This time, General Electric and Chakrabarty prevailed with the court overturning the examiner's decision and holding "the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law."

Unlike the patentee in Funk Bros., the Supreme Court here held that Chakrabarty had not merely discovered the bacteria's existence, he had created it himself and adapted it to a particular purpose.

[6][4] In the decades following the Supreme Court's ruling, commentators have classified Diamond v. Chakrabarty as an important legal decision, particularly with respect to the patent laws and the biotechnology industry.

In 2018, Time identified the decision as one of 25 important moments in American history, with Professor Gerardo Con Diaz remarking that the decision allowed "inventors at private and public institutions alike to obtain patents for genetically modified organisms — from plants and animals for laboratory research, to many foods available in supermarkets today" and allowed biotechnology firms to protect their developments in new ways.

"[8] Nature similarly noted that, at least according to industry participants, "without Diamond v. Chakrabarty, commercial biotechnology based on recombinant DNA technologies would not exist today.

Writing in the Ohio State Law Journal, Frank Darr criticized the Court's decision as containing "serious interpretive problems" and "reflect[ing] a policy choice" by the majority rather than a neutral legal analysis.

The Center has expressed concern over what may be interpreted as judicial activism, with this ambitious legal thrust in advance of Congressional ability to thoughtfully consider appropriate legislation.