Intellectual property protection of plant biotechnology inventions

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 456-461

  Sechley, Konrad A ^a   Schroeder, Hans ^a  

^a Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANTS (BOTANY); PROTECTION;

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

COMPLEMENTARY DNA; INSULIN; POLYGALACTURONASE;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS;

DNA SEQUENCE; GENE SEQUENCE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; LAW; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PATENT; PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTECTION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN ISOLATION; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CANADA; EUROPE; GENETIC ENGINEERING; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; PLANTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES;

EID: 0036843303     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)02050-4     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (2002) 62 USPQ 2d 1289 (Federal Court US)
2. University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1997) 43 USPQ 2d 1398 (Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit US)
3. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Publication No. 223(E) (1996). ISBN 92-805-0640-4
4. Article 27(1). In Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Publication No. 223(E) (1996). ISBN 92-805-0640-4
5. Article 27(2) and (3). In Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Publication No. 223(E) (1996). ISBN 92-805-0640-4
6. Article 53(a) EPC. In Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (10th edn), European Patent Office, Germany, ISBN 3-89605-038-9
7. Article 27(3)(b) In Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Publication No. 223(E) (1996). ISBN 92-805-0640-4
8. Union International pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (UPOV) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as revised in Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. UPOV Publication No. 221(E). ISBN 92-805-0332-4
9. Cullet P. Revision of the TRIPS agreement concerning the protection of plant varieties - lessons from India concerning the development of a sui generis system. J. World Intellectual Property. 2:1999;617-656.
10. Price S.C. Public and private plant breeding. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:1999;938.
11. Article 15: Exceptions to the breeder's right. In Union International pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (UPOV) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as revised in Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. UPOV Publication No. 221(E), ISBN 92-805-0332-4
12. Article UPOV 14: Scope of the Breeder's Right. In Union International pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (UPOV) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of Deecmber 2, 1961, as revised in Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. UPOV Publication No. 221(E), ISBN 92-805-0332-4
13. Article 14 (5)(c). In Union International pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (UPOV) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of Decmber 2, 1961, as revised in Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. UPOV Publication No. 221(E), ISBN 92-805-0332-4
14. In re LeGrice (1962) 133 USPQ 2d 365 (US Patent Appeal Board)
15. Ex parte Thomson (1992) 24 USPQ 2d 1618 (USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences)
16. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 447 USPQ 303 (US Supreme Court)
17. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., v. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., Farm Advantage, Inc., et al., December 10, 2001 No. 99-1996 (US Supreme Court) 18
18. President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Commissioner of Patents (2000) 7 C.P.R. (4th) 1 (Court of Appeal, Canada)
19. Monsanto Canada Inc., et al. v. Schmeiser et al. (2001) 12 C.P.R. (4th) 204 (Federal Court, Trial Division Canada)
20. Canadian Patent 1,313,830 Glyphosate-resistant plants, 23 February 1993
21. EU Biotech Directive Official Journal of the European Patent Office (1999) 101
22. Decision of the EPO enlarged board of appeals G 01/98 Official Journal of the European Patent Office (2000) 111
23. Official Journal of the European Patent Office (1991) 476
24. European Patent 169 672. Method for Producing Transgenic Animals (1992) 13 May
25. Decision of the EPO Technical Board of Appeal T 356/93 Official Journal of the European Patent Office (1995) 545
26. Official Journal of the European Communities C87E/265 (2002)
27. Official Journal of the European Patent Office (1999) 573.
28. Rule 23(c) EPC. In Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (10th edn), European Patent Office, Germany. ISBN 3-89605-038-9
29. Rule 23e(1) EPC In Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (10th edn), European Patent Office, Germany. ISBN 3-89605-038-9
30. Rule 23e(2) EPC In Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) (10th edn), European Patent Office, Germany. ISBN 3-89605-038-9
31. Utility guidelines (2001) 66 Federal Registry 1093
32. Written Description Guidelines (2001) 66 Federal Registry 1099
33. Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (1991) 18 USPQ 2d 1016 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
34. In re: Bell. (1993) 26 USPQ 2d 1529 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
35. In re: Deuel (1995) 34 USPQ 2d 1210 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit). For comment see (1995) November Journal Patent Trademark Office Society, 871-898
36. Fiers v. Sugano (1993) 25 USPQ 2d 1601 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)
37. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc. (1999) 52 USPQ 2d 1129 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)