Facts

Ananda Chakrabarty, a microbiologist filed claims for a genetically modified human-made bacterium that could break up multiple crude oil components. It is supposed to have considerable value in the treatment of oil discharges because of its properties. The patent claims of Chakrabarty were of three kinds:

1. Process claims on bacterial processing methods
2. Composition of bacteria, their carriers, and the slurry bacteria

3.Claims about the bacteria themselves.

The Patent Examiner permitted claims in the first two categories, but denied claims in the third category on two grounds: firstly that the micro-organisms are “products of nature”; secondly that they are not patentable subject-matter as they are living objects, according to § 101 of Title 35 USA.

The Board of Appeals of the Patent Office upheld and ruled that the subject of living objects under Section 101 cannot be patented. This opinion has been overturned by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, arguing that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is not important in the sense of patent law. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents, sought certiorari against the Court of appeals in the United States Supreme Court.

Issue

1. The important issue before the Court was whether the patentable subject matter is specifically defined as the micro-organism of the respondent?
2. Whether the micro-organism of the respondents constitutes a development or composition of matter within the context of the law (Under title 35 U.S.C., Section 101)?

Law Applicable

Title 35 USC Section 101 which provides “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, the machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent, therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

Judgement

According to the view of the Supreme Court the expressions “manufacture” and “composition of matter” are interpreted to address the wide scope of patent laws, particularly in combination with the extensive “any” in Section 101. “Manufacturing,” by giving these materials new types, characteristics, properties, or combinations either by handwork or mechanical means, shall mean the production of products for use in the manufacture of raw or prepared materials (American Fruit Growers. Inc., v. Brodgex Co., 283 U.S. 1,11 (1931). In Shell Production Co. v. Watson, 149 F Supp. 279, 280 (DC 1957) it was held that ‘Composition of Matter’: is to include ‘all compositions of the two or more substances and … all combinable articles, be it the products of chemical union, be they mechanical mixture or be gas, fluid, powder or solid.’

The Court considers that the micro-organism of the respondent is a patentable subject in the light of these broad meanings since it is not an unknown natural phenomenon but an unnatural fabrication or composition of the material and therefore a result of human creativity. It is a patentable subject. In this sense, the court has differentiated in yet another case in which the subject matter at hand was a natural occurrence (Funk Brothers Seed Co. c. Kalo Inoculant Co).

Also, the Court dismissed the appellant’s contention in that it held that the patent protection affording certain asexually reproduced plants had been granted by The Plant Patent Act, 1930; and the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, which allowed protection for certain asexual plants but excluded the protection of bacteria. This claim was challenged in the explanation that the distinction made in the Plant Patent Act was not between living things and inanimates but between natural products, whether alive or not, and inventions made by humans. In addition to this, real reproduction was possible under the Plant Variety Protection Act, and thus plant patent protection was sufficient for this reason. Nothing in §101 is justified in reading the exclusion of bacteria.

It was not expected that genetic technologies would be unforeseen by the Congress, thus, until it could be given, and that Congress should specifically authorize security. This claim has been dismissed with the defined interpretive processes, which are the standards for the legislative history and legal purposes of the current laws. On 16 June 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a live, human-made micro-organism is patentable under Section 101 and that it constitutes micro-organisms within its scope of a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” (pp. 447 United States 308-318). On 31 March 1981, the patent was granted.