Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Property

PropertyPatentable subject matterBiotechnology35 U.S.C. § 101patent lawmanufacturecomposition of matterliving organisms

Facts

Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, sought a patent on a genetically engineered Pseudomonas bacterium containing multiple stable plasmids that enabled it to break down multiple components of crude oil. The bacterium was human-made and had characteristics not possessed by any naturally occurring bacteria. The patent examiner allowed process claims and claims to an inoculum containing the bacteria, but rejected the claims to the bacteria themselves. The rejection was based on the view that micro-organisms are products of nature and that living things are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Issue

Whether a live, human-made micro-organism constitutes a patentable "manufacture" or "composition of matter" under 35 U.S.C. § 101. More specifically, the question was whether respondent's genetically engineered bacterium falls within the statute's patentable subject matter.

Rule

Section 101 is to be construed broadly. Subject matter is patentable if it is a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter made by man, unless it is a law of nature, physical phenomenon, or abstract idea; a nonnaturally occurring organism with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature qualifies as patentable subject matter.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a laboratory in San Diego, Dr. Elena Voss engineers a yeast strain by inserting a set of stable genetic elements so the strain can digest a synthetic industrial solvent that no naturally occurring yeast can metabolize. She seeks a patent on the yeast itself, not just on the method used to create it.

Is the yeast most likely patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Explanation. Section 101 is construed broadly to include any new and useful manufacture or composition of matter made by man, subject to the exclusions for laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. A living organism is not barred merely because it is alive. If, as here, the claimed yeast is human-made, nonnaturally occurring, and has markedly different characteristics from anything found in nature, it falls within § 101.