DNA VS. CDNA Case:

DNA's informational sequences and processes occur naturally within cells. Scientists can,however, extract DNA from cells using well-known laboratory methods. These methodsallow scientists to isolate specific segments of DNAfor instance, a particular gene or partof a genewhich can then be studied, manipulated, or used. It is also possible to createDNA synthetically through processes similarly well-known in the field of genetics. Thissynthetic DNA created in the laboratory is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).Myriad Genetics, Inc., discovered the precise location and sequence of what are nowknown as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these genes can dramatically increasean individual's risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The average American womanhas a 12 to 13 percent risk of developing breast cancer, but for women with certaingenetic mutations, the risk can range between 50 and 80 percent for breast cancer andbetween 20 and 50 percent for ovarian cancer.

Knowledge of the location and sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes enabled Myriadto develop medical tests that are useful for detecting mutations in a patient's BRCA1 andBRCA2 genes and thereby assessing whether the patient has an increased risk of cancer.Myriad then sought and obtained a number of patents, which would, if valid, give it theexclusive right to isolate an individual's BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The patents would alsogive Myriad the exclusive right to synthetically create BRCA cDNA. In Myriad's view,manipulating BRCA DNA in either of these fashions triggers its "right to exclude othersfrom making" its patented composition of matter under the Patent Act.The plaintiffs, including medical patients, advocacy groups, and doctors, filed this lawsuitin U.S. District Court seeking a declaration that Myriad's patents are invalid.The District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs based on its conclusion thatMyriad's claims, including claims related to cDNA, were invalid because they coveredproducts of nature. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit initially reversed, buton remand the Federal Circuit found both isolated DNA and cDNA eligible for a patent.

Arguments:

This case was ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court. Thecase hinged on the following argument from the Defendant andPlaintiff...

Because laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideasare not patentable, a naturally occurring DNA segment is aproduct of nature and not eligible for a patent.

Because it has been isolated and synthetically created, cDNA iseligible for a patent because it is not naturally occurring.

Questions:

1. Should the Supreme Court uphold the patent?

2. Explain your ruling