Connection lost
Server error
In re Bergy Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court held that man-made, living microorganisms are patentable subject matter. A biologically pure culture and a genetically engineered bacterium qualify as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as the fact that they are alive is legally insignificant.
Legal Significance: This landmark decision established that man-made, living microorganisms are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It rejected a categorical exclusion for “living things” and affirmed a broad interpretation of “manufacture” and “composition of matter” to encompass new, useful, man-made life forms.
In re Bergy Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
This opinion consolidated two appeals concerning the patentability of microorganisms. In the first, applicant Bergy sought to patent a “biologically pure culture” of the microorganism Streptomyces vellosus, which he had discovered and isolated. This culture was useful for producing the antibiotic lincomycin more efficiently than previously known methods, and the pure culture did not exist in nature. In the second, applicant Chakrabarty sought to patent a new, man-made bacterium from the genus Pseudomonas. Through genetic engineering, Chakrabarty created a bacterium containing multiple plasmids, which gave it the novel capacity to break down several components of crude oil, making it useful for cleaning oil spills. This organism also did not exist in nature. In both cases, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) allowed claims directed to the processes of using the microorganisms but rejected the product claims for the microorganisms themselves. The PTO Board of Appeals’ sole ground for rejection was that living organisms are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, reasoning that Congress’s passage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930 indicated that living things were not previously considered patentable under the general statutory categories.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a living, man-made microorganism categorically excluded from being patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
No. The court reversed the PTO’s rejections, holding that a biologically pure Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit a
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a living, man-made microorganism categorically excluded from being patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Conclusion
This decision broadly interpreted § 101 to include man-made life forms, paving Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Legal Rule
A living, man-made microorganism is not per se unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the proper interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A living organism is not barred from patentability under 35 U.S.C.