Intellectual property protection for plant innovation: Unresolved issues after J.E.M.V. Pioneer

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 1161-1164

  Janis, Mark D ^a   Kesan, Jay P ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c Department of Economics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PLANTS (BOTANY);

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

COURT; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; NONHUMAN; PATENT; PLANT GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CROP; HYBRIDIZATION; INBREEDING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

AGRICULTURE; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DISCLOSURE; ENTREPRENEURSHIP; HYBRIDIZATION, GENETIC; INBREEDING; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; LIABILITY, LEGAL; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036844273     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt1102-1161     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l., Inc., 122 S. Ct. 593 (2001), rehearing denied, 122 S. Ct. 1600 (2002).
2. Janis, M.D. & Kesan, J.P. Designing an optimal intellectual property system for plants: A US Supreme Court debate. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 981 (2001).
3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).
4. For the non-obviousness requirement, see 35 USC §103. For the enablement requirement, see 35 USC §112, ¶1. Before J.E.M., the PTO and the lower courts had already begun the process of determining how to apply these traditional utility patent prerequisites to plant breeding and plant biotechnology innovations. See, e.g., Enzo Biochem. Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
5. Smyth, S. et al. Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 537 (2002).
6. 35 USC §271 (a).
7. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 US 17 (1997).
8. Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada, Inc., 2002 FCA 309 (Court of Appeal, Sept. 4, 2002) [Schmeiser II]. For the trial court's decision, see Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser, 12 CPR (4th) 204 (2001).
9. Schmeiser II, slip op. at ¶57.
10. Moreover, one prominent Federal Circuit judge has criticized the existence of even the narrow exception. See Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring).
11. See 7 USC §2544 (1994). The PVPA also includes a separate provision shielding from infringement "any act done privately and for noncommercial purposes." 7 USC §2541 (e).
12. Janis, M.D. Sustainable agriculture, patent rights, and plant innovation. Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 9, 105-117 (2001).
13. 7 USC §2543. The saved-seed exemption also allows farmers to engage in "bona fide" sales of saved seed "for other than reproductive purposes." Id. See also 7 USC §2401 (b)(1)-(2) (defining the concept of "bona fide" sales for "nonreproductive purposes").
14. Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, No. 01-1390 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2002).
15. See also Monsanto Co. v. Trantham, 156 F.Supp.2d 855 (W.D. Tenn. 2001) (discussing similar issues at trial-court level).
16. See, e.g., Indiana House Bill No. 1119 (Jan. 30, 2002).
17. or a more detailed historical and empirical analysis of the PVPA, see Janis, M.D. & Kesan, J.P. Plant variety protection: Sound and fury…? Houston L. Rev. (in press).