Was the Myriad ruling unanimous?

The judgment was unanimous, 9-0. Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment, writing that he could not affirm the fine details of molecular biology on his own knowledge or belief. The New York Times headline read: 'Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes.'

Does the Myriad principle apply to peptides?

Yes, by doctrine. The USPTO's 2014 eligibility guidance applies the same markedly-different test to nature-based products including proteins: a naturally occurring peptide sequence is not patent eligible as a composition of matter, while engineered analogues remain patentable.

The Court side · AMP v. Myriad (2013)

Nine justices. One sentence. Nature returned to the public domain.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in AMP v. Myriad Genetics?

On June 13, 2013, the Court held unanimously that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, while synthetically created cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

Q: Who wrote the Myriad opinion?

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. All nine justices joined the judgment; Justice Scalia concurred in part, declining to join portions describing fine details of molecular biology.

Q: What is the product-of-nature doctrine?

The long-standing implicit exception to 35 U.S.C. §101: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. From Funk Brothers (1948) through Chakrabarty (1980), Mayo (2012) and Myriad (2013), discovering something nature made is not inventing it.

On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that no company may own a human gene. The opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas — a justice better known for other battles — and it said, in plain words, that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable. This site records exactly what the Court said, in the Court's own words, and traces why that single paragraph still governs who may own a peptide today.

Scales of justice above a DNA helix — the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that natural sequences cannot be patented — Panacea Bio Chem — Scientific illustration — not experimental imagery.

The holding, verbatim

No paraphrase does it better than the opinion itself. Three sentences from Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013):

"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring."

The holding — full opinion at Cornell LII

"To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."

On Myriad's achievement — credit given, ownership denied

"Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry."

On the difference between discovery and invention

The Court that said it

The judgment was unanimous — 9-0, as the New York Times headlined it: "Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes." Every justice agreed that Myriad's claims on naturally occurring DNA could not stand. Justice Scalia added a concurrence in part that deserves its own place in the record for its honesty:

"I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief."

Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment

The statute

35 U.S.C. §101 defines what may be patented. For over a century the Court has read into it an implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable — they are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work," free to all and reserved exclusively to none.

The lineage

Funk Brothers (1948): a mixture of naturally occurring bacteria, unpatentable. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980): a human-engineered bacterium, patentable — "markedly different" from anything in nature. Mayo v. Prometheus (2012): a natural correlation, unpatentable. Myriad (2013) sits exactly on that line.

The balance

The Court did not deny Myriad's effort or its achievement — it praised the "important and useful gene." It denied only the conversion of discovery into ownership. cDNA, built in the laboratory and absent from nature, remained patent eligible. The scalpel cut precisely.

The footnote that mattered

Footnote 3 confirms the standing of Dr. Harry Ostrer — the geneticist Myriad's 1999 warning letter had stopped from testing his patients, and the only plaintiff the courts found injured enough to sue. His story lives on our sister site, harryostrer.com.

The principle, and where it reaches

The doctrine did not stop at DNA. The USPTO's 2014 Interim Guidance on patent subject-matter eligibility instructs examiners to apply the same "markedly different" analysis to nature-based products generally — expressly including purified natural products and proteins. The genome was the test case; the principle is general:

Not patent eligible

Naturally occurring sequences claimed as compositions of matter: isolated genes, unmodified natural proteins, natural peptide sequences. Nature wrote them; no one may fence them.

Still patent eligible

What humans genuinely build: cDNA, engineered analogues, lipidated peptides such as semaglutide, insulin analogues, PEGylated and cyclized forms, novel formulations and processes. Invention remains protected — discovery alone does not.

Bogdan Dicoias — Biochemist, AAC Designer, Director of Panacea Bio Chem

Panacea Bio Chem agrees with the Court

We are a peptide research company, and we build our work on amino-acid chains nature wrote. We say without hedging: the Myriad ruling was right — in law, in economics, and in the philosophy of science. The market proved it within hours: BRCA testing that listed at about $3,340 was announced at $995 the same afternoon the patents fell. A commons is not communism; it is the substrate every real invention stands on. Panacea protects what it invents — processes, formulations, delivery systems — and claims no ownership over nature's sequences. Our full editorial position is on Our View; more about us at panaceabiochem.co.uk.

Bogdan Dicoias — Biochemist and AAC Designer, Panacea Bio Chem

"Read the opinion slowly. Thomas did not scold Myriad — he thanked it, and then declined to hand it the human genome. That is what a mature patent system sounds like: generous to invention, allergic to enclosure. Every peptide company, mine included, should be able to say which side of that line it lives on."

Bogdan Dicoias — Biochemist · AAC Designer · Panacea Bio Chem Ltd

Frequently asked questions

What did the Court decide?

On June 13, 2013, unanimously: naturally occurring DNA is a product of nature, not patent eligible merely because isolated; synthetic cDNA remains patent eligible.

Who wrote the opinion?

Justice Clarence Thomas. All nine justices joined the judgment; Justice Scalia concurred in part.

What is the product-of-nature doctrine?

The implicit §101 exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable — from Funk Brothers (1948) through Chakrabarty, Mayo and Myriad.

Was the ruling unanimous?

The judgment was 9-0; Scalia's partial concurrence declined only the molecular-biology details. NYT: "Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes."

Does it apply to peptides?

Yes — the USPTO's 2014 guidance applies the same test to natural proteins and peptides: natural sequences unpatentable, engineered analogues patentable. More on the Questions page.