To describe most molecules, you need to describe the exact chemical structure. In contrast, DNA, including cDNA is made up of a sequence of 4 simple naturally occurring nucleotides (A, C, G, T). Within that context, the cDNA is completely described by the order of nucleotides in the molecule (eg AACGTT vs GATCGA). The value of the molecule rests solely in this information. Any potential novelty rests solely in this information.

A patent on a cDNA is a patent on information in a particular embodiment (the cDNA) and seeks to exclude others from using not only the particular embodiment, but also from using the information contained (eg for diagnostic test based on cDNA sequence).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA were well understood by geneticists at the time of Myriad’s patents “were well understood, widely used, and fairly uniform insofar as any scientist engaged in the search for a gene would likely have utilized a similar approach,” 702 F. Supp. 2d, at 202–203, and are not at issue in this case...

The above is from the decision. cDNA is created by taking mRNA (naturally-occurring) and applying standard, straightforward and well-known methods to transcribe it into cDNA. That kind of thing would be exactly what the court describes above, and while those things weren't at issue in this case it's pretty clear from the phrasing and the reference that if they were at issue the decision would not go in Myriad's favor. You could get a patent if you started with a desired result, did your work and created a cDNA sequence from whole cloth to achieve that result and then synthesized your design, all without starting from existing natural mRNA. But that's a whole lot of work, and very problematic considering our lack of understanding of exactly why certain nucleotide sequences produce the results they do.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]