DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
79-136
Petitioner 
Diamond
Respondent 
Chakrabarty
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

After genetically engineering a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, Ananda Chakrabarty sought to patent his creation under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101, providing patents for people who invent or discover "any" new and useful "manufacture" or "composition of matter." On appeal from an application rejection by a patent examiner the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed, stating that living things are not patentable under Section 101. When this decision was reversed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Diamond appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question 

Is the creation of a live, human-made organism patentable under Title 35 U.S.C. Section 101?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Chakrabarty, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 35 U.S.C. 101

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court explained that while natural laws, physical phenomena, abstract ideas, or newly discovered minerals are not patentable, a live artificially-engineered microorganism is. The creation of a bacterium that is not found anywhere in nature, constitutes a patentable "manufacture" or "composition of matter" under Section 101. Moreover, the bacterium's man-made ability to break down crude oil makes it very useful.

Cite this Page
DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_136>.
DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_136 (last visited September 14, 2014).
"DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed September 14, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_136.