Master The U.S. Supreme Court held that a human-made, genetically engineered microorganism is patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. with this comprehensive case brief.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty is a foundational U.S. Supreme Court decision defining the breadth of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In a 5–4 ruling, the Court held that a genetically engineered microorganism designed to break down components of crude oil falls within § 101's categories of "manufacture" or "composition of matter." The Court emphasized Congress's intent that § 101 be read broadly, famously invoking the phrase that patents are available for "anything under the sun that is made by man."
The decision reshaped both patent doctrine and the biotechnology industry. By distinguishing between products of nature and human-made inventions, the Court affirmed that eligibility turns on human ingenuity, not on whether the claimed subject matter is "alive." The ruling spurred investment and innovation in biotech and remains a cornerstone for understanding the product-of-nature exception, later refined by cases such as Mayo and Myriad. For law students, Chakrabarty is essential for mastering patent eligibility, statutory interpretation, and the judiciary's role vis-à-vis Congress in setting innovation policy.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist employed by General Electric, developed a genetically engineered Pseudomonas bacterium containing multiple plasmids, each encoding enzymes enabling the organism to degrade distinct components of crude oil. Unlike naturally occurring bacteria that metabolize only limited hydrocarbons, Chakrabarty's engineered microbe could break down multiple oil fractions, offering potential use in bioremediation. He filed patent applications containing (1) process claims for producing the bacteria, (2) claims for an inoculum comprising a carrier and the bacteria for oil spill treatment, and (3) claims to the bacteria themselves as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter." The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) allowed the process and inoculum claims but rejected the claims to the bacterium as nonstatutory subject matter under § 101, asserting that living organisms are not patentable. The PTO Board of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed, holding the microbe patent-eligible. The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Sidney A. Diamond, sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Is a live, human-made microorganism patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter," despite being a living entity?
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patents may be granted for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. The provision is to be given broad scope. Judicially recognized exceptions exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena (including products of nature), and abstract ideas. A claimed invention that is nonnaturally occurring and possesses markedly different characteristics due to human ingenuity may qualify as a patent-eligible manufacture or composition of matter, even if it is a living organism. Congress has not categorically excluded living things from § 101, and policy objections are for the legislature, not the courts, to resolve.
Yes. A live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under § 101 because it is a nonnaturally occurring "manufacture" or "composition of matter" with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature. The Supreme Court affirmed the CCPA's decision permitting patent eligibility.
Text and breadth of § 101: The Court began with the statute's capacious language—"any" new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter—which evinces congressional intent that the categories be read expansively. The terms "manufacture" and "composition of matter" are themselves broad. Nothing in § 101 excludes living organisms per se, and the presence of the word "any" reinforces a presumption of coverage. Product-of-nature vs. man-made: The Court reiterated that judicial exceptions preclude patents on laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Funk Brothers, which denied a patent on a mixture of naturally occurring bacteria that functioned as they do in nature, exemplifies the product-of-nature bar. By contrast, Chakrabarty's bacterium did not exist in nature: it was engineered by introducing multiple plasmids that conferred a novel, combined metabolic capability. Because it possessed "markedly different characteristics" from any natural organism, it was not a mere discovery of a natural phenomenon but a human-made invention. Legislative history and "anything under the sun": The Court cited congressional reports accompanying the 1952 Patent Act stating that § 101 embraces "anything under the sun that is made by man." This history supported a broad interpretation consistent with promoting progress in the useful arts. The Court rejected the PTO's reliance on administrability concerns or moral objections, emphasizing that such policy judgments lie with Congress. Other statutes do not imply exclusion: The Commissioner argued that the Plant Patent Act (PPA) and Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) indicated congressional understanding that living things required special treatment, implying that § 101 otherwise excluded them. The Court disagreed. The PPA and PVPA addressed distinct subject matter (primarily plants that posed unique description and enablement challenges), not microorganisms. Their existence showed that Congress knows how to carve out or specially address categories when it wishes; they did not silently contract § 101. Separation of powers and caution: Acknowledging policy debates about patenting life, the Court concluded that the judiciary's role is to apply the statute as written. If limits on patenting living matter are desirable, Congress can enact them. On the record, Chakrabarty's engineered bacterium fit squarely within § 101's text and purpose, unlike the natural mixture in Funk Brothers.
Chakrabarty is the seminal case establishing that human-made living organisms can be patentable subject matter, catalyzing the modern biotechnology industry. It clarified that eligibility under § 101 turns on human ingenuity and whether the invention is nonnaturally occurring and materially different from nature, not on whether it is alive. The decision's famous "anything under the sun that is made by man" line remains a touchstone for reading § 101 broadly while respecting the judicial exceptions. For law students, the case is indispensable for understanding: (1) the scope and limits of § 101 and the product-of-nature exception; (2) the use of statutory text and legislative history in intellectual property cases; (3) the Court's separation-of-powers approach to science policy; and (4) the doctrinal throughline to later cases such as Mayo, Myriad, and Alice, which refined eligibility by policing claims that monopolize natural laws, natural products, or abstract ideas.
No. The Court rejected a categorical ban on patenting living things but required that a claimed organism be a human-made, nonnaturally occurring invention with markedly different characteristics from what exists in nature. Naturally occurring organisms, even if isolated, are not eligible. Additionally, later law imposes further limits; for example, Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act prohibits patents on claims "directed to or encompassing a human organism."
Chakrabarty emphasized that human-made, nonnatural inventions are eligible. Myriad applied the product-of-nature doctrine to hold that isolated natural DNA is not patentable, while cDNA (which does not occur in nature) may be. Together, the cases underscore that human intervention must create a nonnatural, markedly different product to cross the § 101 threshold.
Funk Brothers denied eligibility to a mixture of naturally occurring bacteria that functioned as they do in nature. The Supreme Court distinguished Chakrabarty's microbe as a new, nonnaturally occurring organism engineered to possess combined degradative capabilities not found in nature. This contrast sharpened the line between unpatentable products of nature and patent-eligible human-made inventions.
The Supreme Court does not issue patents; it resolved eligibility. After the decision, the PTO proceeded, and Chakrabarty's patent on the engineered bacterium ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,259,444 (1981), covering microorganisms having multiple degradative plasmids and methods of making them.
Emphasize human engineering that produces a nonnatural organism or composition with markedly different characteristics and concrete utility. Clearly describe how the claimed features do not occur in nature. Remember that eligibility is only the first hurdle—novelty (§ 102), nonobviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112) must also be satisfied.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty is a landmark in patent law and innovation policy. By recognizing that human-made living organisms can qualify as manufactures or compositions of matter under § 101, the Court endorsed a functional, text-driven approach to eligibility that focuses on human ingenuity and nonnaturally occurring characteristics rather than bright-line exclusions based on "life."
The case remains central to modern eligibility analysis and to the growth of the biotechnology sector. Even as later decisions like Mayo and Myriad refine the product-of-nature and law-of-nature exceptions, Chakrabarty's core teaching endures: when human intervention creates something not found in nature with new characteristics and utility, § 101 is broad enough to consider it for patent protection, leaving broader policy judgments to Congress.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →