What was decided in Diamond v. Chakrabarty?

A human-made, living microorganism can be patented under 35 U.S.C. §101 as a manufacture or composition of matter.

Does being ‘alive’ block patent protection?

No. The Court said being alive is not, by itself, a bar. What matters is human creation, not a product of nature.

What is the key legal test under §101 here?

Whether the claimed subject is a human-made manufacture or composition of matter, not a naturally occurring product.

What did the Patent Office allow and reject?

It allowed the process and inoculum claims but rejected claims to the bacterium itself; the Supreme Court reversed that rejection.

Why is this case important for biotech?

It opened the door for patents on engineered biological inventions, supporting growth in biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Can a human-made, living bacterium be patented as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. §101?

U.S. Supreme Court 447 U.S. 303 (1980) Patent Law / Biotech United States ~6–7 min read

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 LOCATION: India diamond-v-chakrabarty

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: patentability of microorganisms; 35 U.S.C. §101; manufacture; composition of matter SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Diamond v. Chakrabarty; genetically engineered bacterium; Pseudomonas putida; GE; 1980 U.S. Supreme Court

Quick Summary

A GE scientist engineered a bacterium that eats oil. He asked for patents on the process, an inoculum, and the bacterium itself. The Patent Office allowed the first two but refused the bacterial claim. The U.S. Supreme Court held: a human-made living microorganism can be patented under §101 as a manufacture or composition of matter. Being “alive” does not block patent eligibility.

Issues

Do living microorganisms made by humans fit “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. §101?

Rules

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.
Products of nature are not eligible; human-made inventions can be.
“Alive” vs “not alive” is not, by itself, a bar to eligibility.

Facts (Timeline)

view

Engineering: A GE researcher creates a strain of Pseudomonas putida that can break down components of crude oil. No natural bacteria did this.

Patent Filing: He files three claim sets: (a) process of making the bacterium, (b) inoculum (carrier + bacterium), (c) the bacterium itself.

Office Action: Examiner allows (a) and (b), rejects (c) as a product of nature/living thing not patentable under §101. Board affirms.

Appeals: CCPA reverses, saying “alive” is legally irrelevant if it is human-made. The case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

Timeline of Diamond v. Chakrabarty events

Arguments

Petitioner (Patent Office)

Living things are not patentable under §101.
The microorganism is a product of nature and should be excluded.
Policy concerns: patents on life forms should be left to Congress.

Respondent (Inventor)

The bacterium is human-made, not naturally occurring.
It fits “manufacture” or “composition of matter” as written in §101.
Law should not draw a life/non-life line; the statute’s words are broad.

Judgment

Patent-Eligible

The Supreme Court held that the engineered bacterium is patent-eligible. Section 101 is broad and covers human-made inventions—even if living—so long as they are not products of nature. The patent for the microorganism was ultimately granted.

Focus is on human ingenuity, not life/non-life status.
“Manufacture”/“composition of matter” read broadly to include engineered microbes.

Judgment highlight for Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Ratio Decidendi

A human-made, non-natural microorganism is a patentable manufacture or composition of matter under §101. The “alive” quality does not, by itself, exclude it from patent eligibility; the product-of-nature bar does.

Why It Matters

Foundational case for biotech patents worldwide.
Clarifies the scope of §101 for engineered biological inventions.
Enabled growth in genetic engineering, oil-spill cleanup tech, and bio-innovation.

Key Takeaways

§101 covers human-made living organisms.
Being “alive” is not a bar; being a product of nature is.
Read statute broadly, unless Congress limits it.

Draft claims to stress human engineering and non-natural traits.
Keep evidence showing the organism is not naturally occurring.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

LIFE ≠ NATURAL — Living can be patentable, If human-made, Focus on non-natural traits, Eligible under §101.

Ask: Is it human-made or a product of nature?
Show: Structural/functional traits not found in nature.
Claim: Frame as manufacture or composition of matter.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Are engineered microorganisms patent-eligible under §101?

Rule

Patents for new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter.

Application

The bacterium was human-made and not naturally occurring; thus within §101’s terms.

Conclusion

Patent-eligible; rejection of organism claim overturned.

Glossary

Term	Simple Meaning
§101	U.S. law that lists the broad kinds of inventions that can be patented.
Manufacture	Something made by humans (a product), not found as such in nature.
Composition of Matter	Combination of ingredients or substances, including new ones made by humans.
Product of Nature	Something that exists in nature as is; usually not patentable.
Inoculum	Mixture that carries and spreads microorganisms for use.