“The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” wrote Judge Alan D. Lourie, who was in the majority. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity.”
The company urged the justices not to hear the case, saying that the “isolated molecules” at issue “were created by humans, do not occur in nature and have new and significant utilities not found in nature.” It has long been settled, the company’s brief went on, that “the human ingenuity required to create isolated DNA molecules” is worthy of encouragement and that its fruits are worthy of protection.
This is a case of moving the goal posts. Yes the "isolated" DNA molecules are not found in nature, however they would be found in nature as part of the DNA of the person in question. It is entirely accurate that a laboratory would be needed to isolate that DNA sequence from DNA in general, however that sequence would be already part of the original DNA.
What they seem to be trying to do is patent a naturally occurring sequence of matter. Which makes no sense. Yes scientists were needed to discover the exact meaning of that sequence, but the sequence itself occurs naturally. I suppose they could deny others access to their information on the exact nature of the sequence, but that would basically screw everyone over including themselves as they would be unable to use that information without revealing it.
That said though, Patent and copyright laws care somewhat screwed up these days so it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to patent H2O.
