By Donald Zuhn --
In a press release
issued on Wednesday, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) recalled the
Supreme Court's landmark decision in Diamond
v. Chakrabarty,
which was issued thirty years ago on June 16, 1980. In Chakrabarty,
the Court determined (by a 5-4 vote) that a genetically engineered Pseudomonas bacterium capable of
breaking down multiple components of crude oil "plainly qualifies" as
patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (at right, Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty). Citing the Senate and House Committee Reports that
accompanied the 1952 Patent Act, the Court explained that "Congress intended
statutory subject matter to 'include anything under the sun that is made by
man," and determined that "[Chakrabarty's] discovery is not nature's
handiwork, but his own," and therefore constituted patentable subject
matter under § 101.
In
BIO's release, BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood that the Chakrabarty decision "was instrumental
in spurring the creation of a dynamic and flourishing biotech industry,"
adding that the decision "provided assurance to biotech companies and
their investors that emerging technologies are protected by the patent system
even if they could not have been foreseen when the system was created 200 years
earlier." Mr. Greenwood noted
that in the thirty years that have passed since the Court decided Chakrabarty,
"the biotechnology industry in the United States has improved and saved
lives around the world through breakthrough medical therapies, increased crop
yields, and renewable fuels," and has been "a key component of the
nation’s innovation economy, supporting more than 7.5 million jobs throughout
the country and providing the United States with a global competitive advantage."
If you're reading Chadrabarty, congratulations for starting the mess that confused a generation of patent lawlyers.
Oh and btw, your "invention" was no good anyway. Great job. No really. I wonder how much money you blew on this case?
Maybe if you had saved those $$$ you could have inventedlol something that wasn't horrible we wouldn't be so worried about this current little slip up by BP.
/golfclap.
Posted by: 6 | June 18, 2010 at 01:58 AM
Patenting in Biotechnology can be categorised in two ways. One way faciliate that the manipulated genes can be patented and forms statutory patentable subject matter in Diamond vs Chakraborthy case. On the other hand, "Myriad AMP v. USPTO Decision" , the court held that "isolated DNA" is nothing but physical embodiment of genetic information and forms the non-statutory subject matter for patenting. Now, the appellate court has to strike a clear cut balance between these two extreme cases so as to establish balancing patent jurisprudence for Biotechnology cases.
Posted by: K.M.Senthil Kumar | June 18, 2010 at 04:52 AM
Biotech patent jurisprudence can be categorised into two cases. One in which the patenting life forms through gene manipulation was held to be statutory patentable subject matter through which biotech industries benefitted immensely. Other case in which the court held that patenting isolated DNA was non statutory subject matter since it was nothing but physical embodiment of genetic information. Since, the decision in these cases involve contradictory patentable jurisprudence, the apex court on appeal should strike a clear cut balance between these two cases so that the court verdict establishes the right kind of patentable jurisprudence in Biotech cases.
Posted by: K.M.Senthil Kumar | June 18, 2010 at 06:04 AM
Don,
Let's definitely raise a toast to Chakrabarty and hope that "anything under the sun that is made by man" remains the standard for patent-eligible under 35 USC 101, even after SCOTUS opines (God truly only knows when) in Bilski.
Posted by: EG | June 18, 2010 at 07:22 AM