Plants and intellectual property: An international appraisal

Science

Volumn 306, Issue 5700, 2004, Pages 1295-1297

  Koo, Bonwoo ^a   Nottenburg, Carol ^b   Pardey, Philip G ^c  

^a INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Cougar Patent Law ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANT;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CANADA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROP PRODUCTION; EUROPE; FOOD INDUSTRY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP; GOVERNMENT; LAW; NONHUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PATENT; PLANT BREEDING; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; CROP; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGAL ASPECT; PLANT; SOUTH AMERICA; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

CANADA; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; EUROPE; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNATIONALITY; PATENTS; PLANTS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; SOUTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 16544379066     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1106760     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. M. Heller, R. Eisenberg, Science 280, 698 (1998).
2. D. Kennedy, Science 302, 357 (2003).
3. R. C. Atkinson et al., Science 301, 174 (2003).
4. R. Beachy, Science 299, 473 (2003).
5. The United States has awards called utility patents for any kind of plant and plant patents-more akin to plant breeder rights-for certain asexually reproduced plants.
6. Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 US 303, 1980.
7. Ex parte Hibberd 227 USPQ 433 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
8. J.E.M. AG Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International 122 S. Ct. 593 (2001).
9. Directive 98/44/EC (effective in all European Union member states 30 July 2000) also aims to harmonize protection for biotechnological inventions (including plant protection) among the European Union members (28).
10. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34.
11. C. Nottenburg, "Schmeiser v. Monsanto" in Navigating the Patent Maze, posted 22 July 2004, www.cougarlaw.com.
12. Decision 486, Common Intellectual Property Regime, Andean Community; available at www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/treaties/dec/D486e.htm.
13. http://www.upov.int/en/about/upov_convention.htm.
14. The Convention was established in 1961 and has been revised three times; not ail UPOV member countries are bound by the latest Convention.
15. Further information can be found in the supplemental material.
16. Protection confers the right to exclude others from producing or reproducing, propagating, offering for sale, selling or other marketing, exporting, importing or stocking for any of the above purposes the protected variety [Article 14(1) of the Convention].
17. www.ams.usda.gov/science/PVPO/PVPO_Act/PVPA.htm.
18. Plant Patent Act, 35 U.5.C. §§161-164 (1930).
19. C. Fowler, P. Mooney. Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity (Univ. of Arizona Press, Tuscon, 1990).
20. Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). Annual Report, 2002 (Community Plant Variety Office, Paris, 2003); available at www.cpvo.eu.int/default.php?res =1&w=820&h=543&lang=en&page=droit/ legislation.htm.
21. P. Brahmi et al., Curr. Sci. 86, 392 (2004).
22. Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 247 The Patents and Plant Variety Rights (Compulsory Licensing) Regulations, 2002.
23. Only 54 out of a total of 191 (28%) of the countries surveyed having legislation are members of the UPOV Convention.
24. Over time, some countries with PBRs conforming to the 1978 UPOV Convention have relaxed restrictions on the scope of crop protection offered. In China, for instance, a total of 10 species were eligible for protection in September 1999, growing to 30 species by March 2002 (including 5 major cereals, 2 oil crops, 2 roots and tubers, 10 vegetables and fruits, and 11 flowers and grasses but excluding cotton) (23).
25. P. G. Pardey, B. Koo, C. Nottenburg, "Creating, protecting, and using crop biotechnologies worldwide in an era of intellectual property," Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. (in press).
26. E. Binenbaum et al., Econ. Dev. Cultur. Change 51, 309 (2003).
27. P. G. Pardey, N. M. Beintema, Slow Magic: Agricultural R&D a Century After Mendel (IFPRI Food Policy Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2001).
28. europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/l_213/ l_21319980730en00130021. pdf.
29. B. Koo et al., An Option Perspective on Generating and Maintaining Plant Variety Rights in China. Department of Applied Economics Staff Paper P03-8 (Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, December 2003).
30. Data were compiled from on-line searches of national IP offices, (37), and (32).
31. www.upov.org/en/about/members/index.htm.
32. www.wto.org.
33. UPOV, "Plant variety protection statistics for the period 1998-2002" (C/37/7, International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva, 2003).
34. The authors thank the International Food Policy Research Institute, CAMBIA, and the University of Minnesota for financial support; and D. Ashton, J. Sharpies, E. Castelo-Magalhāes, and H. Wright for their help in preparing this paper.