Elements of Intellectual Property Protection in Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Interactions and Outcomes

Abstract

Public and private investments in plant breeding have a proven track record of increasing agricultural productivity, significantly contributing to economic well‐being or social welfare. Substantial investments in research and development are required before a new plant variety can be developed and released, which the private sector can only recoup through commercial sales coupled with property rights. We previously published outcomes from economic modeling implementing different categories and hypothetical variants of intellectual property protection (IPP) in the field of plant breeding and biotechnology. Our goal here is to portray these outcomes using examples that will be more immediately familiar to the plant‐breeding and policy‐making communities. In so doing, we do not add to the analyses and arguments already presented. Our objective here is to make more accessible to a broader audience subject matter already presented in a more formal economic format by Lence et al. (2015). We found that plant variety protection (PVP) and utility patents played important and complementary roles in promoting and adopting innovation. Voluntary licensing under patents had a major contribution to social welfare. Periods of protection longer than the current life span of a utility patent did not contribute maximally to the stock of social welfare. We performed a reality check comparing different types of innovation and assessment of time and risk to commercialization. We hope that this information can contribute to more effective implementation of IPP to further promote genetic gain and thus enable commercially funded plant breeders to maximally contribute to the benefit of society on a global basis.

Prima facie reasons to question enclosed intellectual property regimes and favor open-source regimes for germplasm

“…It has an extensive citation list supporting their conclusions. I will state here that I do not agree with many of the conclusions and extrapolations in Smith et al 1 but it and many other articles opposing the conclusions of the current piece are out there and they need to addressed be the authors for this article to be taken seriously.…”

“…Many readers, especially those antagonistic to the authors' thesis, will dismiss the current article because it does not address any of the numerous opposing publications and the data they include. I suggest the authors start by reviewing Smith et al, 2016 1 and the literature contained therein. This is a review that comes to a diametrically opposed conclusion from the current paper.…”

Genetic diversity and fingerprinting of 33 standard flue-cured tobacco varieties for use in distinctness, uniformity, and stability testing

“…New plant varieties are needed to increase agricultural production and efficiency. The protection of intellectual property rights for new plant varieties is a well-established practice and is also a symbol of progress in human civilizations [1]. The protection of new plant varieties cannot be realized without the support of a series of technical conditions.…”

Innovation and the commons: lessons from the governance of genetic resources in potato breeding

“…Unlike patents, however, breeders' rights allow competitor breeders to use these varieties for the development of new varieties free of costs and rights. This, so-called breeders' exemption ensures that once a variety has been granted breeders' rights or released in the market, the genetic material is freely available for developing new varieties by others (Smith et al 2016;UPOV 1991).…”