Plasmids V. Chakrabarty Case Study

DIAMOND, COMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS V. CHAKRABARTY

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.

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

No. 79-136

Argued March 17, 1980

Decided June 16, 1980

FACTS

The respondent Chakrabarty who was a microbiologist invented a live human- made micro- organism in 1972. This micro- organism was a bacterium from the genus pseudomons which contained two stable energy- generating plasmids and both of these plasmids provided a separate hydrocarbon degradative pathway. This live human- made, genetically engineered bacterium possessed a property which was capable of breaking down the different components of crude oil. It is because of this property of breaking down the different

The approach taken by the court of reading these terms as per their dictionary definition made it simple to understand the statute. After reading the reason given by the court for its decision now when we read the statute it becomes easy to understand that the statue itself is very expansive. I feel that the reason why the court did not go into the limitations and conditions of the Patent laws is because the legislature itself did not express the limitations while framing the statute. The legislature did not accidently made the statute expansive rather the language of the patent laws were such that it aimed to promote science and art. The court did not limit its decision to only genetically engineered living bacteria it tried to bring his invention into the realm of these wide terms “manufacture” and “composition of matter”. If we read the statute along with the term “manufacture” and “composition of matter” the word “new” has been used which gives the statue even more wider scope also when the congress recodified the Patent Laws they replaced the word “art” with “process” which is another proof that the scope of this statute is not just limited to art but anything on this earth which is made, produced, invented by