The appellant had cited the recent US Supreme Court decision for comparison. The High Court was also aware that its decision could conflict with recent judicial decisions, as well as patents legislation, in other countries, and possibly with Australia's international obligations; however, it considered these to be issues for the legislature, as well as denying that its decision in this case was intended to set a precedent with regard to genetic patenting generally. In addition, the rest of the court did not dissent from Gordon J's concluding observation: "It is important to notice that the claims made in the patents in suit in the United States of America considered in "Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc" 186 L Ed 2d 124 (2013) were claims to the particular genetic sequences and therefore radically different from the disputed claims in this appeal" (note 232).