Diamond v. Chakrabarty

447 U.S. 303 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Chakrabarty (P), a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to P'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.' This human-made, genetically engineered bacterium is capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, P's invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills. The patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria; second, claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water, such as straw, and the new bacteria; and third, claims to the bacteria themselves. The patent examiner allowed the claims falling into the first two categories, but rejected claims for the bacteria. His decision rested on two grounds: (1) that micro-organisms are 'products of nature,' and (2) that as living things they are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. P appealed the rejection of these claims to the Patent Office Board of Appeals, and the Board affirmed the examiner on the second ground. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, by a divided vote, reversed. That court also later reaffirmed in light of Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).' 438 U.S. 902 (1978). The appeals court reversed. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks again sought certiorari, and we granted the writ as to both Bergy, and P. Bergy has been dismissed as moot.