Briefs of amici curiae were filed by William I. Cornish, pro se. We granted certiorari to determine whether a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U. In , respondent Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to Chakrabarty's invention of "a bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.
Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, Chakrabarty's invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills. Chakrabarty's patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria; [] second, claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water, such as straw, and the new bacteria; and third, claims to the bacteria themselves.
The patent examiner allowed the claims falling into the first two categories, but rejected claims for the bacteria. His decision rested on two grounds: 1 that micro-organisms are "products of nature," and 2 that as living things they are not patentable subject matter under 35 U. Chakrabarty appealed the rejection of these claims to the Patent Office Board of Appeals, and the Board affirmed the examiner on the second ground. Flook, U. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals then vacated its judgment in Chakrabarty and consolidated the case with Bergy for reconsideration.
After re-examining both cases in the light of our holding in Flook, that court, with one dissent, reaffirmed its earlier judgments. Since then, Bergy has been dismissed as moot, U. The Constitution grants Congress broad power to legislate to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The patent laws promote this progress by offering inventors exclusive rights for a limited period as an incentive for their inventiveness and research efforts.
Kewanee Oil Co. Bicron Corp. Globe Co. The authority of Congress is exercised in the hope that "[t]he productive effort thereby fostered will have a positive effect on society through the introduction of new products and processes of manufacture into the economy, and the emanations by way of increased employment and better lives for our citizens.
The question before us in this case is a narrow one of statutory interpretation requiring us to construe 35 U. Specifically, we must determine whether respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the statute. In cases of statutory construction we begin, of course, with the language of the statute. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, U. And "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.
United States, U. We have also cautioned that courts "should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed. Dubilier Condenser Corp. Brogdex Co. Similarly, "composition of matter" has been construed consistent with its common usage to include "all compositions of two or more substances and.
Watson, F. In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope. The relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. The Patent Act of , authored by Thomas Jefferson, defined statutory subject matter as "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement [thereof].
The Act embodied Jefferson's philosophy that "ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement. See Graham v. John Deere Co. Subsequent patent statutes in , and employed this same broad language. In , when the patent laws were recodified, Congress replaced the word "art" with "process," but otherwise left Jefferson's language intact.
The Committee Reports accompanying the Act inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Benson, U. Kalo Inoculant Co. Morse, 15 How.
Tatham, 14 How. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Such discoveries are "manifestations of. Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter—a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and] [] use.
Wiegmann, U. The point is underscored dramatically by comparison of the invention here with that in Funk. There, the patentee had discovered that there existed in nature certain species of root-nodule bacteria which did not exert a mutually inhibitive effect on each other. He used that discovery to produce a mixed culture capable of inoculating the seeds of leguminous plants.
Concluding that the patentee had discovered "only some of the handiwork of nature," the Court ruled the product nonpatentable:. Here, by contrast, the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility.
The petitioner's first argument rests on the enactment of the Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, and the Plant [] Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection.
We reject this argument. We granted certiorari to determine whether a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.
In , respondent Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application, assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to Chakrabarty's invention of. This human-made, genetically engineered bacterium is capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil.
Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, Chakrabarty's invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills. Chakrabarty's patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria;. The patent examiner allowed the claims falling into the first two categories, but rejected claims for the bacteria. His decision rested on two grounds: 1 that micro-organisms are "products of nature," and 2 that, as living things, they are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.
Chakrabarty appealed the rejection of these claims to the Patent Office Board of Appeals, and the Board affirmed the examiner on the second ground. Flook, U. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals then vacated its judgment in Chakrabarty and consolidated the case with Bergy for reconsideration. After reexamining both cases in the light of our holding in Flook, that court, with one dissent, reaffirmed its earlier judgments. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks again sought certiorari, and we granted the writ as to both Bergy and Chakrabarty.
Since then, Bergy has been dismissed as moot, U. The patent laws promote this progress by offering inventors exclusive rights for a limited period as an incentive for their inventiveness and research efforts. Kewanee Oil Co. Bicron Corp. Globe Co. The authority of Congress is exercised in the hope that. Kewanee, supra, at U. The question before us in this case is a narrow one of statutory interpretation requiring us to construe 35 U.
Specifically, we must determine whether respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the statute. In cases of statutory construction we begin, of course, with the language of the statute. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, U. And "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.
United States, U. We have also cautioned that courts "should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed. Dubilier Condenser Corp. American Fruit Growers, Inc. Brogdex Co. Similarly, "composition of matter" has been construed consistent with its common usage to include. Shell Development Co. Watson, F. In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter," modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope.
The relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. The Patent Act of , authored by Thomas Jefferson, defined statutory subject matter as "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement [thereof]. The Act embodied Jefferson's philosophy that "ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement. See Graham v. John Deere Co. Subsequent patent statutes in , , and employed this same broad language.
In , when the patent laws were recodified, Congress replaced the word "art" with "process," but otherwise left Jefferson's language intact. The Committee Reports accompanying the Act inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man.
No , 82d Cong. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Benson, U. Morse , 15 How. Tatham , 14 How. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.
Such discoveries are "manifestations of. Judged in this light, respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter -- a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and].
The point is underscored dramatically by comparison of the invention here with that in Funk. There, the patentee had discovered that there existed in nature certain species of root nodule bacteria which did not exert a mutually inhibitive effect on each other.
He used that discovery to produce a mixed culture capable of inoculating the seeds of leguminous plants. Concluding that the patentee had discovered "only some of the handiwork of nature," the Court ruled the product nonpatentable:. No species acquires a different use. The combination of species produces no new bacteria, no change in the six species of bacteria, and no enlargement of the range of their utility.
Each species has the same effect it always had. The bacteria perform in their natural way. Their use in combination does not improve in any way their natural functioning. They serve the ends nature originally provided, and act quite independently of any effort of the patentee. Here, by contrast, the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, and one having the potential for significant utility.
The petitioner's first argument rests on the enactment of the Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, and the Plant. Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection.
We reject this argument. Prior to , two factors were thought to remove plants from patent protection. The first was the belief that plants, even those artificially bred, were products of nature for purposes of the patent law. This position appears to have derived from the decision of the Patent Office in Ex parte Latimer, Dec.
Here, by contrast, the patentee has produced a new bacterium with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature and one having the potential for significant utility. Chakrabarty thirty-three years ago today was instrumental in spurring the creation of a dynamic and flourishing biotech industry.
By finding that subject matter derived from nature is eligible for patenting if it is modified by man into something new, useful and unobvious, the Court provided assurance to biotech companies and their investors. This case has wide opened the scope of patentable subject matter. As from the averments made and the reasons put forwarded by the U. Supreme Court in this case, it has cleared all doubts as what can and cannot be patented. Thus, the court had taken a futuristic approach in understanding the developments that is yet to happen and provided assurance to inventors, investors and researcher to develop in the field by extending the scope of patent to a new level.
The decision in this case had a great impact, especially in biotechnology industry and in my view has been correctly decided which paved the way for further developments. Impact of the Decision: Shortly after Diamond vs. The patents for these innovations are limited only by the skill of the individuals drafting the claims.
Although there are moral and ethical issues involved in the manufacture of living things, patents themselves are not designed to address such issues.
The role of the Patent Office is to determine novelty and non- obviousness; issues of morality and ethics are best left to other organizations specifically tasked to deal with those issues. Although it is impossible to know whether biotechnology research and development would have been stunted had the Supreme Court ruled against the inventor in Chakrabarty yet, the decision in Chakrabarty surely provided companies in the nascent biotechnology industry with the needed incentives to invest in the production of new medical treatments and drug therapies, new and better diagnostic tools, and stronger and more disease-resistant crops.
It also emboldened the industry to seek patent protection on an ever-broadening range of technological advances. As biotechnology has progressed from the genetic manipulation of microorganisms to transgenic animals and human gene sequences, some religious and public interest groups who oppose the patenting of animal life forms on moral and ethical grounds have raised objections.
Yet, these issues have less to do with patent law than with defining the appropriate ethical limits on scientific development. Patenting of microorganisms: Systems and concerns By Ramkumar Nair.
Should genetically modified organisms be patentable? By Julian Lamont. Lifeform Patents: the high and the low By Mark Perry. Download PDF. Co-production practitioners network. US Military Manual Collection. They are usually available to the public at low cost or free electronically. Chakrabarty, resolved the matter by ruling that "a live human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter.
In recombinant insulin became the first product Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diamond Full case name: Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, v.
0コメント