Biotechnology Patents after the Harvard Mouse: Did Congress Really Intend Everything under the Sun to Include Shiny Eyes, Soft Fur and Pink Feet
![handle is hein.journals/jpatos74 and id is 536 raw text is: Biotechnology Patents after the
Harvard Mouse: Did Congress
Really Intend Everything Under the
Sun to Include Shiny Eyes, Soft Fur
and Pink Feet?
John S. Hudson
On April 12th, 1988, the legal relationship between the citizens
of the United States and the animals of the world changed in a
manner that could not have been imagined even a few years ago. The
United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for a
living, warm-blooded, fur-bearing mammal; a genetically engineered
mouse.'
Because this modified mouse did not occur in nature, it fell
within the statutory definition of an article of manufacture or a
composition of matter. In issuing the patent on the mouse, the
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was following administrative
guidelines set by the Commissioner of Patents. These stated that
(except with respect to human beings), the Patent and Trademark
Office [was] now examining claims directed to multicellular living
organisms, including animals.'2 Although the Commissioner was
merely following a progression of increasingly sophisticated biotech-
1 U.S. Patent 4,736,866, Leder et al., Transgenic Non-Human Mammals (Apr. 12, 1988)
(Harvard College is the assignee, and for this reason the popular press often refers to the subject
of the patent as The Harvard Mouse).
2 Animals-Patentability, 1077 O.G. 24 (Apr. 21, 1987) (notice by Assistant Secretary and
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Donald J. Quigg); MANuAl. oF PATENT EXAMNNG
PROCEDURE §2105 (5th ed., rev. Oct 6, 1987) (Patentable Subject Matter-Living Subject Matter).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jpatos74&div=82&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most