Sorry you asked? , and the battles over patent-eligibility.

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk changed dramatically when the US Supreme Court handed down unanimous rulings in (2012) and (2013). Those decisions struck down claims to methods based on 'laws of nature' () and DNA molecules corresponding to sequences found in nature (). Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced legislation that would abrogate those decisions and specify narrow statutory exclusions to patent-eligibility in §101 of the US Patent Act. What would be the consequences of doing so? The Supreme Court decisions coincided with changes in how genetic tests were performed, reimbursed and regulated. Multi-gene sequencing supplanted oligo-gene testing as the cost of sequencing dropped 10,000-fold. Payers dramatically changed reimbursement practices. Food and Drug Administration regulation was proposed and remains in prospect. Databases for clinical interpretation made data freely available, augmenting a knowledge commons. The spectacular implosion of Theranos tempered investment in molecular diagnostics. These factors all complicate explanations of why venture capital funding for molecular diagnostics dropped relative to other sectors. Restoring patent-eligibility would put renewed pressure on other patent doctrines, such as obviousness, enablement and written description, that were not raised in the Supreme Court cases.