Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?

Five years later, what are the wider impacts of the US Supreme Court's Myriad decision on subject-matter eligibility and patent prosecution for nature-based products beyond isolated DNA?

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Study results.


  1. 1

    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

  2. 2

    Schor, G.A., Norviel, V. & Cohen, I.G. Brief for amicus curiae Eric S. Lander in support of neither party (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Gold, R.E., Cook-Deegan, R. & Bubela, T. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 192ed9 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Dilenge, T. et al. Brief for amicus curiae The Biotechnology Industry Organization in support of respondents (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Rai, A.K. & Cook-Deegan, R. Science 341, 137–138 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Sachs, R. UC Davis Law Rev. 49, 1881–1940 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980).

  8. 8

    Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 68 S. Ct. 440 (1948).

  9. 9

    Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

  10. 10

    Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

  11. 11

    USPTO. 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-08.2017]

  12. 12

    In Re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (2014).

  13. 13

    Rai, A.K. & Sherkow, J.S. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 292–294 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Sherkow, J.S. & Greely, H.T. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49, 161–182 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Burk, D.L. Notre Dame Law Rev. 90, 505–542 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Tallmadge, E.H. Harv. J. Law Technol. 30, 569–600 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Woessner, W.D. in Patents4Life (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Luo, C. & Goldstein, J. in Bloomberg BNA – Life Sciences Law & Industry Report (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Aboy, M., Liddell, K., Liddicoat, J. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 1119–1123 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Aboy, M., Liddicoat, J., Liddell, K., Jordan, M. & Crespo, C. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 820–825 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 325 ALR 100 (2015).

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateo Aboy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text

Supplementary Data and Methods (PDF 633 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aboy, M., Crespo, C., Liddell, K. et al. Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?. Nat Biotechnol 36, 1146–1149 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing