## Facts

- Ananda Chakrabarty, a genetic engineer, developed a genetically modified *Pseudomonas* bacterium capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil, a capacity not found in naturally occurring bacteria.
- Chakrabarty filed a patent application with claims covering (1) processes for producing the bacterium, (2) an inoculum containing the bacterium, and (3) the bacterium itself.
- The patent examiner allowed the process and inoculum claims but rejected the claims to the bacterium on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (and treating the organism as a product of nature).
- The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the rejection, reasoning that living organisms fall outside § 101.
- The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the organism’s being alive was legally irrelevant where the claimed microorganism was human-made.
- The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether a live, human-made microorganism qualifies as a patentable “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. Whether living organisms are categorically excluded from § 101 regardless of human engineering.
3. Whether plant-specific federal statutes imply congressional intent to exclude microorganisms from § 101.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that a live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under § 101.
- The Court concluded that the claimed bacterium was a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter and that its being alive did not bar patentability.
- The Court rejected the argument that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 and the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 limited § 101 by implication.
- The dissent would have required clearer congressional authorization before extending patent protection to living organisms.

## Legal Principles

- Section 101 is written broadly; “manufacture” and “composition of matter” extend to human-made inventions within those classes.
- Patentable subject matter excludes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, but not nonnaturally occurring products of human ingenuity with distinct characteristics and uses.
- A claim directed to a human-engineered organism is not barred as a “product of nature” when the claimed subject matter is not merely discovered but created with new properties.
- Related, more specific statutory schemes for plants do not, without clear evidence, narrow the general scope of § 101 for other biological inventions.
- Policy concerns about risks and ethics of biotechnology do not authorize courts to narrow unambiguous statutory language; such matters are for the political branches.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 101 permits patents on living, human-made microorganisms because they fall within the statutory categories of “manufacture” or “composition of matter” and are not excluded merely because they are alive.


Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)