Transcript www.educateIP.org - Northwest ISD Moodle

Patenting Life, Part 1:
Should Living Things Be Patented?
On January 28, 1969, a blowout occurred on an oil platform
off the coast of San Barbara, California. Crude oil poured into
the water and soon onto the beaches. The spill killed seabirds,
fish, and mammals such seals and dolphins.
It inflicted millions of dollars of damage on
property, tourism, and the fishing industry.
www.educateIP.org
The Santa Barbara oil spill made international news.
Today, it still ranks as the third largest U.S. oil spill.
(The other two were the Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska
and the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.)
One person interested in the oil spill was Ananda Mohan
Chakrabarty, an immigrant from India. He was working as
a microbiologist for General Electric in New York.
www.educateIP.org
A few years after the spill, Chakrabarty invented a
new kind of bacteria. He added plasmids (small
pieces of DNA) from other bacteria to create
multiplasmid bacteria.
They grew faster and better on crude oil than other
bacteria. His new bacteria could help clean up oil
spills because they consumed oil so quickly.
www.educateIP.org
Chakrabarty applied for patents on his new bacteria.
A patent prevents others from
copying an invention without
the inventor’s permission.
The idea behind patents is to
allow inventors to get credit
for and to profit from their
inventions.
U.S. law states: “Whoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter…may obtain a patent….”
www.educateIP.org
Chakrabarty received patents on his process for
creating the bacteria. But Chakrabarty wanted a patent
on the bacterium itself.
The question was: Did
Chakrabarty’s bacterium
qualify for a patent?
The bacterium was new and
useful. But was it something
that could be patented? Was
it a “process, machine,
manufacture, or composition
of matter”?
www.educateIP.org
All patent applications must be submitted to the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The USPTO denied Chakrabarty’s
patent application.
It ruled that Chakrabarty’s
bacterium was a “product of
nature” and no one may
get a patent for living things.
www.educateIP.org
The Appeal
Chakrabarty appealed the USPTO’s decision. Step by step,
the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first appeal was to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences. It sided with the USPTO’s decision.
Next was U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
It sided with Chakrabarty.
Sidney A. Diamond of USPTO
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Thus the name of the
Supreme Court case was
Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
www.educateIP.org
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
The Supreme Court had to decide one question:
Did U.S. patent law allow for a live, human-made
bacterium to be patented?
The law said that inventors could patent
“manufacture” or “composition of matter.”
Did
the bacterium fit this description?
www.educateIP.org
The Decision
By a 5–4 vote, the court upheld Chakrabarty’s bacterium patent.
The court majority reasoned:
The terms “manufacture” and “composition
of matter” should be interpreted broadly. In
fact, in 1952 when the Patent Act was
amended, a congressional committee stated
that Congress allowed people to patent
“anything under the sun that is made by
man.”
True “products of nature” may not be
patented: “Thus, a new mineral discovered
in the earth or a new plant found in the wild
is not patentable subject matter.” But
Chakrabarty’s bacteria differed from any
bacteria found in nature. “His discovery is
not nature’s handiwork but his own, and
therefore may be patented.”
www.educateIP.org
The Explosion in Biotechnology
The biotechnology industry was taking off in the 1980s.
Following the Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision, many new
patents were granted on living things.
One was for the Oncomouse, a white mouse injected with a
gene to make it more likely to get cancer. The oncomouse was
good for testing anti-cancer drugs.
Many patents were also granted on human genes, the basic units of heredity.
www.educateIP.org
Now it’s your turn to work together to
make decisions about a patent.
www.educateIP.org
Dr. Frankenstein’s Invention
Imagine that Dr. Frankenstein, using metal, chemicals, and dead
human and animal parts has created a monster.
Dr. Frankenstein, using metal, chemicals, and dead
human and animal parts has created a monster.
1. Discuss and answer these questions:
a. The Chakrabarty decision said that anything made by man
(not by nature) can be patented. Is it legal to patent the
monster?
b. Should it be legal to patent the monster? Why or why not?
2. Be prepared to share your answers and reasons with the class.
www.educateIP.org
Developed by Marshall Croddy, Bill Hayes, Damon Huss, Laura Wesley
Written by Bill Hayes
Produced by Keri Doggett
With
Andrew Costly
This project is a collaborative effort of
Street Law, Inc. and the Constitutional Rights Foundation.
Educating to Protect Intellectual Property (ePIP) is funded by grant
2009-BE-BX-0001 from the United States Patent & Trademark Office
and supported by the United States Department of Justice.
www.educateIP.org
Image Credits
Slide
#
1, 9
Pathological bacteria. iStockphoto. Humonia. File #: 12037671.
2
Platform A, off Santa Barbara. Wikipedia. Antandrus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PlatformA2009.jpg
3
Oil on Sea Water. iStockphoto. Aristotoo. File#: 13678968.
Chakrabarty. Wikimedia Commons. Biswarup Ganguly.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Ananda_Mohan_Chakrabarty_-_Kolkata_2009-11-07_2780.JPG
4, 6
Bacterium. iStockphoto. Fatido. File #: 13922375.
5
Mad Scientist. iStockphoto. Suljo. File #: 12020846.
7
USPTO. www.uspto.gov
8, 10
Supreme Court. Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court.jpg
11
Simple Mouse. Seans Potato Business. Wikimedia Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simple_mouse.svg
13, 14
Frankenstein’s monster. Wikimedia Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Frankenstein%27s_monster_(Boris_Karloff).jpg
www.educateIP.org