Diamond v.

Chakrabarty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented. Background
Genetic engineer Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, working for General Electric, had developed a bacterium (derived from the Pseudomonas genus) capable of breaking down crude oil, which he proposed to use in treating oil spills. He requested a patent for the bacterium in the United States but was turned down by a patent examiner, because the law dictated that living things were not patentable. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences agreed with the original decision; however, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the case in Chakrabarty's favor, writing that "the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law." Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980.

Decision
In a 54 ruling, the court ruled in favor of Chakrabarty, and upheld the patent, holding that: A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute.

Ruling
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the decision, and was joined by Potter Stewart, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and John Paul Stevens. Burger wrote that the question before the court was a narrow onethe interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 101, which says: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful

improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." He wrote that: We have cautioned that courts "should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed." United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp, 289 U.S. 178 (1933). Regarding the scope of the original legislation, he wrote: In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope. Finding that Congress had intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man," he concluded that: Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is ... to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of mattera product of human ingenuity.