Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealpatent
statuteappealpatentrespondent

Related Cases

Steinway & Sons v. Robert Demars & Friends, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1981 WL 40530, 210 U.S.P.Q. 954
View Case »
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 N.J. 488, 453 A.2d 527
View Case »
Campbell v. Thompson, 40 A.D.2d 764, 336 N.Y.S.2d 1003 (Mem)
View Case »
Bullis v. Schmidt, 5 Wis.2d 457, 93 N.W.2d 476
View Case »
In re Brown’s Estate, 22 Cal.App.2d 480, 71 P.2d 345
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144, 206 U.S.P.Q. 193

Facts

In 1972, microbiologist Chakrabarty filed a patent application for a genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property not found in naturally occurring bacteria. The patent examiner rejected the claims for the bacteria, asserting that living things are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed this rejection, but the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the fact that microorganisms are alive is legally insignificant for patent law purposes.

In 1972, respondent Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to Chakrabarty's invention of 'a bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.'

Issue

Is a live, human-made microorganism patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

We granted certiorari to determine whether a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Rule

35 U.S.C. § 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers 'any' new and useful 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter.'

Title 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers 'any' new and useful 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter.'

Analysis

The Court applied the broad language of § 101, interpreting 'manufacture' and 'composition of matter' to include human-made microorganisms. It distinguished between products of nature and human-made inventions, concluding that Chakrabarty's bacterium was a product of human ingenuity and thus patentable. The Court emphasized that the legislative history supported a broad interpretation of patentable subject matter, allowing for the inclusion of living organisms created through human intervention.

Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity 'having a distinctive name, character [and] use.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, holding that Chakrabarty's genetically engineered bacterium is patentable subject matter under § 101.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is Affirmed.

Who won?

Chakrabarty prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that his invention met the criteria for patentability under the statute, emphasizing the broad scope intended by Congress.

Chakrabarty prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that his invention met the criteria for patentability under the statute, emphasizing the broad scope intended by Congress.

You must be