|
|
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
Diamond v. Chakrabarty No. 79-136 Argued March 17, 1980 Decided June 16, 1980 447 U.S. 303
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS
AND PATENT APPEALS
Syllabus
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." Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner’s rejection of the patent application’s claims for the new bacteria was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under § 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law.
Held: A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under § 101. Respondent’s micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute. Pp. 308-318.
(a) In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress contemplated that the patent laws should be given wide scope, and the relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, respondent’s 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." Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, distinguished. Pp. 308-310.
(b) The passage of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, and the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection, does not evidence congressional understanding that the terms "manufacture" or "composition of matter" in § 101 do not include living things. Pp. 310-314.
(c) Nor does the fact that genetic technology was unforeseen when Congress enacted § 101 require the conclusion that micro-organisms cannot qualify as patentable subject matter until Congress expressly authorizes such protection. The unambiguous language of § 101 fairly embraces respondent’s invention. Arguments against patentability under § 101, based on potential hazards that may be generated by genetic research, should be addressed to the Congress and the Executive, not to the Judiciary. Pp. 314-318.
596 F.2d 952, affirmed.
BURGER, C J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 318.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) in 447 U.S. 303 447 U.S. 304–447 U.S. 305. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FWZ9WPPYAILESQL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), in 447 U.S. 303, pp. 447 U.S. 304–447 U.S. 305. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FWZ9WPPYAILESQL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). cited in 1980, 447 U.S. 303, pp.447 U.S. 304–447 U.S. 305. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FWZ9WPPYAILESQL.
|