Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Citation and Court
447 U.S. 303 (1980), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Ananda Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, developed a genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil — a feature useful for treating oil spills. No naturally occurring bacterium possessed this characteristic. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the patent application on the ground that living organisms are not patentable subject matter.
Issue
Whether a living, human-made microorganism constitutes patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Holding
The Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the genetically engineered bacterium is patentable subject matter because it is a product of human ingenuity and research, not a product of nature.
Rule / Doctrine
Section 101 of the Patent Act extends to “anything under the sun that is made by man.” The relevant distinction for patentability is not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature — whether living or not — and human-made inventions. A genetically engineered organism with new and useful characteristics not found in nature is a patentable manufacture or composition of matter.
Significance
Diamond v. Chakrabarty opened the door to patents on genetically modified organisms and biotechnological inventions, transforming the biotechnology industry. It is contrasted with Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which later held that merely isolating naturally occurring DNA does not create patentable subject matter.