Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Last updated

Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 17, 1980
Decided June 16, 1980
Full case nameSidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al.
Citations447 U.S. 303 ( more )
100 S. Ct. 2204; 65 L. Ed. 2d 144; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 112; 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193
Case history
PriorApplication 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
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens
DissentBrennan, 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.

Contents

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.

Background

Pseudomonas bacteria as seen in a petri dish. Pseudomonas aeruginosa 01.jpg
Pseudomonas bacteria as seen in a petri dish.

Genetic engineer Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, working for General Electric, developed a bacterium (derived from the Pseudomonas genus and now known as Pseudomonas putida ) capable of breaking down crude oil, which he proposed to use in treating oil spills. General Electric filed a patent application for the bacterium in the United States listing Chakrabarty as the inventor, [1] but the application was rejected by a patent examiner, because under patent law at that time, living things were generally understood to not be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. [2] [3]

General Electric and Chakrabarty appealed the examiner's decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board however agreed with the examiner that the bacterium was not patentable under current law. General Electric and Chakrabarty thereafter appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. This time, General Electric and Chakrabarty prevailed with the court overturning the examiner's decision and holding "the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law." The Patent Office, in the name of its Commissioner, Sidney A. Diamond, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. [3]

Supreme Court opinion

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who authored the majority opinion. Warren e burger photo.jpeg
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who authored the majority opinion.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument from the parties on March 17, 1980 and issued its decision on June 16, 1980. In a 5–4 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of Chakrabarty and affirmed the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. [4]

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger began by noting that 35 U.S.C. § 101 allowed inventors to obtain patents for a "manufacture" or "composition of matter". The majority noted that while these words indicated that Congress intended for the patent laws to be given a "broad scope", this scope was not unlimited and that, under the Court's precedents, "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas" were not patentable. However, the Court held that these precedents were inapplicable to Chakrabarty's case as he was not trying to patent a "natural phenomena" but rather a human-made bacterium that he, himself, had developed. [5] The majority contrasted this outcome with the one reached nearly 50 years prior in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. , where the Court had rejected a patent application for the discovery of a naturally occurring bacterium that could be used to improve crops. Unlike the patentee in Funk Bros., the Supreme Court here held that Chakrabarty had not merely discovered the bacteria's existence, he had created it himself and adapted it to a particular purpose. [3] [4]

Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who authored the dissenting opinion. William Brennan color.jpg
Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who authored the dissenting opinion.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell Jr., dissented from the Court's ruling. Looking at the legislative history of the patent laws, Justice Brennan concluded that Congress had demonstrated an intent to exclude living organisms from the scope of the country's patent laws. Justice Brennan also expressed concern that the Court was extending patent protections into areas not expressly authorized by Congress and that this constituted an inappropriate extension of monopoly patent power. [6] [4]

Impact

In the decades following the Supreme Court's ruling, commentators have classified Diamond v. Chakrabarty as an important legal decision, particularly with respect to the patent laws and the biotechnology industry. In 2018, Time identified the decision as one of 25 important moments in American history, with Professor Gerardo Con Diaz remarking that the decision allowed "inventors at private and public institutions alike to obtain patents for genetically modified organisms — from plants and animals for laboratory research, to many foods available in supermarkets today" and allowed biotechnology firms to protect their developments in new ways. [7] Writing for IP Watchdog on the decision's 30th anniversary, Gene Quinn called the decision a "turning point for the biotech industry" and praised the Court's ruling as "emblematic of the need for an expansive view of what is patentable subject matter." [8] Likewise, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization praised the decision as being "instrumental in spurring the creation of a dynamic and flourishing biotech industry." [8] Nature similarly noted that, at least according to industry participants, “without Diamond v. Chakrabarty, commercial biotechnology based on recombinant DNA technologies would not exist today.” [9]

However, the Supreme Court's ruling has also attracted some criticism from scholars who believe the Court extended patent law in a way that Congress did not authorize. Writing in the Ohio State Law Journal, Frank Darr criticized the Court's decision as containing "serious interpretive problems" and "reflect[ing] a policy choice" by the majority rather than a neutral legal analysis. [10]

Further criticisms

George Mason University's Center for Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy has pointed out that, in the wake of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the courts have continued to affirm the right of biotech industry developers to continue to claim ownership of altered biological life, while clarifying some limits in Mayo v. Prometheus and AMP v. Myriad. The Center has expressed concern over what may be interpreted as judicial activism, with this ambitious legal thrust in advance of Congressional ability to thoughtfully consider appropriate legislation. [11]

While cases subsequent to Chakrabarty have provided some safeguards, such as forbidding the patenting of "limited DNA sequences," concerns have arisen that these safeguards do not go far enough, and that "biopiracy" of the human genome could take place, especially in an era of global health crisis demanding a rapid pharmaceutical response. A legal collaboration at the University of Pittsburgh suggests that it "is a stretch" to label such presumptuous genomic editing as outright slavery. [12] However, as such editing in its most contemporary form may include the insertion of what has been termed by the industry as an entire "operating platform," concerns may continue. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

As with all utility patents in the United States, a biological patent provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention or discovery in biology for a limited period of time - for patents filed after 1998, 20 years from the filing date.

<i>Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser</i> Supreme Court of Canada decision

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Giles Rich</span> American judge

Giles Sutherland Rich was an associate judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) and later on was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and had enormous impact on patent law. He was the first patent attorney appointed to any federal court since Benjamin Robbins Curtis was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1851.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), was an important case decided by the United States Supreme Court that laid out a four-part test for determining when restrictions on commercial speech violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Powell wrote the opinion of the court. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. had challenged a Public Service Commission regulation that prohibited promotional advertising by electric utilities. Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens wrote separate concurring opinions, and the latter two were both joined by Justice Brennan. Justice Rehnquist dissented.

LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006), is the first case since Diamond v. Chakrabarty in which the U.S. Supreme Court indicated a renewed interest in examining the limits of patentable subject matter for advances in life sciences. Although the Court initially agreed to hear the case, it was later dismissed in 2006 with three Justices dissenting. The defendant's petition to the Supreme Court raised an issue not addressed in opinions from the lower courts: the claim at issue was directed to patent ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty</span> Bengali-American microbiologist (1938–2020)

Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, PhD was an Indian American microbiologist, scientist, and researcher, most notable for his work in directed evolution and his role in developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE, the patent for which led to landmark Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty.

In United States patent law, an article of manufacture is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented. The other three are a process, a machine, and a composition of matter. In United States patent law, that same terminology has been in use since the first patent act in 1790.

In United States patent law, a composition of matter is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented. The other three are a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture. In United States patent law, that same terminology has been in use since the first patent act in 1790.

The United States is the largest grower of commercial crops that have been genetically engineered in the world, but not without domestic and international opposition.

On 29 March 2010, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found several of the patent claims on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes held by Myriad Genetics to be invalid. The patents were initially issued on the basis that the genes were isolated and purified to a non-naturally occurring state, however the court found, amongst other things, that the purification was not markedly different from a product of nature and thus was not patentable. The ruling may have implications for holders of other gene patents and the patentability of other naturally occurring substances. It has the potential to directly affect the operation of the healthcare and medical research industries, particularly with regards to cancer treatment and prevention, and may alter the accessibility of such therapies to patients.

Chakrabarty is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

Banner Witcoff, Ltd. is an American law firm that specializes in the practice of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, computer franchise and unfair competition law. The firm engages in the procurement, enforcement and litigation of intellectual property rights throughout the world, including all federal and state agencies, and the distribution of such rights through leasing and franchising. The firm has approximately 125 attorneys and agents in its Chicago, IL; Washington, DC; Boston, MA; and Portland, OR offices.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material. The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a subject of debate.

The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2321-2582, is an intellectual property statute in the United States. The PVPA gives breeders up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties. A major expression of plant breeders' rights in the United States, the PVPA grants protection similar to that available through patents, but these legal schemes differ in critical respects. The PVPA should not be confused with plant patents, which are limited to asexually reproduced plants.

J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the exclusive ways to protect these plants are under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321, and the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

<i>In re Roslin Institute</i> (Edinburgh) 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014), is a 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting a patent for a cloned sheep known as "Dolly the Sheep"— the first mammal ever cloned from an adult somatic cell.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patentable subject matter in the United States</span>

Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The current patentable subject matter practice in the U.S. is very different from the corresponding practices by WIPO/Patent Cooperation Treaty and by the European Patent Office, and it is considered to be broader in general.

References

  1. ↑ US Patent 4,259,444
  2. ↑ Kevles DJ (1994). "Ananda Chakrabarty wins a patent: biotechnology, law, and society". Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci. 25 (1): 111–35. doi:10.2307/27757736. hdl: 10161/8124 . JSTOR   27757736.
  3. 1 2 3 "Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)" (PDF). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - Intellectual Property Unit. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 3, 2021. Retrieved October 3, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  5. ↑ "Diamond v. Chakrabarty - 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980)". LexisNexis . Archived from the original on October 3, 2021. Retrieved October 3, 2021.
  6. ↑ Weiss, Edith (July 1980). "UNITED STATES: SUPREME COURT DECISION IN DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY (Biological Research; Genetic Engineering; (Patentability of Microorganisms)". International Legal Materials . 19 (4): 981–991. doi:10.1017/S0020782900039334. JSTOR   20692193. S2CID   249007890 – via JSTOR.
  7. ↑ "The 25 Moments From American History That Matter Right Now". Time. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
  8. 1 2 "June 16, 2010: 30th Anniversary of Diamond v. Chakrabarty". IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law. June 16, 2010. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
  9. ↑ Davey, Neil; Rader, Randall Ray; Chakravarti, Debabrata (January 2021). "Ananda Mohan 'Al' Chakrabarty 1938–2020". Nature Biotechnology. 39 (1): 18–19. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-00785-4 . ISSN   1546-1696. S2CID   229300870.
  10. ↑ Darr, Frank (1981). "Expanding Patent Coverage: Policy Implications of Diamond v. Chakrabarty" (PDF). Ohio State Law Journal . 42: 1061–83.
  11. ↑ "Forty Years Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Legal Underpinnings and its Impact on the Biotechnology Industry and Society". January 29, 2021.
  12. ↑ "Testing Human Rights Through Human Gene Patenting in COVID-19". May 16, 2020.
  13. ↑ "Moderna's mRNA Platform".

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.