[6] In Diamond v. Chakrabarty,[7] the United States Supreme Court held that a genetically-altered living microorganism was patent-eligible subject matter.
[8] The Court's answer to its question was yes----"respondent's micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter.
In 1988, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted U.S. patent 4,736,866 (filed Jun 22, 1984, issued Apr 12, 1988, expired April 12, 2005) to Harvard College claiming a mouse (the "oncomouse") as “a transgenic non-human mammal whose germ cells and somatic cells contain a re-combinant activated oncogene sequence introduced into said mammal…”[10] The European Patent Office (EPO) concluded that the usefulness of the oncomouse in furthering cancer research satisfied the likelihood of substantial medical benefit, and outweighed moral concerns about suffering caused to the animal.
[12] The oncomouse has been patented in Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
"[14] However, in 2002, the Canadian Supreme Court reversed that ruling and held (5-4) that the mouse itself could not be patented, but the biochemical process used to modify it could be.