Milford Kamara v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the PVPA specifically excluded bacteria, and that the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had held that bacteria were not plants for purposes of the PPA
• noting that the PVPA specifically excluded bacteria, and that the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had held that bacteria were not plants for purposes of the PPA
• noting that in construing a statute, a court’s “obligation is to take statutes as [it] find[s] them, guided, if ambiguity appears, by the legislative history and statutory purpose”
• stating that “the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions, ... the result of human ingenuity and research”
• citing- Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 405, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979)
• discussing whether a human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter, and affirming the grant of a patent for inventor’s micro-organism

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).