) %la$(
natu+all '%%u++$n &en'(ena.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-3https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-3http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/303http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/303https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-3http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/303
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
28/106
It $# un)$#ute) t&at M+$a) )$) n't %+eate '+ alte+ an '- t&e enet$% $n-'+(at$'n
en%')e) $n t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene#. T&e l'%at$'n an) '+)e+ '- t&e nu%le't$)e#
e6$#te) $n natu+e 4e-'+e M+$a) -'un) t&e(. N'+ )$) M+:$a) %+eate '+ alte+ t&e enet$%
#t+u%tu+e '- DNA. In:#tea), M+$a)# +$n%$al %'nt+$4ut$'n 2a# un%'*e+$n t&e +e%$#e
l'%at$'n an) enet$% #euen%e '- t&e RCA1an) RCA ene# 2$t&$n %&+'('#'(e# 1;
an) 13. T&e ue#t$'n $# 2&et&e+ t&$# +en)e+# t&e ene# atenta4le.
M+$a) +e%'n$e# t&at 'u+ )e%$#$'n $n !hakrabarty $# %ent+al t' t&$# $nu$+. +$e- -'+
Re#'n)ent# 1, 3>;. In !hakrabarty , #%$ent$#t# a))e) -'u+ la#($)# t' a 4a%te+$u(,
2&$%& ena4le) $t t' 4+ea5 )'2n *a+$'u# %'('nent# '- %+u)e '$l. ; U. S., at 3!7, an)
n. 1. T&e C'u+t &el) t&at t&e (')$-$e) 4a%te+$u( 2a# atenta4le. It e6la$ne) t&at t&e
atent %la$( 2a# ?n't t' a &$t&e+t' un5n'2n natu+al &en'(en'n, 4ut t' a n'nnatu+all
'%%u++$n (anu-a%tu+e '+ %'('#$t$'n '- (atte+a +')u%t '- &u(an $nenu$t &a*$n
a )$#t$n%t$*e na(e, %&a+a%te+ [an)" u#e. @ Id., at 3!=>31!
/u't$n $artranft *. %iegmann, 11 U. S. !=, 17 /113!. U'n
lea+n$n t&at #e*e+al n$t+'en:-$6$n 4a%te+$a )$) n't $n&$4$t ea%& 't&e+, &'2e*e+, t&e
atent al$%ant %'(4$ne) t&e( $nt' a #$nle $n'%ulant an) '4ta$ne) a atent. Id., at
13!. T&e C'u+t &el) t&at t&e %'('#$t$'n 2a# n't atent el$$4le 4e%au#e t&e atent
&'l)e+ )$) n't alte+ t&e 4a%te+$a $n an 2a. Id., at 13 /?T&e+e $# n' 2a $n 2&$%& 2e%'ul) %all [t&e 4a%te+$a ($6tu+e a +')u%t '- $n*ent$'n" unle## 2e 4'++'2e) $n*ent$'n
-+'( t&e )$#%'*e+ '- t&e natu+al +$n%$le $t#el-@0. H$# atent %la$( t&u# -ell #ua+el
2$t&$n t&e la2 '- natu+e e6%et$'n. S' )' M+$a)#. M+$a) -'un) t&e l'%at$'n '- t&e
RCA1 an) RCA ene#, 4ut t&at )$#%'*e+, 4 $t#el-, )'e# n't +en)e+ t&e RCA ene#
?ne2 . . . %'('#$t$'n[#" '- (atte+,@ 81!1, t&at a+e atent el$$4le.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/121/609http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/333/127http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/333/127http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/121/609http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/333/127
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
29/106
In)ee), M+$a)# atent )e#%+$t$'n# &$&l$&t t&e +'4le( 2$t& $t# %la$(#. F'+ e6a(le,
a #e%t$'n '- t&e 3=, =>7!. 9e )$#a+ee. *. +. M. &el) t&at
ne2 lant 4+ee)# 2e+e el$$4le -'+ ut$l$t atent# un)e+ 81!1 n't2$ttan)$n #ea+ate
#tatute# +'*$)$n #e%$al +'te%t$'n# -'+ lant#, #ee ; U. S. C. 831 et se). /Plant
a+$et P+'te%t$'n A%t0 37 U. S. C. 8811>1 /Plant Patent A%t '- 1=3!0. A-te+
anal$n t&e te6t an) #t+u%tu+e '- t&e +ele*ant #tatute#, t&e C'u+t (ent$'ne) t&at t&e
'a+) '- Patent Aeal# an) Inte+-e+en%e# &a) )ete+($ne) t&at ne2 lant 4+ee)# 2e+e
atent el$$4le un)e+ 81!1 an) t&at C'n+e## &a) +e%'n$e) an) en)'+#e) t&at
'#$t$'n $n a #u4#euent Patent A%t a(en)(ent. 73 U. S., at 1>17 /%$t$n In re
$ibberd , ; USPK 3 /1=
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
30/106
#enten%e $n t&e C'n#'l$)ate) A+'+$at$'n# A%t '- !!, #ee +$e- -'+ Re#'n)ent# 31,
n. 33, an) t&at t&e PTO# +a%t$%e 2a# n't ?a #u--$%$ent +ea#'n
t' &'l) t&at $#'late) DNA $# atent:el$$4le.@ Id., at . See al#' id., at =. T&e#e
%'n%e##$'n# 2e$& aa$n#t )e-e++$n t' t&e PTO# )ete+($nat$'n. 7
C
%DNA )'e# n't +e#ent t&e #a(e '4#ta%le# t' atenta4$l$t a# natu+all '%%u++$n,
$#'late) DNA #e(ent#. A# al+ea) e6la$ne), %+eat$'n '- a %DNA #euen%e -+'( (RNA
+e#ult# $n an e6'n#:'nl ('le%ule t&at $# n't natu+all '%%u++$n. 8Pet$t$'ne+# %'n%e)e
t&at %DNA )$--e+# -+'( natu+al DNA $n t&at ?t&e n'n:%')$n +e$'n# &a*e 4een
+e('*e).@ +$e- -'+ Pet$t$'ne+# =. T&e ne*e+t&ele## a+ue t&at %DNA $# n't atent
el$$4le 4e%au#e ?[t"&e nu%le't$)e #euen%e '- %DNA $# )$%tate) 4 natu+e, n't 4 t&e
la4 te%&n$%$an.@ Id., at 71. T&at (a 4e #', 4ut t&e la4 te%&n$%$an unue#t$'na4l
%+eate# #'(et&$n ne2 2&en %DNA $# (a)e. %DNA +eta$n# t&e natu+all '%%u++$n e6'n#
'- DNA, 4ut $t $# )$#t$n%t -+'( t&e DNA -+'( 2&$%& $t 2a# )e+$*e). A# a +e#ult, %DNA $#
n't a ?+')u%t '- natu+e@ an) $# atent el$$4le un)e+ 81!1, e6%et $n#'-a+ a# *e+ #&'+t
#e+$e# '- DNA (a &a*e n' $nte+*en$n $nt+'n# t' +e('*e 2&en %+eat$n %DNA. In t&at#$tuat$'n, a #&'+t #t+an) '- %DNA (a 4e $n)$#t$nu$#&a4le -+'( natu+al DNA. 9
III
It $# $('+tant t' n'te 2&at $# not $(l$%ate) 4 t&$# )e%$#$'n. F$+#t, t&e+e a+e n'
(et&') %la$(# 4e-'+e t&$# C'u+t. Ha) M+$a) %+eate) an $nn'*at$*e (et&') '-
(an$ulat$n ene# 2&$le #ea+%&$n -'+ t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene#, $t %'ul) '##$4l
&a*e #'u&t a (et&') at:ent. ut t&e +'%e##e# u#e) 4 M+$a) t' $#'late DNA 2e+e
2ell un)e+#t'') 4 enet$%$#t# at t&e t$(e '- M+$a)# atent# ?2e+e 2ell un)e+#t''),
2$)el u#e), an) -a$+l un$-'+( $n#'-a+ a# an #%$ent$#t enae) $n t&e #ea+%& -'+ a ene2'ul) l$5el &a*e ut$l$e) a #$($la+ a+'a%&,@ ;! F. Su. ), at !>!3, an) a+e n't
at $##ue $n t&$# %a#e.
S$($la+l, t&$# %a#e )'e# n't $n*'l*e atent# 'n ne2 alications '- 5n'2le)e a4'ut
t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene#. Ju)e +#'n atl n'te) t&at, ?[a"# t&e -$+#t a+t 2$t&
5n'2le)e '- t&e [RCA1 an) RCA" #euen%e#, M+$a) 2a# $n an e6%ellent '#$t$'n t'
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-7https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-7https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-8https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-8https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-9https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-9https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-7https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-8https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#OPINION_3-9
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
31/106
%la$( al$%at$'n# '- t&at 5n'2le)e. Man '- $t# un%&allene) %la$(# a+e l$($te) t'
#u%& al$%at$'n#.@
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
32/106
%an%e+ an) '*a+$an %an%e+. F$nall, $t $# a )$#%'*e+ '- t&e +e#ent $n*ent$'n t&at #'(at$%
(utat$'n# $n t&e RCA1 l'%u# a+e al#' a##'%$ate) 2$t& 4+ea#t %an%e+, '*a+$an %an%e+ an) 't&e+
%an%e+#, 2&$%& +e+e#ent# an $n)$%at'+ '- t&e#e %an%e+# '+ '- t&e +'n'#$# '- t&e#e %an%e+#. T&e
(utat$'nal e*ent# '- t&e RCA1 l'%u# %an $n*'l*e )elet$'n#, $n#e+t$'n# an) '$nt (utat$'n#.@
A. ;=. N't2$ttan)$n M+$a)# +eeate) u#e '- t&e &+a#e ?+e#ent $n*ent$'n,@ $t $# %lea+
-+'( t&e te6t '- t&e atent t&at t&e *a+$'u# )$#%'*e+$e# are t&e ?$n*ent$'n.@
7 ?Sta+t$n -+'( a +e$'n 'n t&e l'n a+( '- &u(an %&+'('#'(e 1; '- t&e &u(an en'(e, 1;,
2&$%& &a# a #$e e#t$(ate) at a4'ut < ($ll$'n 4a#e a$+#, a +e$'n 2&$%& %'nta$n# a enet$% l'%u#,
RCA1, 2&$%& %au#e# #u#%et$4$l$t t' %an%e+, $n%lu)$n 4+ea#t an) '*a+$an %an%e+, &a# 4een
$)ent$-$e).@ Ibid.
M+$a) -$+#t $)ent$-$e) +'u# '- +elat$*e# 2$t& a &$#t'+ '- 4+ea#t %an%e+ /#'(e '- 2&'( al#'
&a) )e*el'e) '*a+$an %an%e+0 4e%au#e t&e#e $n)$*$)ual# 2e+e +elate), #%$ent$#t# 5ne2 t&at $t
2a# ('+e l$5el t&at t&e$+ )$#ea#e# 2e+e t&e +e#ult '- enet$% +e)$#'#$t$'n +at&e+ t&an 't&e+
-a%t'+#. M+$a) %'(a+e) #e%t$'n# '- t&e$+ %&+'('#'(e#, l''5$n -'+ #&a+e) enet$%
a4n'+(al$t$e# n't -'un) $n t&e ene+al 'ulat$'n. It 2a# t&at +'%e## 2&$%& e*entuall ena4le)
M+$a) t' )ete+($ne 2&e+e $n t&e enet$% #euen%e t&e RCA1 an) RCA ene# +e#$)e.
See,e.g., id ., at ;=, ;3>;;7.
; M+$a) al#' a+ue# t&at 2e #&'ul) u&'l) $t# atent# #' a# n't t' )$#tu+4 t&e +el$an%e $nte+e#t#
'- atent &'l)e+# l$5e $t#el-. +$e- -'+ Re#'n)ent# 33=. C'n%e+n# a4'ut +el$an%e $nte+e#t#
a+$#$n -+'( PTO )ete+($nat$'n#, $n#'-a+ a# t&e a+e +ele*ant, a+e 4ette+ )$+e%te) t' C'n+e##.
See Mayo !ollaborative Services *. Prometheus "aboratories, Inc., 7 U. S. , /!10
/#l$ '., at >0.
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
33/106
TOP
Concurrence
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
N'. 1>3=<
ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY,et al., PETITIONERS v. MYRIADGENETICS,
INC., et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the
federal circuit
[June 13, !13"
Ju#t$%e S%al$a, %'n%u++$n $n a+t an) %'n%u++$n $n t&e u)(ent.
I '$n t&e u)(ent '- t&e C'u+t, an) all '- $t# '$n$'n e6%et Pa+t I>A an) #'(e
'+t$'n# '- t&e +e#t '- t&e '$n$'n '$n $nt' -$ne )eta$l# '- ('le%ula+ 4$'l'. I a( un:
a4le t' a--$+( t&'#e )eta$l# 'n ( '2n 5n'2le)e '+ e*en ( '2n 4el$e-. It #u--$%e# -'+
(e t' a--$+(, &a*$n #tu)$e) t&e '$n$'n# 4el'2 an) t&e e6e+t 4+$e-# +e#ente) &e+e,
t&at t&e '+t$'n '- DNA $#'late) -+'( $t# natu+al #tate #'u&t t' 4e atente) $# $)ent$%al
t' t&at '+t$'n '- t&e DNA $n $t# natu+al #tate an) t&at %'(le(enta+ DNA /%DNA0 $# a
#nt&et$% %+eat$'n n't n'+(all +e#ent $n natu+e.
d. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
SU,@F@ C-UT -B TG@ U>4T@L ST'T@S
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#writing-ZShttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398#writing-ZS
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
34/106
>o. 138:
'D4C@ C-,-'T4-> ,TQ. DTL$ ,@T4T4->@ v. CDS '>E 4>T@>'T4->'D
et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal
circuit
6Aune 1:$ 801/7
Austice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The patents at issue in this case disclose a computer#implementedscheme for mitiatin settlement ris&V 2i.e.$ the ris& that only one party to a
!nancial transaction will pay what it owes %y usin a third#party
intermediary. The ?uestion presented is whether these claims are patent
elii%le under 35 U. S. C. §101$ or are instead drawn to a patent#inelii%le
a%stract idea. e hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the a%stract idea
of intermediated settlement$ and that merely re?uirin eneric computer
implementation fails to transform that a%stract idea into a patent#elii%le
invention. e therefore a+rm the *udment of the United States Court of
'ppeals for the Bederal Circuit.
4
'
,etitioner 'lice Corporation is the assinee of several patents that
disclose schemes to manae certain forms of !nancial ris&. 6 17 'ccordin to
the speci!cation larely shared %y the patents$ the invention ena%l6es7 the
manaement of ris& relatin to speci!ed$ yet un&nown$ future events.V 'pp.8/. The speci!cation further e(plains that the invention relates to methods
and apparatus$ includin electrical computers and data processin systems
applied to !nancial matters and ris& manaement.V 4d.$ at 8/3.
The claims at issue relate to a computeri=ed scheme for mitiatin
settlement ris&VWi.e.$ the ris& that only one party to an areed#upon
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F1https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F1
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
35/106
!nancial e(chane will satisfy its o%liation. 4n particular$ the claims are
desined to facilitate the e(chane of !nancial o%liations %etween two
parties %y usin a computer system as a third#party intermediary. 4d.$ at 33
3/. 6 87 The intermediary creates shadowV credit and de%it records 2i.e.$
account leders that mirror the %alances in the partiesX real#world accountsat e(chane institutionsV 2e..$ %an&s. The intermediary updates the
shadow records in real time as transactions are entered$ allowin only those
transactions for which the partiesX updated shadow records indicate
su+cient resources to satisfy their mutual o%liations.V 1 B. 3d 189:$ 185
2C' Bed. 8013 2Dourie$ A.$ concurrin. 't the end of the day$ the
intermediary instructs the relevant !nancial institutions to carry out the
permittedV transactions in accordance with the updated shadow records$
i%id.$ thus mitiatin the ris& that only one party will perform the areed#upon e(chane.
4n sum$ the patents in suit claim 21 the foreoin method for e(chanin
o%liations 2the method claims$ 28 a computer system con!ured to carry
out the method for e(chanin o%liations 2the system claims$ and 23 a
computer#reada%le medium containin proram code for performin the
method of e(chanin o%liations 2the media claims. 'll of the claims are
implemented usin a computerJ the system and media claims e(pressly
recite a computer$ and the parties have stipulated that the method claimsre?uire a computer as well.
espondents CDS an& 4nternational and CDS Services Dtd. 2toether$ CDS
an& operate a lo%al networ& that facilitates currency transactions. 4n
800$ CDS an& !led suit aainst petitioner$ see&in a declaratory *udment
that the claims at issue are invalid$ unenforcea%le$ or not infrined. ,etitioner
counterclaimed$ allein infrinement. Bollowin this CourtXs decision inils&i v. Eappos$ 591 U. S. 5:3 28010 $ the parties !led cross#motions for
summary *udment on whether the asserted claims are elii%le for patent
protection under 35 U. S. C. §101. The Listrict Court held that all of the
claims are patent inelii%le %ecause they are directed to the a%stract idea of
employin a neutral intermediary to facilitate simultaneous e(chane of
o%liations in order to minimi=e ris&.V 9 B. Supp. 8d 881$ 858 2LC 8011.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F2https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F2
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
36/106
' divided panel of the United States Court of 'ppeals for the Bederal
Circuit reversed$ holdin that it was not manifestly evidentV that petitionerXs
claims are directed to an a%stract idea. 95 B. 3d 13/1$ 1358$ 1359 28018.
The Bederal Circuit ranted rehearin en %anc$ vacated the panel opinion$
and a+rmed the *udment of the Listrict Court in a one#pararaph percuriam opinion. 1 B. 3d$ at 183. Seven of the ten participatin *udes
areed that petitionerXs method and media claims are patent inelii%le. See
id.$ at 18/ 2Dourie$ A.$ concurrinJ id.$ at 13181313 2ader$ C. A.$ concurrin
in part and dissentin in part. ith respect to petitionerXs system claims$ the
en %anc Bederal Circuit a+rmed the Listrict CourtXs *udment %y an e?ually
divided vote. 4d.$ at 183.
ritin for a !ve#mem%er plurality$ Aude Dourie concluded that all of the
claims at issue are patent inelii%le. 4n the pluralityXs view$ under this CourtXs
decision in Fayo Colla%orative Services v. ,rometheus Da%oratories$ 4nc.$ 599
U. S. 28018$ a court must !rst identif6y7 the a%stract idea represented in
the claim$V and then determine whether the %alance of the claim adds
Ysini!cantly more.X V 1 B. 3d$ at 189. The plurality concluded that
petitionerXs claims draw on the a%stract idea of reducin settlement ris& %y
e;ectin trades throuh a third#party intermediary$V and that the use of a
computer to maintain$ ad*ust$ and reconcile shadow accounts added nothin
of su%stance to that a%stract idea. 4%id.
Chief Aude ader concurred in part and dissented in part. 4n a part of the
opinion *oined only %y Aude Foore$ Chief Aude ader areed with the
plurality that petitionerXs method and media claims are drawn to an a%stract
idea. 4d.$ at 13181313. 4n a part of the opinion *oined %y Audes Dinn$ Foore$
and -XFalley$ Chief Aude ader would have held that the system claims are
patent elii%le %ecause they involve computer hardwareV that is
speci!cally prorammed to solve a comple( pro%lem.V 4d.$ at 130. Aude
Foore wrote a separate opinion dissentin in part$ aruin that the systemclaims are patent elii%le. 4d.$ at 1313131/. Aude >ewman !led an opinion
concurrin in part and dissentin in part$ aruin that all of petitionerXs
claims are patent elii%le. 4d.$ at 138. Audes Dinn and -XFalley !led a
separate dissentin opinion reachin that same conclusion. 4%id.
e ranted certiorari$ 51 U. S. 28013$ and now a+rm.
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
37/106
44
Section 101 of the ,atent 'ct de!nes the su%*ect matter elii%le for
patent protection. 4t providesI
hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process$ machine$
manufacture$ or composition of matter$ or any new and useful improvement
thereof$ may o%tain a patent therefor$ su%*ect to the conditions and
re?uirements of this title.V 35 U. S. C. §101.
e have lon held that this provision contains an important implicit
e(ceptionI Daws of nature$ natural phenomena$ and a%stract ideas are not
patenta%le.V 'ssociation for Folecular ,atholoy v. Fyriad enetics$ 4nc.$ 59:
U. S. $ 28013 2slip op.$ at 11 2internal ?uotation mar&s and %rac&etsomitted. e have interpreted §101 and its predecessors in liht of this
e(ception for more than 150 years. ils&i$ supra$ at 901908J see also
-Xeilly v. Forse$ 15 Gow. 98$ 118180 215/J De oy v. Tatham$ 1/ Gow.
159$ 1/15 2153.
e have descri%ed the concern that drives this e(clusionary principle as
one of pre#emption. See$ e..$ ils&i$ supra$ at 911918 2upholdin the patent
would pre#empt use of this approach in all !elds$ and would e;ectively rant
a monopoly over an a%stract ideaV. Daws of nature$ natural phenomena$ anda%stract ideas are Y the %asic tools of scienti!c and technoloical wor&.V X V
Fyriad$ supra$ at 2slip op.$ at 11. 6F7onopoli=ation of those tools
throuh the rant of a patent miht tend to impede innovation more than it
would tend to promote it$V there%y thwartin the primary o%*ect of the
patent laws. Fayo$ supra$ at 2slip op.$ at 8J see U. S. Const.$ 'rt. 4$ §$ cl.
2Conress shall have ,ower . . . To promote the ,roress of Science and
useful 'rtsV. e have repeatedly emphasi=ed this . . . concern that patent
law not inhi%it further discovery %y improperly tyin up the future use ofV
these %uildin %loc&s of human inenuity. Fayo$ supra$ at 2slip op.$ at 19
2citin Forse$ supra$ at 113.
't the same time$ we tread carefully in construin this e(clusionary
principle lest it swallow all of patent law. Fayo$ 599 U. S.$ at 2slip op.$ at
8. 't some level$ all inventions . . . em%ody$ use$ reKect$ rest upon$ or apply
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
38/106
laws of nature$ natural phenomena$ or a%stract ideas.V 4d.$ at 2slip op.$ at
8. Thus$ an invention is not rendered inelii%le for patent simply %ecause it
involves an a%stract concept. See Liamond v. Liehr$ /50 U. S. 15$ 1
21:1 . 6'7pplication6s7V of such concepts Yto a new and useful end$X V we
have said$ remain elii%le for patent protection. ottschal& v. enson$ /0:U. S. 93$ 9 21:8 .
'ccordinly$ in applyin the §101 e(ception$ we must distinuish %etween
patents that claim the Y%uildin67 %loc&6s7X V of human inenuity and those
that interate the %uildin %loc&s into somethin more$ Fayo$ 599 U. S.$ at
2slip op.$ at 80$ there%y transform6in7V them into a patent#elii%le
invention$ id.$ at 2slip op.$ at 3. The former would ris& disproportionately
tyin up the use of the underlyinV ideas$ id.$ at 2slip op.$ at /$ and are
therefore inelii%le for patent protection. The latter pose no compara%le ris&
of pre#emption$ and therefore remain elii%le for the monopoly ranted
under our patent laws.
444
4n Fayo Colla%orative Services v. ,rometheus Da%oratories$ 4nc.$ 599 U. S.
28018$ we set forth a framewor& for distinuishin patents that claim
laws of nature$ natural phenomena$ and a%stract ideas from those that claim
patent#elii%le applications of those concepts. Birst$ we determine whetherthe claims at issue are directed to one of those patent#inelii%le concepts.
4d.$ at 2slip op.$ at . 4f so$ we then as&$ 6w7hat else is there in the claims
%efore usZV 4d.$ at 2slip op.$ at :. To answer that ?uestion$ we consider
the elements of each claim %oth individually and as an ordered
com%inationV to determine whether the additional elements transform the
nature of the claimV into a patent#elii%le application. 4d.$ at 2slip op.$ at
10$ :. e have descri%ed step two of this analysis as a search for an
Yinventive conceptX VWi.e.$ an element or com%ination of elements that issu+cient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to sini!cantly more
than a patent upon the 6inelii%le concept7 itself.V 4d.$ at 2slip op.$ at 3.
6 37
'
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F3https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-298/opinion3.html#F3
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
39/106
e must !rst determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a
patent#inelii%le concept. e conclude that they areI These claims are drawn
to the a%stract idea of intermediated settlement.
The a%stract ideasV cateory em%odies the lonstandin rule that Y6a7nidea of itself is not patenta%le.X V enson$ supra$ at 9 2?uotin u%%er#Tip
,encil Co. v. Goward$ 80 all. /:$ 50 21/J see also De oy$ supra$ at
15 2' principle$ in the a%stract$ is a fundamental truthJ an oriinal causeJ a
motiveJ these cannot %e patented$ as no one can claim in either of them an
e(clusive rihtV. 4n enson$ for e(ample$ this Court re*ected as inelii%le
patent claims involvin an alorithm for convertin %inary#coded decimal
numerals into pure %inary form$ holdin that the claimed patent was in
practical e;ect . . . a pat# ent on the alorithm itself.V /0: U. S.$ at 18.
'nd in ,ar&er v. Bloo&$ /3 U. S. 5/ 5:5 21:$ we held that a
mathematical formula for computin alarm limitsV in a catalytic conversion
process was also a patent#inelii%le a%stract idea.
e most recently addressed the cateory of a%stract ideas in ils&i v.
Eappos$ 591 U. S. 5:3 28010 . The claims at issue in ils&i descri%ed a
method for hedin aainst the !nancial ris& of price Kuctuations. Claim 1
recited a series of steps for hedin ris&$ includinI 21 initiatin a series of
!nancial transactions %etween providers and consumers of a commodityJ 28
identifyin mar&et participants that have a counterris& for the same
commodityJ and 23 initiatin a series of transactions %etween those mar&et
participants and the commodity provider to %alance the ris& position of the
!rst series of consumer transactions. 4d.$ at 5::. Claim / pu6t7 the concept
articulated in claim 1 into a simple mathematical formula.V 4%id. The
remainin claims were drawn to e(amples of hedin in commodities and
enery mar&ets.
6'7ll mem%ers of the Court aree6d7V that the patent at issue in ils&iclaimed an a%stract idea.V 4d.$ at 90:J see also id.$ at 91: 2Stevens$ A.$
concurrin in *udment. Speci!cally$ the claims descri%ed the %asic
concept of hedin$ or protectin aainst ris&.V 4d.$ at 911. The Court
e(plained that Y6h7edin is a fundamental economic practice lon
prevalent in our system of commerce and tauht in any introductory !nance
class.X V 4%id. The concept of hedinV as recited %y the claims in suit was
8/18/2019 set-6-full-cases-ip
40/106
therefore a patent#inelii%le a%stract idea$ *ust li&e the alorithms at issue
in enson and Bloo&.V 4%id.
4t follows from our prior cases$ and ils&i in particular$ that the claims at
issue here are directed to an a%stract idea. ,etitionerXs claims involve amethod of e(chanin !nancial o%liations %etween two parties usin a
third#party intermediary to mitiate settlement ris&. The intermediary
creates and updates shadowV records to reKect the value of each partyXs
actual accounts held at e(chane institutions$V there%y permittin only
those transactions for which the parties have su+cient resources. 't the end
of each day$ the intermediary issues irrevoca%le instructions to the e(chane
institutions to carry out the permitted transactions.
-n their face$ the claims %efore us are drawn to the concept ofintermediated settlement$ i.e.$ the use of a third party to mitiate settlement
ris&. Di&e the ris& hedin in ils&i$ the concept of intermediated settlement
is Ya fundamental economic practice lon prevalent in our system of
commerce.X V 4%id.J see$ e..$ @mery$ Speculation on the Stoc& and ,roduce
@(chanes of the United States$ in Studies in Gistory$ @conomics and ,u%lic
Daw 83$ 3/9359 21:9 2discussin the use of a clearin#houseV as an
intermediary to reduce settlement ris&. The use of a third#party intermediary
2or clearin houseV is also a %uildin %loc& of the modern economy. See$
e..$ Qadav$ The ,ro%lematic Case of Clearinhouses in Comple( Far&ets$ 101
eo. D. A. 3$ /09/18 28013J A. Gull$ is& Fanaement and Binancial
4nstitutions 10310/ 23d ed. 8018. Thus$ intermediated settlement$ li&e
hedin$ is an a%stract ideaV %eyond the scope of §101.
,etitioner ac&nowledes that its claims descri%e intermediated
settlement$ see rief for ,etitioner /$ %ut re*ects the conclusion that its
claims recite an a%stract idea.V Lrawin on the presence of mathematical
formulas in some of our a%stract#ideas precedents$ petitioner contends thatthe a%stract#ideas cateory is con!ned to pree(is