District Court Rules DNA Analysis Claims Reciting Mathematical Algorithms Ineligible Under § 101

Oct 26, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

The Cybergenetics patents at issue—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,898,021 and 9,708,642—describe a variation of a traditional method of identifying an individual based on a DNA sample. The traditional method uses “PCR (polymerase chain reaction) amplification” to transform the DNA sample into data that are unique to an individual and thus can be used to identify that individual. The method is not useful, however, when the sample contains DNA from multiple sources because the transformed data are “mixed” and do not correspond to one individual.

The patents address that problem by employing what they call “deconvolution”—a process that accounts for multiple individuals in a DNA sample by “calculating the variance of the DNA data produced by PCR amplification and accounting for that variance in subsequent probability calculations.” The probability calculations “predict the identity of an individual in the sample and calculate the likelihood that the prediction is correct.” In other words, the patented methods determine the likelihood that a given individual’s DNA is contained in a sample instead of merely identifying one individual.

Cybergenetics asserted several claims of these patents against the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, and NicheVision Inc., based on their alleged use of “deconvolution” technology. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss after determining that the asserted claims fail both steps of the Alice framework.

Under step one, the court explained that the Cybergenetics claims “recite mathematical algorithms to produce a numerical output as the entirety of the method.” In particular, the claimed “deconvolution” process “describes the process of calculating a variance (a numerical result) and then accounting for that variance in subsequent statistical calculations (also numerical results).” The court further explained that the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have repeatedly held that mathematical algorithms are examples of abstract ideas. It then found that the use of algorithms is “⁠[t]he only difference between” conventional methods and the claimed methods, further showing that the claims are “directed to” such abstract ideas.

The court rejected Cybergenetics’ argument that the asserted claims were akin to those analyzed in the Federal Circuit’s Thales, McRO and CardioNet cases in which claims survived Alice challenges despite reciting mathematical algorithms. The court explained that the mathematical algorithms in those cases “were used as part of a non-mathematical process” (emphasis added). For example, in Thales, a mathematical algorithm and its result were used “to track the position and orientation of [an] object.” In McRO, an algorithm was used to “generate a tangible product, namely a video of a 3-D character speaking [] recorded audio.” And in CardioNet, the claims improved the operation of a cardiac monitoring machine, albeit through the use of an algorithm. Unlike in those cases, “the numerical result” in the Cybergenetics claims is the claimed “improvement,” and the numerical result is not used for any “non-mathematical process.”

Under step two, the court explained that the Cybergenetics claims fail to recite an “inventive concept” because they do not recite any “elements other than the computation of mathematical algorithms and reporting the numerical results.” Specifically, some claims merely recite mathematical algorithms, some recite a generic computer that calculates the mathematical algorithms (or merely display the results of such calculations) and some recite the conventional step of using “PCR amplification” to transform a DNA sample into data. According to the court, all three categories of claims “capture patent-ineligible ideas.” 

The court rejected the argument that the “inventive concept” is a specific application of a mathematical technique to “computer-based DNA analysis” or to “probabilistic genotyping.” As the court explained, “[c]ourts have consistently rejected finding a claim provides an inventive concept simply because it is limited ‘to one field of use.’”

Practice Tip: After six years, courts continue to use Alice to dismiss patent claims directed to so-called “abstract ideas.” The Cybergenetics case demonstrates the fine line between claims that are directed to a mathematical algorithm—one of the few things the higher courts have specifically identified as an “abstract idea”—and claims that merely use them. When possible, patentees should draft claims (and specifications) in a way that emphasizes tangible improvements even when achieving such improvements requires using a mathematical algorithm. By the same token, defendants should consider attacking any patent claims that rely on a mathematical algorithm, and they should try to characterize that algorithm as the focus of the patent and the claims. The Cybergenetics case will certainly be one worth monitoring on appeal (if there is one) to see if the Federal Circuit agrees with the district court’s analysis.

Cybergenetics Corp. v. Institute of Environmental Science and Research, 5:19-cv-1197 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 29, 2020) (Lioi, J.)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.