1. INTRODUCTION

Ownership rights over recreated extinct genomes concern the legal control of genetic sequences, reconstructed DNA, genome-editing methods, biological samples, and organisms produced through de-extinction technologies. Examples include attempts to recreate characteristics of the woolly mammoth, passenger pigeon, or thylacine using ancient DNA, synthetic biology, cloning, or genome editing.

There is no single, universally recognised ownership right over a recreated extinct genome. Patent rights may protect qualifying technical inventions, but they do not automatically confer ownership of an extinct species, all copies of its genome, or every organism sharing its genetic characteristics. Rights may also arise under contracts, copyright, trade-secret law, access-and-benefit-sharing rules, and laws governing biological materials.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING OWNERSHIP

A. PATENTABILITY OF RECONSTRUCTED GENOMES

Patent law generally protects qualifying inventions rather than discoveries of naturally occurring genetic information. A patent application must satisfy the applicable requirements of patentable subject matter, novelty, inventive step, and sufficient disclosure.

In India, the Patents Act, 1970, is the principal legislation. Section 3(c) excludes the mere discovery of a scientific principle or a living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature. Section 3(j) excludes plants and animals, in whole or any part thereof, other than microorganisms, and essentially biological processes for the production or propagation of plants and animals. The precise application of these provisions to synthetic genomes, engineered organisms, and genome-reconstruction methods depends on the claims and the technology involved.

A technically novel method for reconstructing an extinct genome may potentially be patentable if it satisfies all applicable requirements. However, merely identifying an ancient sequence or reproducing genetic information that existed in nature does not automatically establish patentability.

B. OWNERSHIP OF DNA, BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, AND RECREATED ORGANISMS

Ownership of a physical DNA sample must be distinguished from intellectual property rights in a method or invention. A research institution may hold a biological sample under a valid transfer agreement, while another party may own a patent covering a particular editing technique. Neither arrangement necessarily establishes ownership of the genome's underlying information.

Similarly, ownership of a laboratory-created organism, possession of a specimen, and exclusive patent rights are legally distinct questions. Property rights in a recreated animal may depend on national property law, animal-welfare legislation, wildlife restrictions, and the circumstances of its creation.

C. ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING

Ancient genetic material may originate from biological resources collected in a country with access-and-benefit-sharing requirements. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol may be relevant where their respective requirements apply, although the treatment of ancient material and digital sequence information depends on the specific legal framework.

Researchers should assess the provenance of ancient DNA, collection permissions, ownership or custody of specimens, applicable Indigenous or community interests, and contractual restrictions before commercialising reconstructed genomes.

3. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) — Direct authority on patentable engineered organisms

Citation: 447 U.S. 303.

The United States Supreme Court held that a genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down components of crude oil could qualify as patentable subject matter. The Court distinguished a human-made invention with distinctive characteristics from a discovery of a naturally occurring phenomenon. The decision supports the possibility of patent protection for genuinely engineered biological inventions, but it does not establish that every reconstructed extinct genome or organism is patentable.

2. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013) — Direct authority on natural genetic sequences

Citation: 569 U.S. 576.

The United States Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA does not become patentable merely because it has been isolated from the surrounding genetic material. It distinguished complementary DNA (cDNA), which may qualify for patent protection because of its non-naturally occurring structure, subject to other patent requirements. For de-extinction, the case indicates that reconstructing or identifying an ancient sequence alone may be insufficient to justify a patent over that sequence.

3. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh) (2014) — Direct authority on cloned animals

Citation: 750 F.3d 1333 (Federal Circuit).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected patent claims directed to cloned animals that were genetically identical to naturally occurring donor animals. The court reasoned that the claimed clones did not possess markedly different characteristics sufficient to escape the product-of-nature limitation. This decision is highly relevant by analogy to recreated extinct organisms, although a genetically engineered proxy may present different patentability questions from a clone.

4. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) — Analogous authority on biological material

Citation: 51 Cal. 3d 120.

The Supreme Court of California rejected the patient's conversion claim concerning a patented cell line derived from his removed cells, while allowing certain other claims relating to disclosure and fiduciary duties to proceed. The court distinguished the patient's original biological material from the subsequently developed cell line. The decision illustrates why control over an original specimen, ownership of a derived biological product, and intellectual property rights must be assessed separately.

5. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948) — Direct authority on naturally occurring biological properties

Citation: 333 U.S. 127.

The United States Supreme Court rejected patent protection for a mixture of naturally occurring bacteria that retained their existing properties when combined. The case illustrates that assembling biological components does not necessarily create a patentable invention when the combination lacks the required inventive characteristics. A reconstructed extinct genome must therefore be assessed for genuine technical invention rather than the mere collection or arrangement of known biological information.

6. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (2002) — Comparative authority on animal patentability

Citation: 2002 SCC 76, [2002] 4 SCR 45.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a genetically modified mouse fell within the statutory category of a patentable “manufacture” or “composition of matter.” The majority concluded that the claims to the higher life form were not patentable under the Canadian Patent Act as interpreted in that case. The decision demonstrates that patentability of engineered organisms differs across jurisdictions and that a patent on the method of creating an organism does not necessarily confer a patent on the organism itself.

These decisions do not directly resolve ownership of recreated extinct genomes. They provide relevant principles for analysing patent eligibility, biological materials, and the distinction between natural discoveries and human-made inventions.

4. PRACTICAL COMPLIANCE AND OWNERSHIP PROTECTION

Organisations undertaking de-extinction research should:

Establish provenance: Document where ancient DNA was obtained, who controls the source specimen, and whether collection or research permissions are required.

Define intellectual property: Separate claims to genome-editing methods, synthetic constructs, software, laboratory processes, and organisms.

Assess patent eligibility: Review novelty, inventive step, statutory exclusions, disclosure requirements, and relevant prior art in every intended jurisdiction.

Execute research agreements: Allocate rights to inventions, data, biological samples, licensing revenue, publication, and future commercialisation.

Protect confidential know-how: Use appropriate confidentiality agreements and access controls for unpublished methods and proprietary laboratory procedures.

Respect biodiversity obligations: Determine whether access-and-benefit-sharing rules, wildlife protections, specimen-transfer restrictions, or community rights apply.

Address animal welfare: Obtain required approvals for work involving living organisms and consider the ecological consequences of breeding, containment, and potential release.

Avoid overclaiming ownership: Do not assume that a patent application grants ownership of the extinct species, all related sequences, or all future organisms derived from the research.

5. CONCLUSION

Ownership rights over recreated extinct genomes involve a complex interaction between patent law, biological-material ownership, contractual rights, biodiversity governance, and animal-welfare requirements. The cases Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Myriad Genetics, and In re Roslin Institute demonstrate that patent protection depends on the distinction between naturally occurring biological information and qualifying human-made inventions. Moore v. Regents further illustrates that ownership of biological source material and rights in derived products are not necessarily identical. In India, the Patents Act, 1970, must be considered alongside the applicable environmental and biodiversity framework. Ultimately, legal protection is most defensible when the claimed invention is clearly identified, the source material is lawfully obtained, and the rights asserted do not exceed what the applicable law permits.