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

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of
products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal
of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims
were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an
attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of
the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug
product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
the related statutory context.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition
challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged
claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to
invalidate claims in district court.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s
later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s
patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory
forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.
...

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.