Essays Experts is the only custom writing service that uses ultra modern approaches coupled with thorough training in providing high quality academic writing services. Our services will enable you achieve success and realize your academic dreams. At http://www.essaysexperts.net/ ,we are the best solution for your academic assignments.

1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Patent Infringement
Presented By:
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

2. Introduction
 The case was heard in the United Sates Supreme
Court in 1980.
 It entailed the patentability of genetically
modified organisms.
 Genetic engineer ,Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty
developed a bacterium called Pseudomona
putida.
 This was while working with General Electric.
 The bacterium can break down crude oil which
made it suitable for treating future oil spills.
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

3. Chakrabarty
 He was an investor of the bacterium by the
General Electric.
 This was when the company applied for
patent.
 The patent examiner rejected the application.
 This was because living things were not being
patentable subject matters at the time.
 The examiner quoted Section 101 of the Title
35 U.S.C.
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

4. Case
 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
upheld its initial decision.
 The United States Court of Customs and patent
did not.
 It overturned this case in favor of Chakrabarty.
 Aegued that all micro-organisms are living things
does not have legal significance.
 Sidney A. Diamond who was the Patents and
Trademarks’ commissioner made an appeal to
Supreme Court.
 This case was deliberated on 17th
March 1980.
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

5. Courts Decision
 A decision was made on 16th
June 1980 and on
31st
March 1981.
 This was USPTO granted patent which was to
Chakrabarty’s favor.
 The court noted that a live micro-organism made
by human under Title 35 U.S.C, 101.
 The micro-organism of the respondent constituted
of a composition of matter.
 The decision was written by Warren E. Burger, the
Chief Justice.
 Others who joined him were Potter Stewart,
William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens and Harry
Blackmun.
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

6.  According to Burger, the case presented to the
court was narrow.
 This was according to the interpretation of Title
35 U.S.C, 101.
 The title allows individuals or entities who
discovers entities obtain patent for them under
the conditions stipulated by the title.
 The judges cautioned the court against reading
conditions and limitations in the patent laws.
 These had not been expressed by the legislature.
http://www.essaysexperts.net/

7. For More Information About
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
Patent Infringement
Visit:
http://www.essaysexperts.net/