Abstract

I came across something very cool while researching various evolutionary IPs, while patents are legal rights exclusively granted to inventions that pass the three requisites- Novelty, non-obviousness, and utility. Some animals have been patented, while the debate over their ethics and dignity remains. However, patented animals are different from naturally occurring organisms. While researching this topic, I encountered developments in IP-supported biotechnology, which reveal how far IP spreads from Geographical Indications to Designs to Biotechnology. It has developed right from the Venetian patent statute (1474), the first ever patent law, to the TRIPS agreement. This blog discusses how an organism or animal can be patented, or not, in some countries. 

Introduction

From cancer research mice to genetically modified livestock, biotechnology is undergoing fast-paced developments, further increasing the potential for IP jurisdiction. Biotech refers to the use of cellular processes or organisms to develop technologies that improve human life. Scientific inventions now allow for gene modification, scientists remove or add traits that do not occur naturally for disease resistance, culture pharmaceutical proteins, and many other uses. Gene modification is beneficial for agriculture, medicine, and research. Biotech inventions hold great patent value, but the central question arises: Can living animals be owned through patents?. As IP moves forward with time, innovation and ethics should be weighed equally. Patented animals like the Oncomouse, Glofish, and bacteria have raised questions about animal dignity and rights. However, the debate goes on about the advantages and how biotech can help in disease resistance and the development of Pharmaceuticals. 

Patentable Animals 

What’s all this buzz about patentable animals after all? Patentable animals are animals that do not occur naturally, but are modified in a lab via gene modification, where genes are isolated and then removed, or other genes are added to create traits in the organisms that do not occur naturally for disease resistance, or pharmaceutical inventions. Just like patents require novelty, non-obviousness, and utility, it is very important to differentiate discovery and invention. Patents are not provided for the discovery of unique animals, but rather for transgenic animals, DNA from other species attached to provide a beneficial application. The recognition of various traits and the idea of matching different traits. Further, the result is patented if it serves a benefit. The US is one of the countries where animal patents are legal; it states two constraints:

 1) a utility restriction requiring the invention to be helpful or beneficial to society, 

 2) a moral restriction that prohibits patents on human/animal chimaeras.

Case of: Oncomouse, Glofish, Bacterium

1. ONCOMOUSE: The first transgenic patent granted was to Harvard University for its creation of a mouse that carries cancer. The patent was awarded for the genetic modification of a lab mouse that is engineered to carry the oncogene for performing experiments that cure cancer.  It was the first animal to be granted a patent. This led to a rise in debate over the ownership of animals and whether patents should be granted to the animal varieties, and especially higher-order animals like mammals. 
2. GLO-FISH: The first transgenic fish that glows, developed by Professor Gong Zhiyuan, who inserted a glowing jellyfish gene into a zebrafish, giving it a fluorescent color. Originally, it was created to detect pollution, but now they are used as decorations and for aquariums, as they are visible to the naked eye. Today the are used to study gene regulation and cellular development in vertebrate animals. 
3. genus Pseudomonas Putida A genetically modified bacterium that helps break down crude oil. This one is the most famous case of patentable organisms; this bacterium set the legal precedent that human-made, living organisms are patentable. 

These animals and bacteria are just a few examples, and important that they set a precedent for other transgenic animals/bacteria. In total, there are over 660 to 800 animal patents registered at the USPTO after the 1987 landmark judgment that opened the doors for patented animals. 

Legal Battles and Landmark Cases

1. Diamond vs. Chakraborty: Anant Chakraborty, a gene engineer, created a new bacterium, which was capable of breaking down crude oil; the proposed use was for cleaning oil spills. The main issue was whether a man-made organism can be patented. Although at first, it was rejected by the patent officer. However, the US customs and patent appeals to the Supreme Court upheld the patent, stating that whoever invents a new and useful process, manufacture, or composition of matter can obtain a patent. This proved to be a landmark case that allowed for the filing of patents that undergo gene modification and result in the creation of a new organism. 
2. Harvard vs Canadian Court: the Canadian court rejected the patent, citing legal and environmental concerns; the patent on oncomouse was rejected; the court stated that higher life forms, such as mammals and fish, deserve the dignity of life, thus they are not patentable matter. Due to a lack of a legislative framework, the court deferred its judgment, citing that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office; the decision of awarding patents to higher life forms rests with the parliament. 
3. European Union– strong ethical framework: the EPO supervises patents all over the EU member countries. It strongly emphasises the utility clause, only genetically modified matter that is useful can be patented, that too, not through the biological process(cross breeding), cross breeding is strictly unpatentable. Patents apply to technological modification rather than the breed itself. 

Countries Supporting And Restricting- Animal Patents

1. USA:  The US actively grants patents to genetically modified organisms; it has over 800 animal/organism patents. Started to grant in 1987 after the diamond vs. Chakraborty case. 
2. EUROPEAN UNION: grants patents but heavily relies on the moral and ethical code of conduct, keeping biological cross-breeding out of the purview of patents. 
3. INDIA: In our country, it is strictly prohibited to patent an animal or living being; the Patents Act, 1970, prevents the commodification of living beings. Section 3(j), section 3(b), section 3(i) prohibit the propagation and promotion of modified organisms, inventions contrary to public order are unpatentable, and the use of animals in the treatment of diseases or curative processes is also unpatentable. 
4. Canada and Japan: Do not provide for patents for higher life forms, but smaller organisms. 

Ethical Concerns, Advantages, & Balance 

One of the biggest debates surrounding patentable animals is whether living beings should ever be commercial intellectual property. Critics argue that allowing the modification of animals for research compromises their dignity and increases suffering. The supporters, on the other hand, believe biotech patents are essential for life-saving medical research, vaccines, and pharmaceutical development.  There certainly is a need for balance, but till what level? I open the question to the readers reading the blog- do the ethical boundaries matter more or does innovation matter more? 

Conclusion 

The evolution of patents has come far from just inventions concerning novelty, utility, and non-obviousness; now even organisms and animals are getting patented, which shows how much IP has evolved and developed. The evolution raises questions of ethics and morality, but a balance is needed to weigh innovation and animal rights in the same scale. As biotechnology continues to evolve, the question is no longer whether life can be patented, but how far intellectual property law should go in owning it. 

References 

InvnTree, ‘Patenting Life Forms in India: Challenges and Scope’ (InvnTree, 2023) https://www.invntree.com/blog/patenting-life-forms-in-india-challenges-and-scope accessed 27 May 2026.

Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/ accessed 27 May 2026.

National Research Council, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Patenting in Biotechnology’ (NCBI Bookshelf) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8326/ accessed 27 May 2026.

National University of Singapore, ‘NUS Glowing Fish Goes Places’ (NUS News) https://news.nus.edu.sg/nus-glowing-fish-goes-places/ accessed 27 May 2026.

Copperpod IP, ‘Patenting Animals or Any Other Living Organism’ (Copperpod IP, 2022) https://www.copperpodip.com/post/patenting-animals-or-any-other-living-organism accessed 27 May 2026.

World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse’ (WIPO Magazine) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/bioethics-and-patent-law-the-case-of-the-oncomouse-35278 accessed 27 May 2026.

American Anti-Vivisection Society, ‘Animal Patents’ (AAVS) https://aavs.org/our-work/campaigns/animal-patents/ accessed 27 May 2026.

iPleaders, ‘Diamond vs Chakraborty (1980): An Analysis’ (iPleaders Blog) https://blog.ipleaders.in/diamond-vs-chakraborty-1980-an-analysis/ accessed 27 May 2026.