Concept

Patent Limits

Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 / Patents

"This is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 255, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 68 S.Ct. 440, 441, 92 L.Ed. 588 (1948); O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175, 14 L.Ed. 367 (1853). Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are “manifestations of … nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Funk, supra, 333 U.S., at 130, 68 S.Ct., at 441.\n\nJudged in this light, respondent’s micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter. His claim is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter – a product of human ingenuity “having a distinctive name, character [and] use.” Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615, 7 S.Ct. 1240, 1243, 30 L.Ed. 1012 (1887). The point is underscored dramatically by comparison of the invention here with that in Funk. There, the patentee had discovered that there existed in nature certain species of root-nodule bacteria which did not exert a mutually inhibitive effect on each other. He used that discovery to produce a mixed culture capable of inoculating the seeds of leguminous plants. Concluding that the patentee had discovered “only some of the handiwork of nature,” the Court ruled the product non-patentable.\n\nThe Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U.S.C. § 161, provides in relevant part: Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propogated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor … . The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, provides in relevant part: The breeder of any novel variety of sexually reproduced plant (other than fungi, bacteria, or first generation hybrids) who has"

Related Ideas

  • Case BackgroundProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Patents
  • Plant PatentsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Because new plants may differ from old only in color
  • Variety ProtectionProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Because new plants may differ from old only in color
  • Patent ScopeProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Because new plants may differ from old only in color
  • Functionality DoctrineProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Trademarks and Domain Names
  • Case HoldingProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · Trademarks and Domain Names
  • FactsProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may