Diamond V Chakrabarty

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 georgia;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 serif;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid2021414090\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspa
ce0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-
1344914179}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid-1344914179\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080
\headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols2
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144, 206 U.S.P.Q. 193
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell
\row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql
\clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445f
ffffff8a969f6913ff68931fff9f5f69241f5852af68d38fcddc4f58326fac294f8a868fac193fcdabe
fab985fcdfc7fef5eef58022f8a35efef6effde5d2fac092fffaf6f9ac6ffffcfafde8d7fef7f1f9b27
9f6862cf8aa6af79e56f79c53f58327fef1e7fde3cefeeee2f9b076f79a4efef8f4f58123f58224f9ae
72feefe4f58021f9ae71fac295fffaf7fcdabffef7f2f9af73f9b177f8ac6ef9b47cf8a15bf6872ef79
648fef5edf9b278fcd9bdf9b782f9b57efbc89ffde3cffffefdf6872df8aa6bfcd6b8fac59af9b781fa
bc8bfffbf8fac091fac396fbceaaf8a461f68e39f6882ffabe8dfabf8ff9b884f79c52fdeadbfeede0f
68c36f89f58fcdcc3fde0c9fef0e5fef3eaf68f3cfbcaa2f8a867f9b37afaba87f68b35fde7d6fabf90
fffcfbfaba86fde7d5f6903efffdfcfef4ecf68f3bfde1cafcdfc6fbd1affbcea9fcd6b7f68a33f7944
4fbcba5f58429fcdec6f9af74f8a25df58428f7a461fef4edfdede0fde6d4fde7d4f9b680fbc69cfbc8
a0f9b37bfac9a1f69240f79d54fcd4b4f9b883f68e3afef8f3fdebddfde2cbf7984cf8a35ff6882efef
3ebf9bd8cfcd4b5feecdef8a562fde6d3fef9f4fcdbc1f9bc8afcd8bcf8ab6dfef8f2fcd7b9fffbf7fe
efe3f79546f8aa69f79f57fde1cbfcd3b3fcd2b1f8a25cfcd3b2fde2ccfac599fac397f9b379fcd8bbf
bd2b0fef2e9fcd5b6fac79ef8a664f8a460f68a32fac090fffbf9fef2e8f8ab6cfde4d0f7994df6903d
f79749fffefcf79e55f8a766f8a059f68830f7974afde2cdfbcca6fabd8cf57f2000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000007df8d2030000000174524e530040e6d86600000009
7048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002814944415478da636680023eb5570ce186e2a55b85b
5f54d94595f337247083ee592d448fdcda26527d272e93da364d58d865d10c58b1f7a9d67708e7cf976
82a87fe1ca5469f97b50539860c62dfb67c1f029a9f211c3d7ae33bff2ffb03046ae53e3dac4106b76e
2b9c17235a9598c8caa5f179f80a80d94eeb9c9c0a0ef22c1a09de8f891e168e14d98292c3046e2ca55
271e247d9cc1a0cae067ca607583618efd56be2f0f7318b4b215661d7efa9289e1d07b67a8e3f8e3384
d84dfaa30c830f4de7f64c0f09841fe11ba71210c9f18945efc3fc3d0d5744389618d0483e77cb587bb
27763ebb96cdc0f0e6a6fb1f0686fb309b972c5d9dea9ad4fd428381e7bbc84986bf0cd761a630c318f
7150ffeee3fd478f6cb0ce15bd767fff9f1e3b2d0e36a4ff1d97a1f8006b1fe7af31d6875d4ca9f20a5
39792fdb7f9dbffd4131e6c16f3981f7e12f9f5dfcc7800e84cc6dd80c380a7c657818fa39f33475c49
73130f0aa30ed2be9616010601602aae0dac70f56e9b24f3fa84f41912189792fe7c234366b5646064c
e0acee309ba18c9d992d8c41649f3b4c542c67df0e84714ae0f099b98f8d4d7b5f36833e27f36603860
033f57c060ccf3230be9d767ff7d115e98bdf7ee60a65c8bd2eae7fb7dc7ff757a5b65d1f193836f01d
077a396aaec04f95b7ba519fde581d7ffef3da1fdbe9c18f199ecd5977e90ba671c59c6699bf187e5aa
c7ac7b09cbd63d64b9f131cbb2523c3b8eec51d60889bc37803e8c650f725ffdeb1ff09c9397de1d7c7
4ec9dd550276eb1916720b3c7a8969dcbee0e9124f182c7a7ffd62f8bfebdb4b869b759f0a369e8dde9
b92cbc070d1e21d3029fcbb76f0298383ef8997a0e427be85e3eae7d99f6f3004aff2ef861b0200a155
f504c5b3927b0000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols2{\ids0 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d_Target}{\*\bkmkend
Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_readingModeKC_1}{\*\bkmkend co_readingModeKC_1}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_readingModeCitatorFlag_1}{\*\bkmkend co_readingModeCitatorFlag_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK
"https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/Flag?
documentGuid=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&transitionType=Document&originationC
ontext=docHeaderFlag&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs40 \cf5 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d49484452000000100000001008060000001ff3ff6100000009704859730
000113900001139011bd9934600000a4f6943435050686f746f73686f70204943432070726f66696c65
000078da9d53675453e9163df7def4424b8880944b6f5215082052428b801491262a2109104a8821a1d
91551c1114545041bc8a088038e8e808c15512c0c8a0ad807e421a28e83a3888acafbe17ba36bd6bcf7
e6cdfeb5d73ee7acf39db3cf07c0080c9648335135800ca9421e11e083c7c4c6e1e42e40810a2470001
008b3642173fd230100f87e3c3c2b22c007be000178d30b0800c04d9bc0301c87ff0fea42995c018084
01c07491384b08801400407a8e42a600404601809d98265300a0040060cb6362e300502d0060277fe6d
300809df8997b01005b94211501a09100201365884400683b00accf568a450058300014664bc43900d8
2d00304957664800b0b700c0ce100bb200080c00305188852900047b0060c8232378008499001446f25
73cf12bae10e72a00007899b23cb9243945815b082d710757572e1e28ce49172b14366102619a402ec2
7999193281340fe0f3cc0000a0911511e083f3fd78ce0eaecece368eb60e5f2deabf06ff226262e3fee
5cfab70400000e1747ed1fe2c2fb31a803b06806dfea225ee04685e0ba075f78b66b20f40b500a0e9da
57f370f87e3c3c45a190b9d9d9e5e4e4d84ac4425b61ca577dfe67c25fc057fd6cf97e3cfcf7f5e0bee
22481325d814704f8e0c2ccf44ca51ccf92098462dce68f47fcb70bfffc1dd322c44962b9582a14e351
12718e449a8cf332a52289429229c525d2ff64e2df2cfb033edf3500b06a3e017b912da85d6303f64b2
7105874c0e2f70000f2bb6fc1d4280803806883e1cf77ffef3ffd47a02500806649927100005e44242e
54cab33fc708000044a0812ab0411bf4c1182cc0061cc105dcc10bfc6036844224c4c24210420a64801
c726029ac82422886cdb01d2a602fd4401d34c051688693700e2ec255b80e3d700ffa61089ec128bc81
090441c808136121da8801628a58238e08179985f821c14804128b2420c9881451224b91354831528a5
42055481df23d720239875c46ba913bc8003282fc86bc47319481b2513dd40cb543b9a8371a8446a20b
d06474319a8f16a09bd072b41a3d8c36a1e7d0ab680fda8f3e43c730c0e8180733c46c302ec6c342b13
82c099363cbb122ac0cabc61ab056ac03bb89f563cfb17704128145c0093604774220611e4148584c58
4ed848a8201c243411da093709038451c2272293a84bb426ba11f9c4186232318758482c23d6128f132
f107b8843c437241289433227b9900249b1a454d212d246d26e5223e92ca99b34481a2393c9da646bb2
0739942c202bc885e49de4c3e433e41be421f25b0a9d624071a4f853e22852ca6a4a19e510e534e5066
598324155a39a52dda8a15411358f5a42ada1b652af5187a81334759a39cd8316494ba5ada295d31a68
1768f769afe874ba11dd951e4e97d057d2cbe947e897e803f4770c0d861583c7886728199b180718671
97718af984ca619d38b19c754303731eb98e7990f996f55582ab62a7c1591ca0a954a9526951b2a2f54
a9aaa6aadeaa0b55f355cb548fa95e537dae46553353e3a909d496ab55aa9d50eb531b5367a93ba887a
a67a86f543fa47e59fd890659c34cc34f43a451a0b15fe3bcc6200b6319b3782c216b0dab86758135c4
26b1cdd97c762abb98fd1dbb8b3daaa9a13943334a3357b352f394663f07e39871f89c744e09e728a79
7f37e8ade14ef29e2291ba6344cb931655c6baa96979658ab48ab51ab47ebbd36aeeda79da6bd45bb59
fb810e41c74a275c2747678fce059de753d953dda70aa7164d3d3af5ae2eaa6ba51ba1bb4477bf6ea7e
e989ebe5e809e4c6fa7de79bde7fa1c7d2ffd54fd6dfaa7f5470c5806b30c2406db0cce183cc535716f
3c1d2fc7dbf151435dc34043a561956197e18491b9d13ca3d5468d460f8c69c65ce324e36dc66dc6a32
6062621264b4dea4dee9a524db9a629a63b4c3b4cc7cdcccda2cdd699359b3d31d732e79be79bd79bdf
b7605a785a2cb6a8b6b86549b2e45aa659eeb6bc6e855a3959a558555a5db346ad9dad25d6bbadbba71
1a7b94e934eab9ed667c3b0f1b6c9b6a9b719b0e5d806dbaeb66db67d6167621767b7c5aec3ee93bd93
7dba7d8dfd3d070d87d90eab1d5a1d7e73b472143a563ade9ace9cee3f7dc5f496e92f6758cf10cfd83
3e3b613cb29c4699d539bd347671767b97383f3888b894b82cb2e973e2e9b1bc6ddc8bde44a74f5715d
e17ad2f59d9bb39bc2eda8dbafee36ee69ee87dc9fcc349f299e593373d0c3c843e051e5d13f0b9f953
06bdfac7e4f434f8167b5e7232f632f9157add7b0b7a577aaf761ef173ef63e729fe33ee33c37de32de
595fcc37c0b7c8b7cb4fc36f9e5f85df437f23ff64ff7affd100a78025016703898141815b02fbf87a7
c21bf8e3f3adb65f6b2d9ed418ca0b94115418f82ad82e5c1ad2168c8ec90ad21f7e798ce91ce690e85
507ee8d6d00761e6618bc37e0c2785878557863f8e7088581ad131973577d1dc4373df44fa449644de9
b67314f39af2d4a352a3eaa2e6a3cda37ba34ba3fc62e6659ccd5589d58496c4b1c392e2aae366e6cbe
dffcedf387e29de20be37b17982fc85d7079a1cec2f485a716a92e122c3a96404c884e3894f041102aa
8168c25f21377258e0a79c21dc267222fd136d188d8435c2a1e4ef2482a4d7a92ec91bc357924c533a5
2ce5b98427a990bc4c0d4cdd9b3a9e169a76206d323d3abd31839291907142aa214d93b667ea67e6667
6cbac6585b2fec56e8bb72f1e9507c96bb390ac05592d0ab642a6e8545a28d72a07b267655766bfcd89
ca3996ab9e2bcdedccb3cadb90379cef9fffed12c212e192b6a5864b572d1d58e6bdac6a39b23c7179d
b0ae315052b865606ac3cb88ab62a6dd54fabed5797ae7ebd267a4d6b815ec1ca82c1b5016beb0b550a
e5857debdcd7ed5d4f582f59dfb561fa869d1b3e15898aae14db1797157fd828dc78e51b876fcabf99d
c94b4a9abc4b964cf66d266e9e6de2d9e5b0e96aa97e6970e6e0dd9dab40ddf56b4edf5f645db2f97cd
28dbbb83b643b9a3bf3cb8bc65a7c9cecd3b3f54a454f454fa5436eed2ddb561d7f86ed1ee1b7bbcf63
4ecd5db5bbcf7fd3ec9bedb5501554dd566d565fb49fbb3f73fae89aae9f896fb6d5dad4e6d71edc703
d203fd07230eb6d7b9d4d51dd23d54528fd62beb470ec71fbefe9def772d0d360d558d9cc6e22370447
9e4e9f709dff71e0d3ada768c7bace107d31f761d671d2f6a429af29a469b539afb5b625bba4fcc3ed1
d6eade7afc47db1f0f9c343c59794af354c969dae982d39367f2cf8c9d959d7d7e2ef9dc60dba2b67be
763cedf6a0f6fefba1074e1d245ff8be73bbc3bce5cf2b874f2b2dbe51357b8579aaf3a5f6dea74ea3c
fe93d34fc7bb9cbb9aaeb95c6bb9ee7abdb57b66f7e91b9e37ceddf4bd79f116ffd6d59e393dddbdf37
a6ff7c5f7f5df16dd7e7227fdcecbbbd97727eeadbc4fbc5ff440ed41d943dd87d53f5bfedcd8efdc7f
6ac077a0f3d1dc47f7068583cffe91f58f0f43058f998fcb860d86eb9e383e3939e23f72fde9fca743c
f64cf269e17fea2fecbae17162f7ef8d5ebd7ced198d1a197f29793bf6d7ca5fdeac0eb19afdbc6c2c6
1ebec97833315ef456fbedc177dc771defa3df0f4fe47c207f28ff68f9b1f553d0a7fb93199393ff040
398f3fc63332ddb000000206348524d00007a25000080830000f9ff000080e9000075300000ea600000
3a980000176f925fc546000001ba4944415478da9c93cf6a53511087bf99f3e7264d6f5bac58252016e
24e97ee7d0617be800fe0dbf814ee7c041537aea4280a822e840a6a539b989b7b73ceb8b8b9490be926
03b3386798df7c33ccc8c9872f966587870f866c63fef474c2e1fe4feadf9ff0cd3bf09945bc8f99c74
9c08563c4df02ed6396c9cd2fc41da0f1a815b8b3f70fadded27c7d01bb3709e53db294644b30ff8cd5
df711211b7c762a1547fbf116f3fa7387ada0ac8ee90c646642258021640021c880314d239d8144bb18
d4958b5a045bfcfc206180566092c21964004430159372c82885ef9d2a2f0346907933ee40c2484d456
16d70a9821b48ec8e57cb4889e440f93414b90bb367429a24b9a0ee22a95c6c293ad47a604b3760ed62
cc3ae1500e80810205f1288012390e4004b33b01a21c31aba25eb184410edadf720c600a92159240e9f
21874f08e12ede6ad2ec23ccde4375825023614471e3116efff17a0866666f5ebdb4b31fafed5acbb55
99e6d0c7980343826f546d7efab04206c0c2980a852cfe75bdd820284e09957d576c70450963d2e2ea6
4c2613541511d9e89d39e7566f0f10a2e3eccf94f1788c88e09c4355f1dee39c5b7997d41501f83f00c
2e0d5deb3bd24f70000000049454e44ae426082}}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
\par
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_readingModeNegativeTreatment_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_readingModeNegativeTreatment_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1 \pnindent0 \pnf1
{\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
\u160\'3f\tab }\ls1 {\pntext }
{\pard }\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
Distinguished by
}
}
"https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id30a4943d41311e2a98ec867961a22de/View/FullTex
t.html?navigationPath=RelatedInfo%2Fv4%2Fkeycite%2Fnav%2F%3Fguid
%3DId30a4943d41311e2a98ec867961a22de%26ss%3D1980116775%26ds
%3D2030717666&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=NegativeCitingReferences&rank=0&originati
onContext=docHeader&transitionType=NegativeTreatment&contextData=%28sc.Search%29" }
{\fldrslt
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf5 \i0
,
}
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
U.S.,
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
June 13, 2013
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
100 S.Ct. 2204
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Supreme Court of the United States
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
Sidney A. DIAMOND, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Petitioner,
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
v.
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
Ananda M. CHAKRABARTY et al.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
No. 79\u8211\'3f136.
\par
}
}
}
{\f3 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
|
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Argued March 17, 1980.
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
|
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Decided June 16, 1980.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_synopsis_1}{\*\bkmkend co_synopsis_1}
Synopsis
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Rich, J.,
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?
findType=Y&serNum=1978102719&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f
12d4d&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docum
entItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
571 F.2d 40,
}}}
ruled that claims were not outside the scope of patentable inventions merely
because they were drawn to \u8220\'3flive organisms.\u8221\'3f On reconsideration,
the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Rich, J.,
}
596 F.2d 952,
}}}
reaffirmed its earlier judgment. On certiorari, the Supreme Court, Mr. Chief
Justice Burger, held that a live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject
matter under statute providing for issuance of patent to a person who invents or
discovers \u8220\'3fany\u8221\'3f new or useful \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f
or \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Affirmed.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Mr. Justice Brennan dissented and filed opinion in which Mr. Justice White, Mr.
Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Powell joined.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_headnotes_1}{\*\bkmkend co_headnotes_1}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_headnoteHeader_1}{\*\bkmkend co_headnoteHeader_1}
\par
{\li100 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri200 \fs20 \cf19 \i0
West Headnotes (9)
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_expandedHeadnotes_1}{\*\bkmkend co_expandedHeadnotes_1}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_1980116775001_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_1980116775001_1}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadt30 \clpadft3 \clpadr30 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth600
\cellx600
\clpadt30 \clpadft3 \clpadr30 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth4040
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_F11980116775_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_F11980116775_1}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_headNote_[1]_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_headNote_[1]_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_B11980116775_1" }{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
[1]
}\f2 \super \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0 }}
\par
}
}
}
}\f2 \li30 \b1 \ql \fs20 \ri30 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
"http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/291/View.html?
docGuid=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
Patents
}\f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0 }}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
48544114be737fdc7bddd6c515b4754dd3f52f220343594b4bb01efa219f2b1f82900884a09e82887e8
85e0a0a7ae9cd1284a2872228a1b25283224d89c872575d4cb3d48dd55deedc75efcc74e6deddad8724
edc0cc7c67eedc6fbe3973ce20c69890361c9d7dd3758450260a02cc06daba9c7945c2da0d6548e3f31
3a33d172bab9672dc1a7046a3e4ddebd95dc71f389c9eb5928af6c0189d1a7ae42b8cb87d65c8b99fb9
9adc1b9a6b1bcac2ef7bfe43698a7461fc2d9eefcd2ff61183527191ea5fa8fed9e95ef773ec61b0fff
65a4965682faf3541bfb9a15a921c4cad10a9db3413943109b1adf539e1c9519234fe1d47248a72560a
bfb8da58d752a2e5ef887d1b74ba65334921168c521e12c6904007eef7ad5260cde1ce82eae69452db8
65f8dd900f61028a50cd8f906f507b609901096cb272901cc5deef1c6181118a126f9d07db47cdf95d2
c0214e4a96f5f8f4530081f67bc1de1ba171b2d11784a592a2c5e6425e7fd52a957afdfe67dd67288e7
052d388a702ec70157a46e0c83ca49424710c26a7c666890923d765e925964cf01924b3aa201121f882
314522f357158726c29c3469c46cce819b7b61d8b4c564f619290137383295d13239836c50ea632bcc4
4b79f7a6c9126e05a84f2ca65594ec0452531e56a2c21b2e6f8f380edb7262c11f1ce93353651dbf58f
181bbaae3fb9b453aa39d1b8a735168ba1e8d791e1bb1d3c22ebf56c354e89049723589704202b57fb3
4146d391be28e005923653648a40debd848189228a99aea72b99cd9d9a932fd3eda3bd37f214f9b839f
f9a199556454c44a8552d25add7ccc26a23cd504d33431c6c9b429b2ac6a9aaaaa8a0250fe5dfb8c98c
f2f5778f33d9ab49812cb7840c30b74f7b9c9742933a00046e8092122c89624396d08a1bf3c28c6d28f
81eb81028f5ba13a57aae44c2f446a3b067373530f8a6919d001b645a1b4adf84af130c523774ed765d
c83e7fb0abc459905c00818d48146ab2ed14a09fb4b800100952bb3962ee31a410000000049454e44ae
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
"http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/291k452/View.html?
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas; \u8201\'3ffundamental
principles
\par
}
}
}
}\f2 \li30 \b0 \ql \fs20 \ri30 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clpadt30 \clpadft3 \clpadr30 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth600
\cellx600
\clpadt30 \clpadft3 \clpadr30 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth4040
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}\f2 \li30 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \ql \fs20 \ri30 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=35USCAS101&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b5
4f12d4d&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 101
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_headnoteId_19801167750012015033101351}{\*\bkmkend
co_headnoteId_19801167750012015033101351}
"http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?
docGuid=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&headnoteId=198011677500120150331013516&or
iginationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&context
Data=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
147 Cases that cite this headnote
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
}\f2 \ul0 \b0 \qj \ql \ri30 \i0 \li30 \strike0 \sa200 \sb0 \fs20 \cf1 \intbl
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas; \u8201\'3ffundamental
principles
\par
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Eligible subject matter
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not
patentable subject matter.
}
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 101
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750022015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[3]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Biological Subject Matter; \u8201\'3fBiotechnology
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under statute
providing for issuance of patent to a person who invents or discovers
\u8220\'3fany\u8221\'3f new and useful \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fcomposition of matter.\u8221\'3f
}
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 101
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750032015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[4]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Genes and genetic technology
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down multiple
components of crude oil constituted a new and useful
\u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter\u8221\'3f within
meaning of patent statute.
}
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 101
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750042015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[5]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Eligible subject matter
\par
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
"http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/291IX(B)/View.html?
Plant Variety Protection
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Enactment of 1930 Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain
asexually reproduced plants, and 1970 Plant Variety Plant Protection Act, which
authorized patents for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded bacteria
from its protection, did not preclude patentability of live, human-made
microorganism.
}
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 101
,
}
161
; Plant Variety Protection Act, \u167\'3f 42(a),
}
4f12d4d&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
7 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 2402(a)
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750052015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[6]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Constitutional Law
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Intellectual property
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Congress, not the courts, must define the limits of patentability.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750062015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[7]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Constitutional Law
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
"http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92XX(C)2/View.html?
Encroachment on Legislature
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Once Congress has spoken it is the province and duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750072015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[8]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statutes
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Absence of Ambiguity; \u8201\'3fApplication of Clear or Unambiguous Statute or
Language
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Broad general language of statute is not necessarily ambiguous where congressional
objectives require broad terms.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750082015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[9]
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Patents
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000001c0000001008020000008aad88b800000019744558745
36f6674776172650041646f626520496d616765526561647971c9653c000002e34944415478da9c545d
426082}}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Genes and genetic technology
\par
}
}
}
\cellx600
\cellx4640
\intbl
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li30 \ri30
{\li30 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Congress is free to amend patent statute so as to exclude from patent protection
organisms produced by genetic engineering.
}
35 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 101
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li30 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri30 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
co_headnoteId_19801167750092015033101351}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\cell \row }}\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_headnotesEnd_1}{\*\bkmkend co_headnotesEnd_1}
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_708_2204_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_708_2204_1}
**2204
}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*303
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Syllabus
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_B0011980116775_ID0E}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_B0011980116775_ID0E}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnote_B0011980116775_1" }{\fldrslt
*
}}}
\sa200
\sb400
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Title 35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 101
}}}
provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2205
}
}
or discovers \u8220\'3fany\u8221\'3f new and useful
\u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter.\u8221\'3f
Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made,
genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property
which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner\rquote s
rejection of the patent application\rquote s claims for the new bacteria was
affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are
not patentable subject matter under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that
micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent
law.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Held:
}
}
A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
. Respondent\rquote s micro-organism constitutes a \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f
or \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter\u8221\'3f within that statute. Pp.
2207\u8211\'3f2212.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) In choosing such expansive terms as \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f and
\u8220\'3fcomposition of matter,\u8221\'3f modified by the comprehensive
\u8220\'3fany,\u8221\'3f 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\rquote s claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural
phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of
matter\u8212\'3fa product of human ingenuity \u8220\'3fhaving a distinctive name,
character [and] use.\u8221\'3f
}
12d4d&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_1243&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0
&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_1243" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hartranft v. Wiegmann
}
}
, 121 U.S. 609, 615, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 1243, 30 L.Ed. 1012;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
}
}
, 333 U.S. 127, 68 S.Ct. 440, 92 L.Ed. 588,
}}}
distinguished. Pp. 2207\u8211\'3f2208.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) The passage of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to
certain asexually reproduced plants, and the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act,
which authorized protection for certain sexually reproduced plants but excluded
bacteria from its protection, does not evidence congressional understanding that
the terms \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcomposition of
matter\u8221\'3f in
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
do not include living things. Pp. 2208\u8211\'3f2210.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*304
}
}
c) Nor does the fact that genetic technology was unforeseen when Congress enacted
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
require the conclusion that micro-organisms cannot qualify as patentable subject
matter until Congress expressly authorizes such protection. The unambiguous
language of
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
fairly embraces respondent\rquote s invention. Arguments against patentability
under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
, based on potential hazards that may be generated by genetic research, should be
addressed to the Congress and the Executive, not to the Judiciary. Pp.
2210\u8211\'3f2212.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
596 F.2d 952,
}}}
affirmed.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_attorneysAndLawFirms_1}{\*\bkmkend co_attorneysAndLawFirms_1}
Attorneys and Law Firms
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Edward F. McKie, Jr., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_opinion_1}{\*\bkmkend co_opinion_1}
Opinion
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*305
}
}
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca39d77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca39d77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
We granted certiorari to determine whether a live, human-made micro-organism is
patentable subject matter under
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 101
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3ad77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3ad77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
I
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In 1972, respondent Chakrabarty, a microbiologist, filed a patent application,
assigned to the General Electric Co. The application asserted 36 claims related to
Chakrabarty\rquote s invention of \u8220\'3fa bacterium from the genus
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Pseudomonas
}
}
containing therein at least two stable energy-generating plasmids, each of said
plasmids providing a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_B00211980116775_ID0}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_B00211980116775_ID0}
1
}}}
}
This human-made, genetically
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2206
}
}
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\rquote s invention is believed to have significant value for the
treatment of oil spills.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
2
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Chakrabarty\rquote s patent claims were of three types: first, process claims for
the method of producing the bacteria;
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*306
}
}
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 \u8220\'3fproducts of nature,\u8221\'3f and (2) that as living
things they are not patentable subject matter under
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 101
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Chakrabarty appealed the rejection of these claims to the Patent Office Board of
Appeals, and the Board affirmed the Examiner on the second ground.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
3
}}}
}
Relying on the legislative history of the 1930 Plant Patent Act, in which Congress
extended patent protection to certain asexually reproduced plants, the Board
concluded that
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
was not intended to cover living things such as these laboratory created micro-
organisms.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, by a divided vote, reversed on the
authority of its prior decision in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Bergy
}
}
, 563 F.2d 1031, 1038 (1977)
}}}
, which held that \u8220\'3fthe fact that microorganisms . . . are alive . . . [is]
without legal significance\u8221\'3f for purposes of the patent law.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
4
}}}
}
Subsequently, we granted the Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks\rquote
petition for certiorari in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Bergy
}
}
, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case \u8220\'3ffor further consideration
in light of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Parker v. Flook
}
}
, 437 U.S. 584, [98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451] (1978)
}}}
.\u8221\'3f
}
438 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3119, 57 L.Ed.2d 1145 (1978)
}}}
. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals then vacated its judgment in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Chakrabarty
}
}
and consolidated the case with
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Bergy
}
}
for reconsideration. After re-examining both cases in the light of our holding in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Flook
}
}
, that court, with one dissent, reaffirmed its earlier judgments.
}
596 F.2d 952 (1979)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*307
}
}
The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks again sought certiorari, and we granted
the writ as to both
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bergy
}
}
and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Chakrabarty
}
}
. 444 U.S. 924, 100 S.Ct. 261, 62 L.Ed.2d 180 (1979)
}}}
. Since then,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Bergy
}
}
has been dismissed as moot,
}
444 U.S. 1028, 100 S.Ct. 696, 62 L.Ed.2d 664 (1980)
}}}
, leaving only
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Chakrabarty
}
}
for decision.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3bd77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3bd77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
II
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Constitution grants Congress broad power to legislate to \u8220\'3fpromote 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.\u8221\'3f Art. I, \u167\'3f 8, cl. 8. The patent laws promote this
progress by offering inventors exclusive rights for a limited period as an
incentive for their inventiveness
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2207
}
}
and research efforts.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.
}
}
, 416 U.S. 470, 480\u8211\'3f481, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 1885\u8211\'3f1886, 40 L.Ed.2d 315
(1974)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Universal Oil Co. v. Globe Co.
}
}
, 322 U.S. 471, 484, 64 S.Ct. 1110, 1116, 88 L.Ed. 1399 (1944)
}}}
. The authority of Congress is exercised in the hope that \u8220\'3f[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.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kewanee, supra
}
}
, 416 U.S., at 480, 94 S.Ct., at 1885\u8211\'3f86
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The question before us in this case is a narrow one of statutory interpretation
requiring us to construe
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 101
}}}
, which provides:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fWhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Specifically, we must determine whether respondent\rquote s micro-organism
constitutes a \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcomposition of
matter\u8221\'3f within the meaning of the statute.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
5
}}}
\sb200
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3cd77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3cd77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*308
}
}
III
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In cases of statutory construction we begin, of course, with the language of the
statute.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Southeastern Community College v. Davis
}
}
, 442 U.S. 397, 405, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2366, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979)
}}}
. And \u8220\'3funless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their
ordinary, contemporary common meaning.\u8221\'3f
}
12d4d&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_314&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&
transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_314" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Perrin v. United States
}
}
, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979)
}}}
. We have also cautioned that courts \u8220\'3fshould not read into the patent laws
limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.
}
}
, 289 U.S. 178, 199, 53 S.Ct. 554, 561, 77 L.Ed. 1114 (1933)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Guided by these canons of construction, this Court has read the term
\u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f in
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
in accordance with its dictionary definition to mean \u8220\'3fthe production of
articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new
forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by
machinery.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.
}
}
, 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S.Ct. 328, 330, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931)
}}}
. Similarly, \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter\u8221\'3f has been construed
consistent with its common usage to include \u8220\'3fall compositions of two or
more substances and . . . all composite articles, whether they be the results of
chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders
or solids.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shell Development Co. v. Watson
}
}
, 149 F.Supp. 279, 280 (D.C.1957)
}}}
(citing 1 A. Deller, Walker on Patents \u167\'3f 14, p. 55 (1st ed. 1937)). In
choosing such expansive terms as \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f and
\u8220\'3fcomposition of matter,\u8221\'3f modified by the comprehensive
\u8220\'3fany,\u8221\'3f Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would
be given wide scope.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The relevant legislative history also supports a broad construction. The Patent Act
of 1793, authored by Thomas Jefferson, defined statutory subject matter as
\u8220\'3fany new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or any new or useful improvement [thereof].\u8221\'3f Act of Feb. 21, 1793,
\u167\'3f 1, 1 Stat. 319. The Act embodied Jefferson\rquote s philosophy that
\u8220\'3fingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*309
}
}
5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 75\u8211\'3f76 (Washington ed. 1871). See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Graham v. John Deere Co.
}
}
, 383 U.S. 1, 7\u8211\'3f10, 86 S.Ct. 684, 688\u8211\'3f690, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966)
}}}
. Subsequent patent statutes in 1836, 1870, and 1874 employed this same broad
language. In 1952, when the patent laws were recodified, Congress replaced the word
\u8220\'3fart\u8221\'3f with \u8220\'3fprocess,\u8221\'3f but otherwise left
Jefferson\rquote s language intact. The Committee Reports accompanying the 1952 Act
inform us that Congress intended statutory subject matter
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2208
}
}
to \u8220\'3finclude anything under the sun that is made by man.\u8221\'3f
S.Rep.No.1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H.R.Rep.No.1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.,
6 (1952).
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
6
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_F11980116775_1" }{\fldrslt
[1]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_B11980116775_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_B11980116775_1}
}
}
[2]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
This is not to suggest that
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical
phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Parker v. Flook
}
}
, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gottschalk v. Benson
}
}
, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 255, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
}
}
, 333 U.S. 127, 130, 68 S.Ct. 440, 441, 92 L.Ed. 588 (1948)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
O\rquote Reilly v. Morse
}
}
, 15 How. 62, 112\u8211\'3f121, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1854)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Le Roy v. Tatham
}
}
, 14 How. 156, 175, 14 L.Ed. 367 (1853)
}}}
. Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is
not patentable subject matter.
}
Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
2
}
}
; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are
\u8220\'3fmanifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively
to none.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Funk, supra
}
}
, 333 U.S., at 130, 68 S.Ct., at 441
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[3]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
}
[4]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
Judged in this light, respondent\rquote 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\u8212\'3fa product of human ingenuity \u8220\'3fhaving a distinctive name,
character [and]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*310
}
}
use.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hartranft v. Wiegmann
}
}
, 121 U.S. 609, 615, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 1243, 30 L.Ed. 1012 (1887)
}}}
. The point is underscored dramatically by comparison of the invention here with
that in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
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
\u8220\'3fonly some of the handiwork of nature,\u8221\'3f the Court ruled the
product nonpatentable:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fEach of the species of root-nodule bacteria contained in the package
infects the same group of leguminous plants which it always infected. 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.\u8221\'3f
}
333 U.S., at 131, 68 S.Ct., at 442
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
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. His discovery is not nature\rquote s handiwork, but his own;
accordingly it is patentable subject matter under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
\sb200
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3dd77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3dd77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IV
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Two contrary arguments are advanced, neither of which we find persuasive.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3ed77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3ed77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(A)
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The petitioner\rquote s first argument rests on the enactment of the 1930 Plant
Patent Act, which afforded patent protection to certain asexually reproduced
plants, and the 1970 Plant
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*311
}
}
Variety Protection Act, which authorized protection for certain sexually
reproduced plants but excluded bacteria from its protection.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
7
}}}
}
In the petitioner\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2209
}
}
view, the passage of these Acts evidences congressional understanding that the
terms \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcomposition of matter\u8221\'3f
do not include living things; if they did, the petitioner argues, neither Act would
have been necessary.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
We reject this argument. Prior to 1930, 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
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Ex parte Latimer
}
}
, 1889 Dec.Com.Pat. 123, in which a patent claim for fiber found in the needle of
the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Pinus australis
}
}
was rejected. The Commissioner reasoned that a contrary result would permit
\u8220\'3fpatents [to] be obtained upon the trees of the forest and the plants of
the earth, which of course would be unreasonable and impossible.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Id.
}
}
, at 126. The
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Latimer
}
}
case, it seems, came to \u8220\'3fse[t] forth the general stand taken in these
matters\u8221\'3f that plants were natural products not subject to patent
protection.
}
Thorne, Relation of Patent Law to Natural Products, 6 J. Pat.Off.Soc. 23, 24
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*312
}
}
1923).
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
8
}}}
}
The second obstacle to patent protection for plants was the fact that plants were
thought not amenable to the \u8220\'3fwritten description\u8221\'3f requirement of
the patent law. See
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 112
}}}
. Because new plants may differ from old only in color or perfume, differentiation
by written description was often impossible. See Hearings on H.R.11372 before the
House Committee on Patents, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1930) (memorandum of Patent
Commissioner Robertson).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In enacting the Plant Patent Act, Congress addressed both of these concerns. It
explained at length its belief that the work of the plant breeder \u8220\'3fin aid
of nature\u8221\'3f was patentable invention. S.Rep.No.315, 71st Cong., 2d Sess.,
6\u8211\'3f8 (1930); H.R.Rep.No.1129, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 7\u8211\'3f9 (1930).
And it relaxed the written description requirement in favor of \u8220\'3fa
description . . . as complete as is reasonably possible.\u8221\'3f
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 162
}}}
. No Committee or Member of Congress, however, expressed the broader view, now
urged by the petitioner, that the terms \u8220\'3fmanufacture\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fcomposition of matter\u8221\'3f exclude living things. The sole support
for that position in the legislative history of the 1930 Act is found in the
conclusory statement of Secretary of Agriculture Hyde, in a letter to the Chairmen
of the House and Senate Committees considering the 1930 Act, that \u8220\'3fthe
patent laws . . . at the present time are understood to cover only inventions or
discoveries in the field of inanimate nature.\u8221\'3f See S.Rep.No.315,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supra
}
}
, at Appendix A; H.R.Rep.No.1129,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supra
}
}
, at Appendix A. Secretary Hyde\rquote s opinion, however, is not entitled to
controlling weight. His views were solicited on the administration of the new law
and not on the scope of patentablesubject
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*313
}
}
matter\u8212\'3fan area beyond his competence. Moreover, there is language in the
House and Senate Committee Reports suggesting that to the extent Congress
considered the matter it found the Secretary\rquote s dichotomy unpersuasive. The
Reports observe:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2210
}
}
\u8220\'3fThere is a clear and logical distinction
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
between the discovery of a new variety of plant and of certain inanimate things
}
}
, such, for example, as a new and useful natural mineral. The mineral is created
wholly by nature unassisted by man. . . . On the other hand, a plant discovery
resulting from cultivation is unique, isolated, and is not repeated by nature, nor
can it be reproduced by nature unaided by man. . . . \u8221\'3f S.Rep.No.315,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supra
}
}
, at 6; H.R.Rep.No.1129,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supra
}
}
, at 7 (emphasis added).
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Congress thus recognized that the relevant distinction was not between living and
inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-
made inventions. Here, respondent\rquote s micro-organism is the result of human
ingenuity and research. Hence, the passage of the Plant Patent Act affords the
Government no support.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Nor does the passage of the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act support the
Government\rquote s position. As the Government acknowledges, sexually reproduced
plants were not included under the 1930 Act because new varieties could not be
reproduced true-to-type through seedlings. Brief for Petitioner 27, n. 31. By 1970,
however, it was generally recognized that true-to-type reproduction was possible
and that plant patent protection was therefore appropriate. The 1970 Act extended
that protection. There is nothing in its language or history to suggest that it was
enacted because
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
did not include living things.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[5]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
In particular, we find nothing in the exclusion of bacteria from plant variety
protection to support the petitioner\rquote s position.
}
See n. 7,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supra
}
}
. The legislative history gives no reason for this exclusion. As the Court of
Customs and
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*314
}
}
Patent Appeals suggested, it may simply reflect congressional agreement with the
result reached by that court in deciding
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
In re Arzberger
}
}
, 27 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1315,
}
112 F.2d 834 (1940)
}}}
, which held that bacteria were not plants for the purposes of the 1930 Act. Or it
may reflect the fact that prior to 1970 the Patent Office had issued patents for
bacteria under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
9
}}}
}
In any event, absent some clear indication that Congress \u8220\'3ffocused on
[the] issues . . . directly related to the one presently before the
Court,\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
SEC v. Sloan
}
}
, 436 U.S. 103, 120\u8211\'3f121, 98 S.Ct. 1702, 1713, 56 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978)
}}}
, there is no basis for reading into its actions an intent to modify the plain
meaning of the words found in
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
. See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
TVA v. Hill
}
}
, 437 U.S. 153, 189\u8211\'3f193, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2299\u8211\'3f2301, 57 L.Ed.2d 117
(1978)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United States v. Price
}
}
, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 80 S.Ct. 326, 331, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3fd77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca3fd77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(B)
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The petitioner\rquote s second argument is that micro-organisms cannot qualify as
patentable subject matter until Congress expressly authorizes such protection. His
position rests on the fact that genetic technology was unforeseen when Congress
enacted
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
. From this it is argued that resolution of the patentability of inventions such as
respondent\rquote s should be left to Congress. The legislative process, the
petitioner argues, is best equipped to weigh the competing economic, social, and
scientific considerations involved, and to determine whether living organisms
produced by genetic engineering should receive patent protection. In support of
this position, the petitioner relies on our recent holding in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Parker v. Flook
}
}
, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978)
}}}
, and the statement that the judiciary \u8220\'3fmust proceed cautiously when . . .
asked to extend
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*315
}
}
patent rights into areas wholly unforeseen by Congress.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Id.
}
}
, at 596, 98 S.Ct. at 2529
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2211
}
}
}
[6]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
}
[7]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
}
[8]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
It is, of course, correct that Congress, not the courts, must define the limits of
patentability; but it is equally true that once Congress has spoken it is
\u8220\'3fthe province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marbury v. Madison
}
}
, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)
}}}
. Congress has performed its constitutional role in defining patentable subject
matter in
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
; we perform ours in construing the language Congress has employed. In so doing,
our obligation is to take statutes as we find them, guided, if ambiguity appears,
by the legislative history and statutory purpose. Here, we perceive no ambiguity.
The subject-matter provisions of the patent law have been cast in broad terms to
fulfill the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting \u8220\'3fthe Progress
of Science and the useful Arts\u8221\'3f with all that means for the social and
economic benefits envisioned by Jefferson. Broad general language is not
necessarily ambiguous when congressional objectives require broad terms.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Nothing in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Flook
}
}
is to the contrary. That case applied our prior precedents to determine that a
\u8220\'3fclaim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific
end use, is unpatentable subject matter under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
.\u8221\'3f
}
437 U.S., at 595, n. 18, 98 S.Ct., at 2528, n. 18.
}}}
The Court carefully scrutinized the claim at issue to determine whether it was
precluded from patent protection under \u8220\'3fthe principles underlying the
prohibition against patents for \u8216\'3fideas\rquote or phenomena of
nature.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Id.
}
}
, at 593, 98 S.Ct. at 2527.
}}}
We have done that here.
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Flook
}
}
did not announce a new principle that inventions in areas not contemplated by
Congress when the patent laws were enacted are unpatentable
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
per se.
\par
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
To read that concept into
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Flook
}
}
would frustrate the purposes of the patent law. This Court frequently has observed
that a statute is not to be confined to the \u8220\'3fparticular application[s] . .
. contemplated by the legislators.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Barr v. United States
}
}
, 324 U.S. 83, 90, 65 S.Ct. 522, 525, 89 L.Ed. 765 (1945)
}}}
. Accord,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Browder v. United States
}
}
, 312 U.S. 335, 339, 61 S.Ct. 599, 601, 85 L.Ed. 862 (1941)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*316
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Puerto Rico v. Shell Co.
}
}
, 302 U.S. 253, 257, 58 S.Ct. 167, 169, 82 L.Ed. 235 (1937)
}}}
. This is especially true in the field of patent law. A rule that unanticipated
inventions are without protection would conflict with the core concept of the
patent law that anticipation undermines patentability. See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Graham v. John Deere Co.
}
}
, 383 U.S., at 12\u8211\'3f17, 86 S.Ct., at 691\u8211\'3f693.
}}}
Mr. Justice Douglas reminded that the inventions most benefiting mankind are those
that \u8220\'3fpush back the frontiers of chemistry, physics, and the
like.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.
}
}
, 340 U.S. 147, 154, 71 S.Ct. 127, 131, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950)
}}}
(concurring opinion). Congress employed broad general language in drafting
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
precisely because such inventions are often unforeseeable.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_B011101980116775_ID}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_B011101980116775_ID}
10
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
To buttress his argument, the petitioner, with the support of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
amicus
}
}
, points to grave risks that may be generated by research endeavors such as
respondent\rquote s. The briefs present a gruesome parade of horribles. Scientists,
among them Nobel laureates, are quoted suggesting that genetic research may pose a
serious threat to the human race, or, at the very least, that the dangers are far
too substantial to permit such research to proceed apace at this time. We are told
that genetic research and related technological developments may spread pollution
and disease, that it may result in a loss of genetic diversity, and that its
practice may tend to depreciate the value of human life. These arguments are
forcefully, even passionately, presented; they remind us that, at times, human
ingenuity seems unable to control fully the forces it creates\u8212\'3fthat with
Hamlet, it is sometimes
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2212
}
}
better \u8220\'3fto bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not
of.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
It is argued that this Court should weigh these potential hazards in considering
whether respondent\rquote s invention is
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*317
}
}
patentable subject matter under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
. We disagree. The grant or denial of patents on micro-organisms is not likely to
put an end to genetic research or to its attendant risks. The large amount of
research that has already occurred when no researcher had sure knowledge that
patent protection would be available suggests that legislative or judicial fiat as
to patentability will not deter the scientific mind from probing into the unknown
any more than Canute could command the tides. Whether respondent\rquote s claims
are patentable may determine whether research efforts are accelerated by the hope
of reward or slowed by want of incentives, but that is all.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[9]
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
What is more important is that we are without competence to entertain these
arguments\u8212\'3feither to brush them aside as fantasies generated by fear of the
unknown, or to act on them. The choice we are urged to make is a matter of high
policy for resolution within the legislative process after the kind of
investigation, examination, and study that legislative bodies can provide and
courts cannot. That process involves the balancing of competing values and
interests, which in our democratic system is the business of elected
representatives.
}
Whatever their validity, the contentions now pressed on us should be addressed to
the political branches of the Government, the Congress and the Executive, and not
to the courts.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_B012111980116775_ID}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_B012111980116775_ID}
11
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*318
}
}
We have emphasized in the recent past that \u8220\'3f[o]ur individual appraisal of
the wisdom or unwisdom of a particular [legislative] course . . . is to be put
aside in the process of interpreting a statute.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
TVA v. Hill
}
}
, 437 U.S., at 194, 98 S.Ct., at 2302.
}}}
Our task, rather, is the narrow one of determining what Congress meant by the
words it used in the statute; once that is done our powers are exhausted. Congress
is free to amend
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
so as to exclude from patent protection organisms produced by genetic engineering.
Cf.
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2181&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b
54f12d4d&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
42 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2181(a)
}}}
, exempting from patent protection inventions \u8220\'3fuseful solely in the
utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic
weapon.\u8221\'3f Or it may chose to craft a statute specifically designed for such
living things. But, until Congress takes such action, this Court must construe the
language of
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
as it is. The language of that section fairly embraces respondent\rquote s
invention.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Affirmed.
\par
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_dissent_opinion_1}{\*\bkmkend co_dissent_opinion_1}
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice WHITE, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr.
Justice POWELL join, dissenting.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_Ia2e7ca44d77211e498db8b09b4f04}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_Ia2e7ca44d77211e498db8b09b4f04}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
I agree with the Court that the question before us is a narrow one. Neither the
future of scientific research, nor even, the ability of respondent Chakrabarty to
reap some monopoly profits from his pioneering work, is at stake. Patents on the
processes by which he has produced and employed the new living organism are not
contested. The only question we need decide is whether
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2213
}
}
Congress, exercising its authority under Art. I, \u167\'3f 8, of the Constitution,
intended that he be able to secure a monopoly on the living organism itself, no
matter how produced or how used. Because I believe the Court has misread the
applicable legislation, I dissent.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*319
}
}
The patent laws attempt to reconcile this Nation\rquote s deep seated antipathy to
monopolies with the need to encourage progress.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp
}
}
., 406 U.S. 518, 530\u8211\'3f531, 92 S.Ct. 1700, 1707\u8211\'3f1708, 32 L.Ed.2d
273 (1972)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Graham v. John Deere Co
}
}
., 383 U.S. 1, 7\u8211\'3f10, 86 S.Ct. 684, 668\u8211\'3f690,
}}}
}
15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966)
}}}
. Given the complexity and legislative nature of this delicate task, we must be
careful to extend patent protection no further than Congress has provided. In
particular, were there an absence of legislative direction, the courts should leave
to Congress the decisions whether and how far to extend the patent privilege into
areas where the common understanding has been that patents are not available.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
1
}}}
}
Cf.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., supra
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In this case, however, we do not confront a complete legislative vacuum. The
sweeping language of the Patent Act of 1793, as re-enacted in 1952, is not the last
pronouncement Congress has made in this area. In 1930 Congress enacted the Plant
Patent Act affording patent protection to developers of certain asexually
reproduced plants. In 1970 Congress enacted the Plant Variety Protection Act to
extend protection to certain new plant varieties capable of sexual reproduction.
Thus, we are not dealing\u8212\'3fas the Court would have it\u8212\'3fwith the
routine problem of \u8220\'3funanticipated inventions.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Ante
}
}
, at 2211. In these two Acts Congress has addressed the general problem of
patenting animate inventions and has chosen carefully limited language granting
protection to some kinds of discoveries, but specifically excluding others.
}
These Acts strongly evidence a congressional limitation that excludes bacteria
from patentability.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
2
}}}
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*320
}
}
First, the Acts evidence Congress\rquote understanding, at least since 1930, that
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
does not include living organisms. If newly developed living organisms not
naturally occurring had been patentable under
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
, the plants included in the scope of the 1930 and 1970 Acts could have been
patented without new legislation. Those plants, like the bacteria involved in this
case, were new varieties not naturally occurring.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
3
}}}
}
Although the Court,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ante
}
}
, at 2209, rejects this line of argument, it does not explain why the Acts were
necessary unless to correct a pre-existing situation.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
4
}}}
}
I cannot share the
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
**2214
}
}
Court\rquote s implicit assumption that Congress was engaged in either idle
exercises or mere correction of the public record when it enacted the 1930 and 1970
Acts. And Congress certainly thought it was doing something significant. The
Committee Reports contain expansive prose about the previously unavailable benefits
to be derived from extending patent protection to plants.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
5
}}}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*321
}
}
}
findType=Y&serNum=0100748175&pubNum=0100014&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6
b54f12d4d&refType=TV&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
H.R.Rep. No. 91\u8211\'3f1605, pp. 1\u8211\'3f3
}}}
(1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, p. 5082; S.Rep.No.315, 71st Cong., 2d
Sess., 1\u8211\'3f3 (1930). Because Congress thought it had to legislate in order
to make agricultural \u8220\'3fhuman-made inventions\u8221\'3f patentable and
because the legislation Congress enacted is limited, it follows that Congress never
meant to make items outside the scope of the legislation patentable.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Second, the 1970 Act clearly indicates that Congress has included bacteria within
the focus of its legislative concern, but not within the scope of patent
protection. Congress specifically excluded bacteria from the coverage of the 1970
Act.
}
7 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2402(a)
}}}
. The Court\rquote s attempts to supply explanations for this explicit exclusion
ring hollow. It is true that there is no mention in the legislative history of the
exclusion, but that does not give us license to invent reasons. The fact is that
Congress, assuming that animate objects as to which it had not specifically
legislated could not be patented, excluded bacteria from the set of patentable
organisms.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Court protests that its holding today is dictated by the broad language of
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
, which cannot \u8220\'3fbe confined to the \u8216\'3fparticular application
[s] . . . contemplated by the legislators.\u8217\'3f \u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Ante
}
}
, at 2211, quoting
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Barr v. United States
}
}
, 324 U.S. 83, 90, 65 S.Ct. 522, 525, 89 L.Ed. 765 (1945)
}}}
. But as I have shown, the Court\rquote s decision does not follow the unavoidable
implications of the statute. Rather, it extends the patent system to cover living
material
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*322
}
}
even though Congress plainly has legislated in the belief that
}
\u167\'3f 101
}}}
does not encompass living organisms. It is the role of Congress, not this Court,
to broaden or narrow the reach of the patent laws. This is especially true where,
as here, the composition sought to be patented uniquely implicates matters of
public concern.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf21 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_allCitations_1}{\*\bkmkend co_allCitations_1}
All Citations
\par
}
}
447 U.S. 303, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144, 206 U.S.P.Q. 193
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0 {
\clpadl200 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Footnotes
\par
}
}
}\f4 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnote_B0011980116775_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnote_B0011980116775_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_B0011980116775_ID0E" }
{\fldrslt
*
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared
by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i1
United States v. Detroit Lumber Co.
}
}
, 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499
.
\par
}
}
}
}
}\f4 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00211980116775_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_B00211980116775_ID0" }
{\fldrslt
1
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Plasmids are hereditary units physically separate from the chromosomes of the cell.
In prior research, Chakrabarty and an associate discovered that plasmids control
the oil degradation abilities of certain bacteria. In particular, the two
researchers discovered plasmids capable of degrading camphor and octane, two
components of crude oil. In the work represented by the patent application at issue
here, Chakrabarty discovered a process by which four different plasmids, capable of
degrading four different oil components, could be transferred to and maintained
stably in a single
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Pseudomonas
}
}
bacterium, which itself has no capacity for degrading oil.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00321980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
2
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
At present, biological control of oil spills requires the use of a mixture of
naturally occurring bacteria, each capable of degrading one component of the oil
complex. In this way, oil is decomposed into simpler substances which can serve as
food for aquatic life. However, for various reasons, only a portion of any such
mixed culture survives to attack the oil spill. By breaking down multiple
components of oil, Chakrabarty\rquote s micro-organism promises more efficient and
rapid oil-spill control.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00431980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
3
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
The Board concluded that the new bacteria were not \u8220\'3fproducts of
nature,\u8221\'3f because
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Pseudomonas
}
}
bacteria containing two or more different energy-generating plasmids are not
naturally occurring.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00541980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
4
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Bergy
}
}
involved a patent application for a pure culture of the micro-organism
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Streptomyces vellosus
}
}
found to be useful in the production of lincomycin, an antibiotic.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00651980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
5
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
This case does not involve the other \u8220\'3fconditions and
requirements\u8221\'3f of the patent laws, such as novelty and nonobviousness.
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 102
,
}
103
.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00761980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
6
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
This same language was employed by P. J. Federico, a principal draftsman of the
1952 recodification, in his testimony regarding that legislation: \u8220\'3f[U]nder
}
section 101
a person may have invented a machine or a manufacture, which may include anything
under the sun that is made by man. . . . \u8221\'3f Hearings on H.R. 3760 before
Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.,
37 (1951).
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00871980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
7
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
The Plant Patent Act of 1930,
}
35 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 161
, provides in relevant part:
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li980 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li980 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fWhoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and
new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly
found seedlings, other than a tuber propogated plant or a plant found in an
uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor . . . .\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, provides in relevant part:
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fThe breeder of any novel variety of sexually reproduced plant (other than
fungi, bacteria, or first generation hybrids) who has so reproduced the variety, or
his successor in interest, shall be entitled to plant variety protection therefor .
. . .\u8221\'3f 84 Stat. 1547,
}
7 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2402(a)
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
See generally, 3 A. Deller, Walker on Patents, ch. IX (2d ed. 1964); R. Allyn, The
First Plant Patents (1934).
\par
}
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B00981980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
8
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Writing three years after the passage of the 1930 Act, R. Cook, Editor of the
Journal of Heredity, commented: \u8220\'3fIt is a little hard for plant men to
understand why [Art. I, \u167\'3f 8] of the Constitution should not have been
earlier construed to include the promotion of the art of plant breeding. The reason
for this is probably to be found in the principle that natural products are not
patentable.\u8221\'3f Florists Exchange and Horticultural Trade World, July 15,
1933, p. 9.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01091980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
9
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
In 1873, the Patent Office granted Louis Pasteur a patent on \u8220\'3fyeast, free
from organic germs of disease, as an article of manufacture.\u8221\'3f And in 1967
and 1968, immediately prior to the passage of the Plant Variety Protection Act,
that Office granted two patents which, as the petitioner concedes, state claims for
living micro-organisms. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 3, and n. 2.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B011101980116775_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_B011101980116775_ID" }
{\fldrslt
10
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Even an abbreviated list of patented inventions underscores the point: telegraph
(Morse, No. 1,647); telephone (Bell, No. 174,465); electric lamp (Edison, No.
223,898); airplane (the Wrights, No. 821,393); transistor (Bardeen & Brattain, No.
2,524,035); neutronic reactor (Fermi & Szilard, No. 2,708,656); laser (Schawlow &
Townes, No. 2,929,922). See generally Revolutionary Ideas, Patents & Progress in
America, United States Patent and Trademark Office (1976).
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B012111980116775_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_B012111980116775_ID" }
{\fldrslt
11
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
We are not to be understood as suggesting that the political branches have been
laggard in the consideration of the problems related to genetic research and
technology. They have already taken action. In 1976, for example, the National
Institutes of Health released guidelines for NIH-sponsored genetic research which
established conditions under which such research could be performed.
}
findType=Y&serNum=0306671794&pubNum=1037&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54
f12d4d&refType=FR&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
41 Fed.Reg. 27902.
In 1978 those guidelines were revised and relaxed.
}
findType=Y&serNum=0307086610&pubNum=1037&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54
f12d4d&refType=FR&fi=co_pp_sp_1037_60108&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt
1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1037_60108" }
{\fldrslt
43 Fed.Reg. 60080, 60108, 60134.
And Committees of the Congress have held extensive hearings on these matters. See,
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
e. g.
}
}
, Hearings on Genetic Engineering before the Subcommittee on Health of the Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977); Hearings on
H.R. 4759 et al. before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01311980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
1
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
I read the Court to admit that the popular conception, even among advocates of
agricultural patents, was that living organisms were unpatentable. See
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
ante
}
}
, at 2209, and n. 8.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01421980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
2
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
But even if I agreed with the Court that the 1930 and 1970 Acts were not
dispositive, I would dissent. This case presents even more cogent reasons than
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Deepsouth Packing Co
}
}
. not to extend the patent monopoly in the face of uncertainty. At the very least,
these Acts are signs of legislative attention to the problems of patenting living
organisms, but they give no affirmative indication of congressional intent that
bacteria be patentable. The caveat of
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i1
Parker v. Flook
}
}
, 437 U.S. 584, 596,
}
findType=Y&pubNum=708&cite=90SCT2522&originatingDoc=Ic1d4f0109c1e11d991d0cc6b54f12d
4d&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_2529&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&tr
ansitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_2529" }{\fldrslt
90 S.Ct. 2522, 2529,
}
57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978)
, an admonition to \u8220\'3fproceed cautiously when we are asked to extend patent
rights into areas wholly unforeseen by Congress,\u8221\'3f therefore becomes
pertinent. I should think the necessity for caution is that much greater when we
are asked to extend patent rights into areas Congress has foreseen and considered
but has not resolved.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01531980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
3
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
The Court refers to the logic employed by Congress in choosing not to perpetuate
the \u8220\'3fdichotomy\u8221\'3f suggested by Secretary Hyde.
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
Ante
}
}
, at 2209. But by this logic the bacteria at issue here are distinguishable from
a \u8220\'3fmineral . . . created wholly by nature\u8221\'3f in exactly the same
way as were the new varieties of plants. If a new Act was needed to provide patent
protection for the plants, it was equally necessary for bacteria. Yet Congress
provided for patents on plants but not on these bacteria. In short, Congress
decided to make only a subset of animate \u8220\'3fhuman-made inventions,\u8221\'3f
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
ibid
}
}
., patentable.
\par
}
}
}
}
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01641980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
4
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
If the 1930 Act\rquote s only purpose were to solve the technical problem of
description referred to by the Court,
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i1
ante
}
}
, at 2209, most of the Act, and in particular its limitation to asexually
reproduced plants, would have been totally unnecessary.
\par
}
}
}
}
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
{\f4 \b0 \fs24 \cf1 \i0
co_footnote_B01751980116775_1}
{\fldrslt
5
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Secretary Hyde\rquote s letter was not the only explicit indication in the
legislative history of these Acts that Congress was acting on the assumption that
legislation was necessary to make living organisms patentable. The Senate Judiciary
Committee Report on the 1970 Act states the Committee\rquote s understanding that
patent protection extended no further than the explicit provisions of these Acts:
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fUnder the patent law, patent protection is limited to those varieties of
plants which reproduce asexually, that is, by such methods as grafting or budding.
No protection is available to those varieties of plants which reproduce sexually,
that is, generally by seeds.\u8221\'3f
}
S.Rep.No.91\u8211\'3f1246, p. 3 (1970).
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li180 \f4 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Similarly, Representative Poage, speaking for the 1970 Act, after noting the
protection accorded asexually developed plants, stated that \u8220\'3ffor plants
produced from seed, there has been no such protection.\u8221\'3f 116 Cong.Rec.
40295 (1970).
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}\f4 \li180 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs24 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf22 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf22 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f4 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf22 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f4 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf22 \i0 \intbl \cell
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f4 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf22 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f4 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf22 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}\sect }

Diamond V Chakrabarty

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Diamond V Chakrabarty

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

{\rtf1 \ansi

Вам также может понравиться