Diamond v. Chakrabarty | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued March 17, 1980 Decided June 16, 1980 | |
Full case name | Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al. |
Citations | 447 U.S. 303 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Application of Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979); cert. granted, 444 U.S. 924 (1979) |
Holding | |
Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability. Decision of the Court of Customs & Patent Appeals affirmed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Burger, joined by Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Powell |
Laws applied | |
Patent Act of 1952, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 101 |
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether living organisms can be patented. Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger held that human-made bacteria could be patented under the patent laws of the United States because such an invention constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". Justice William J. Brennan Jr., along with Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling, arguing that because Congress had not expressly authorized the patenting of biological organisms, the Court should not extend patent law to cover them.
In the decades since the Court's ruling, the case has been recognized as a landmark case for U.S. patent law, with industry and legal commentators identifying it as a turning point for the biotechnology industry.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search