• Home
  • About
        • Client Reviews
        • Patent Samples
        • Accolades
        • About Firm
        • Technologies
        • FAQs
        • Areas Served
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
        • Browse Patent Samples
        • Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patents
        • Automation & Robotics Patents
        • Automotive Patents
        • Clothing & Apparel Patents
        • Communication Technology Patents
        • Construction Patents
        • Consumer Products Patents
        • Electronics Patents
        • Emergency Response Technology Patents
        • Energy & Power Patents
        • Fintech Patents
        • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
        • Green Energy Patents
        • Gym & Fitness Equipment Patents
        • Manufacturing Patents
        • Materials Patents
        • Medical Products & Devices Patents
        • Mechanical & Machinery Patents
        • Optics Patents
        • Packaging Patents
        • Pet Supplies Patents
        • Pharmaceutical & Therapeutics Patents
        • Software & App Patents
        • Sports Equipment Patents
        • Testing, Measurement & Inspection Equipment
        • Tools & Equipment Patents
        • Toy Patents
        • Transportation Patents
        • Water & Environmental Patents
  • Browse Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Essential Patent Strategies
    • Making Smart Choices for Your Ideas
    • Patent FAQs
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Articles
  • Search 500+ Articles
    • Overview of Patent Process
      • Patent process timeline and major milestones
      • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
      • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
    • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
      • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
      • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
    • Benefits of a Patent Search
      • What is a patent search and How to do it?
    • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
    • USPTO Website
    • What is an NDA and when to use them?
    • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
    • Working with others without losing your IP rights
    • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
    • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
    • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
    • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
    • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
    • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
    • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
      • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
      • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
      • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
      • Benefits of Patent Protection
      • Best uses for design patents
    • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
      • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
      • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
    • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
      • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
    • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
      • What is a continuation patent application?
    • How to respond to an office action?
    • Request for non-publication of a patent application
    • Anatomy of a Patent Document
    • How to write a broad patent application?
    • Design patents: pros and cons
    • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
    • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
    • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
    • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
    • Cheap provisional patent applications
    • Patent infringement
      • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
      • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
      • Avoiding Patent Infringement
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
      • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
    • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
    • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
    • Overview of Office Actions
    • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
    • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
    • How to select a trademark?
      • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Info on Forms
        • What Forms to File with the USPTO When Submitting a Patent Application
        • Application Data Sheet
        • Nonpublication Request
        • Rescind Nonpublication Request
        • Declaration of Utility or Design Application
        • Provisional Patent Application Cover Sheet
        • Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
        • After Final Consideration Pilot Program
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent application process / Before filing a patent application / Different structure and function required for patent eligibility

Different structure and function required for patent eligibility

By James Yang · Updated February 14, 2023

Introduction

The AMP v. Myriad opinion discusses the eligibility of patent protection for genes. Although the opinion is directed to the eligibility of patent protection for genes, this opinion is also applicable to understanding how the Federal Circuit will apply Prometheus.

This opinion was decided by a fractured three-member panel. Although a majority was formed as to the eligibility of the claimed invention at issue, the reasons diverged on one or more of the issues. (see matrix below).

Eligibility for patent protection of cDNAs

All three circuit judges agreed that cDNAs, the method for screening potential cancer therapeutics are eligible for patent protection. The majority opinion cast a wide net as to what is eligible for patent protection. Any composition that has a different structure compared to what is found in nature is eligible for patent protection. The concurring and dissenting opinions held that only those compositions that have a different structure and a different function from what is found in nature are eligible for patent protection.

All three Circuit Judges agreed that the cDNAs at issue are eligible for patent protection because they have a different structure from the naturally occurring genes. These cDNAs have all of the introns removed and only contain the coding nucleotides. They are capable of expressing a protein in a cell that does not normally produce it.

Eligibility for patent protection of isolated DNA molecules

As for the isolated DNA molecule, Circuit judges Lourie and Moore held that the claims directed to isolated DNA molecules are eligible for patent protection. Circuit Judge Bryson dissented and would have held these claims ineligible for patent protection.

Circuit Judge Lourie looked solely at the structure of the claimed invention and decided that isolated DNA molecules are not found in nature. They are always found within the overall DNA molecule. Hence, eligible for patent protection.

Circuit Judge Moore agreed that the isolated DNA molecule is eligible but not for the same reason. Rather, Moore wanted to maintain the status quo since the PTO has been granting patents to these types of discoveries for a long time and the inventing community expected these types of discoveries to remain eligible for patent protection.

Moore also explained that but for the settled expectations of the inventing community, she would have held isolated DNA molecules ineligible for patent protection. Isolated DNA molecules are exactly the same as found in nature except for the cleaved covalent bonds on opposed ends of the gene are missing. They performed no new function as isolated DNA molecules.

Circuit Judge Bryson held that the settled expectations is not a good enough reason to include isolated DNA molecules within the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. He indicated that isolated DNA molecules contain the same information as that found naturally within the context of the whole DNA and did not have any unique function when isolated. They performed the same function.

Eligibility for patent protection of a method for screen potentially cancer therapeutics

All three Circuit Judges agreed that the method for screening potentially cancer therapeutics is also eligible for patent protection because the method steps were tied to use of a transformed host cell. In particular, the method claim recited the step of growing a host cell transformed with an altered gene.

Eligibility for patent protection of methods of comparing and analyzing sequences

All three circuit judges agreed that the methods of comparing and analyzing sequences are not eligible for patent protection. They are merely abstract mental steps.

Applicability of Mayo v. Prometheus

In coming to the various conclusions, all three opinions discussed the applicability of Mayo v. Prometheus. All three circuit judges agreed that Prometheus does not control the issue regarding eligibility of compositions of matter but does provide some guidance. More particularly, all three circuit judges agreed that application of the holding in Prometheus is directed to laws of nature embodied in a method claim, not compositions of matter.

According to Circuit Judge Lourie, Mayo provides insights and illuminate broad, foundational principles. Mayo is instructive regarding the scope of the law of nature exception which ought to apply equally to manifestations of nature or compositions said Circuit Judge Moore. Circuit Judge Bryson explained that Prometheus does not decide this case but is instructive. The instant opinion is important to the broader question of how will the Federal Circuit apply Prometheus in analyzing patent eligible subject matter issues.

Holding of Association for Molecular Pathology v. PTO

The circuit judges also discussed their understanding of prior Supreme Court precedent controlling issues related to patent eligibility of compositions of matter, namely, Funk and Chakrabarty. Although all three Circuit Judges discussed Funk and Chakrabarty, two of the three came to the conclusion that compositions of matter must be structurally different from what is found in nature and have a different function as a general rule. One of the circuit judges held that only a different structure is required. Isolated DNA molecules were held to be eligible for patent protection due to the settled expectations of the inventing community.

Based on the underlying reasons explained by the Circuit Judges, compositions of matter having a different structure and different function compared to what is found in nature is eligible for patent protection. If the structure of the new composition is different from what is found in nature but does not have a significant new function, then in my opinion, it does not appear to be eligible for patent protection unless denying eligibility would interfere with the settled expectations of the inventing community.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900 or [email protected]. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. Since 2004, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

4 steps in the patent process
Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs
Four types of intellectual property
Selling an idea without a patent
How to check if a product is patented

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our offices in Irvine and Anaheim, California, we serve clients throughout Orange County, Los Angeles, Long Beach, the Inland Empire (e.g. Corona and Temecula), and throughout SoCal.

© 2026 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney