Intellectual property protection for plant innovation: Unresolved issues after J.E.M. v. Pioneer Although the US Supreme Court upheld the patent eligibility of plants, issues remain concerning the decision's implementation and other forms of plant IP protection.

. J.E.M. lost on this argument in the trial court and lost again at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but persuaded the Supreme Court to grant review. In its 6-2 decision (Justice O'Connor abstaining), the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rul- ings. The case has now been returned to the trial court and is proceeding towards eventual trial or settlement. J.E.M. in the Supreme Court Justice Thomas' opinion in J.E.M. offered two principal rationales to support the con- clusion that the utility patent statute autho- rizes patent grants for plants. First, Justice Thomas noted that the language of the rele- vant statutory provision—§101 of Title 35 of the US Code—was "extremely broad." According to Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court had already established the "broad scope and applicability" of §101 in its famous Chakrabarty decision 3