SCOTUS struck down patents on naturally occurring gene sequences themselves and decided that the "mere isolation" thereof cannot be patented: https://en.wikipe

SCOTUS struck down patents on naturally occurring gene sequences themselves and decided that the "mere isolation" thereof cannot be patented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Patholog... However, "artificial" sequences can be. I'm not aware of any test cases that establish boundaries on the difference though. It would be logical to assume you'd have to alter the nucleotide sequence to the extent that the resulting peptide or protein is not naturally occurring (e.g. changing a TTT codon to TTC wouldn't suffice, since both will ultimately be translated into phenylalanine). Contrary to this reasoning, complementary DNA is patentable in the US on the grounds that it's "not naturally occurring". So, if you take the mRNA corresponding to an un-patentable DNA sequence and mix it with a few enzymes and nucleotides that react in a deterministic fashion, you can then patent the sequence of the final product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_DNA In a gross oversimplification, it's almost as if the court said: "you can't patent natural English words, but you can patent the ROT13 versions of them". But regarding methods, the majority opinion clearly said they're fair game (just as you can't patent gold, but you could patent a novel approach to mining or extracting it) and there are several valid examples in the US today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patents_in_the_United_States#Gene_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patents_in_the_Unit...