I just read through it and the title to this post and to the article are misleading. From what I can tell, the SC ruled that DNA or cDNA (which includes mRNA) CANNOT be patented since the cDNA is identical to naturally-occurring DNA.
"We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent
eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material."
“Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18.”
I just read through it and the title to this post and to the article are misleading. From what I can tell, the SC ruled that DNA or cDNA (which includes mRNA) CANNOT be patented since the cDNA is identical to naturally-occurring DNA.
"We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material."
Page 2:
“Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18.”