From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
United States Supreme Court
447 U.S. 303 (1980)
Facts
Chakrabarty (plaintiff) filed a patent application for a human-made microorganism. A patent examiner rejected the patent because it was outside of the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed and ruled that living things are not patentable subject matter under § 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed. Diamond (defendant), the Commissioner of Patents, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. Diamond argued that, by enacting the Plant Variety Patent Act, Congress implicitly understood that living things were not within the scope of 35 U.S.C. §101. Diamond also argued that the Court should show restraint in expanding 35 U.S.C. §101 under Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), which urged Courts to show caution before expanding protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 into new, unforeseen areas. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.