Whether the two-step Alice/Mayo framework governs the eligibility of patents allegedly directed to natural phenomena

QUESTION PRESENTED In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), this Court established a two-step “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (emphasis added). Consistent with that authority, the Federal Circuit had until recently applied the Alice/Mayo framework to evaluate the eligibility of patents allegedly directed to any of the three patent-ineligible concepts, including natural phenomena. See Natural Alternatives Intl, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2019). But the panel below broke with that precedent and created a split within the Federal Circuit. It saw no need to apply Alice/Mayo in the natural phenomena context, and instead applied a different standard derived from Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), which omits consideration of whether a patent involves an “inventive concept.” The question presented is: Whether the two-step Alice/Mayo framework governs the eligibility of patents allegedly directed to natural phenomena.