Clones Not Patent-Eligible?

by Robins Kaplan LLP

          Thanks to recent advances in cloning technology, treating degenerative diseases with replacement tissue that matches a patient’s genetic makeup exactly is no longer science fiction. Just last month, for example, two research groups reported successfully generating embryonic stem cells using nuclei from adult patients.[1] Of course the road between basic research and a successful therapy that can be used in patients is a long, expensive, and unpredictable one, with no guarantees that one will even arrive at the desired destination.  Consequently, companies investing in this type of research have often relied on patent protection to ensure an upside to making the long term investment risks. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Myriad Genetics case,[2] however, patent protection in the biotechnology space has become less certain.

           In Myriad Genetics, the Court held that under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible” even if it is claimed in an “isolated” form.[3] The rationale of the Myriad Genetics case is not limited to nucleic acid inventions, but generally applicable to anything found in the natural world. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), for example, issued new guidelines for examiners in March, instructing that when claims are directed to a law of nature or a natural product, they are ineligible for protection unless they recite something “significantly different” than is found in nature.[4]  In particular, eligibility will turn on whether the claims include elements that impose meaningful limits on their scope, recite a particular application or use, include a particular machine or transformative step, or add an element that is “more” than something that is routine or well understood.[5] On May 8, 2014, the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting all of the Roslin Institute’s pending claims on clones on § 101 grounds. The Roslin Institute’s most famous clone is undoubtedly Dolly the sheep, the first animal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell in the mid-1990s.

Exemplary claims at issue in this case are below:

155.     A live-born clone of a pre-existing, nonembryonic, donor mammal, wherein the mammal is selected from cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats.

164. The clone of any of claims 155-159, wherein the donor mammal is non-foetal.[6]

            Under current PTO examination guidelines, an examiner would be hard pressed to find anything in the claims that would render a cloned animal “significantly different” than naturally-occurring animal from which it is derived.     

            Roslin’s “chief innovation” of sufficiently preserving donor DNA worked to its disadvantage in the patent context. By definition, a clone is genetically identical to its donor, so cannot “possess ‘markedly different characteristics from any [farm animal] found in nature.’”[7]  And there is no dispute that a donor animal is not the handiwork of man, but of Nature herself.

            Anyone is “free to copy any unpatentable article, such as a live farm animal, so long as they do not infringe a patented method of copying.”[8] Roslin had not, in these applications, claimed a particular process for generating clones, but had claimed the clones themselves. As a result, it could not recoup its investment in the painstaking work that had been required to generate a clone in the first place.

            At oral argument in February, Roslin argued that there are phenotypic differences inherent between a clone and its donor that arise inevitably as a result of the steps required to generate the clone.[9] Moreover, any clone is time-shifted relative to its donor.[10] Neither argument was persuasive to Judges Dyk, Moore or Wallach, because, critically, the language of the claims did not capture those distinctions.[11]

            The panel also rejected Roslin’s argument that a clone is different from its naturally occurring donor because while they possess identical nuclear DNA, they differ in regard to their source of mitochondrial DNA. A clone’s mitochondrial DNA comes not from the somatic donor cell, but from a different animal’s oocyte.  Again, however, Roslin’s arguments hinged on unclaimed distinctions, and were not sufficient to preserve their claims.[12]

            The good news is that the Federal Circuit left the door open, just a bit, to allow for the patenting of clones. “[H]aving the same nuclear DNA as the donor mammal may not necessarily result in patent ineligibility in every case. Here, however, the claims do not describe clones that have markedly different characteristics from the donor animals of which they are copies.”[13] It will be interesting to see what sort of creative claim drafting this opening prompts, and whether claiming the types of distinctions identified by Roslin results in claims that meet the (likely evolving) standard for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1).[14]

            Regardless, patent practitioners, the PTO and the courts will continue to grapple with the edicts of Supreme Court decisions, like Myriad Genetics, that affect the scope of eligible subject matter under the patent laws.

[1] Baker, M., Stem cells made by cloning adult humans, Nature News (April 28, 2014) (

[2] Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., 133 S. Ct. ___, 2119 (2012), slip op. at 1.

[3] Id.

[4] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: March 2014 Update, at 31.

[5] Id. at 34.

[6] In re Roslin Institute, 2013-1407 (Fed. Cir.) (May 8, 2014), slip op. at 3.

[7] In re Roslin Institute, slip op. at 7, citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980).

[8] In re Roslin Institute, slip op. at 8, citing Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 232-33 (1964) (drawing an analogy to the public’s ability to freely enjoy patented technology once a patent had expired).

[9] In re Roslin Institute, No. 2013-1407, Oral Argument (Feb. 5, 2014), Tr. at 14:45-14:50.

[10] Id.

[11] In re Roslin Institute, slip op. at 9.

[12] Id., slip op. at 10-11.

[13] Id., slip op. at 11.

[14] Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 715 F.3d 891 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. granted, (U.S. Jan. 10, 2014) No. 13-369 (addressing the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard for indefiniteness); In re Packard, No. 2013-1204 (Fed. Cir.) (May 6, 2014), slip op. at 10, 13 (affirming the PTO’s determination of indefiniteness under a “reasonable precision” standard).



DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.