US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented (2013)
bbc.com
bbc.com
The cDNA part baffled me and many molecular biologists I know back then (and still does). I tend to think that either 1) the court didn't understand the science or 2) they did but were unwilling to destroy an industry so they found a loophole.
Still, that's like saying "A zip file can't be copyrighted, but whoever manages to copy the contents once it's been decoded by a third party can copyright the contents." The judgement does not seem to understand that cDNA libraries could be constructed relatively trivially nowadays with hardly a creative thought, with apologies to those who earned their postgraduate degrees doing such a thing.
That's like saying "I chopped off a branch of a tree, therefore I can patent the branch of the tree because I 'isolated' it."