Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193 (1980)

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    The Supreme Court ruled that man-made microorganisms may be patented as they are non-naturally occurring compositions of matter. The Court relied on statutes defining patentable subject matter broadly and found that genetically engineered microorganisms, while alive, were not natural products and were the product of human ingenuity. While recognizing the controversy around recombinant DNA technology, the Court held it was up to Congress, not the courts, to balance policy concerns and that under current law such microorganisms were patentable subject matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193 (1980)

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    14 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that man-made microorganisms may be patented as they are non-naturally occurring compositions of matter. The Court relied on statutes defining patentable subject matter broadly and found that genetically engineered microorganisms, while alive, were not natural products and were the product of human ingenuity. While recognizing the controversy around recombinant DNA technology, the Court held it was up to Congress, not the courts, to balance policy concerns and that under current law such microorganisms were patentable subject matter.

    Original Description:

    dsfv

    Original Title

    wqw

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that man-made microorganisms may be patented as they are non-naturally occurring compositions of matter. The Court relied on statutes defining patentable subject matter broadly and found that genetically engineered microorganisms, while alive, were not natural products and were the product of human ingenuity. While recognizing the controversy around recombinant DNA technology, the Court held it was up to Congress, not the courts, to balance policy concerns and that under current law such microorganisms were patentable subject matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views1 page

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193 (1980)

    Uploaded by

    Eugene Labella
    The Supreme Court ruled that man-made microorganisms may be patented as they are non-naturally occurring compositions of matter. The Court relied on statutes defining patentable subject matter broadly and found that genetically engineered microorganisms, while alive, were not natural products and were the product of human ingenuity. While recognizing the controversy around recombinant DNA technology, the Court held it was up to Congress, not the courts, to balance policy concerns and that under current law such microorganisms were patentable subject matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 U.S.P.Q.

    (BNA) 193 (1980)

     In this case, the court ruled that man-made microorganisms may be patented. A live,
    man-made microorganism is a non-naturally occurring composition and therefore may be
    patented.
     The court relied on a statute which defines as patentable any new useful manufacture or
    composition of matter among other things.
     In choosing such expansive terms as "manufacture" and "composition of matter,"
    modified by the comprehensive "any," Congress contemplated that the patent laws should
    be given wide scope, and the relevant legislative history also supports a broad
    construction. While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
    patentable, respondent's 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."
     The court further held that there can be little doubt that microorganisms produced by
    recombinant DNA technology may be said to be manufactured and to be compositions of
    matter. For purposes of patent law, the fact they are alive is not relevant. Although it is
    true that naturally-occurring products may not be patented, a genetically-engineered
    microorganism is not naturally occurring.
     While this Court recognizes that recombinant DNA technology is a controversial field, it
    is ill-equipped to balance the competing values and interests manifested therein; this is a
    task for Congress.
     Since the patent laws clearly include materials such as are at issue here within their
    scope, and no specific law exists to exclude it, the only appropriate holding is that
    recombinant DNA-produced microorganisms are patentable.

    You might also like