Summary: Products of cloning method are not eligible for patent protection because Roslin did not create or alter any of the genetic information of its claimed clones, nor did Roslin create or alter the genetic structure of the DNA used to makes its clones.

Case: In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), No. 2013-1407 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Before Dyk, Moore, and Wallach.

Procedural Posture: Appellant appealed Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that application claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CAFC affirmed.

  • Patent Eligibility (Section 101): Using the word “clone” in the claim does not make the claim eligible for patent protection because a clone is merely an exact genetic replica of another mammal and does not possess markedly different characteristics from any other mammals found in nature. The application’s main idea involved preserving donor DNA so the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which a somatic cell was taken.