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

Janis, Mark D.; Kesan, Jay P.

doi:10.1038/nbt1102-1161

Cited by 25 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The landmark 1980 US Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty opened the door for patent rights for virtually any biologically based invention and, in its 2001 J.E.M. v. Pioneer decision, the US Supreme Court held that plant seeds and plants themselves (both traditionally bred or produced by genetic engineering) are patentable under US law (Janis and Kesan, 2002).…”

Section: A Model Of Sequential and Cumulative Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PVP certificates, issued by the US Department of Agriculture, afford exclusive rights to the varieties' owners that are broadly similar to those provided by patents, including the standard 20year term, with two major qualifications: there is a "farmer's privilege," that is, seed of protected varieties can be saved by farmers for their own replanting; and, more interestingly for our purposes, there is a "research exemption," meaning that protected varieties may be used by other breeders for research purposes (Roberts, 2002). In addition to PVP certificates, to assert their IPRs, plant innovators can rely on trade secrets, the use of hybrids, and specific contractual arrangements (such as baglabel contracts (Janis and Kesan, 2002). As noted earlier, the US patent law does not have a statutory research exemption (apart from the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act discussed earlier).…”

Section: Plant Variety Protection Patents and The "Research Exemption"mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation

Moschini¹,

Yerokhin²

2008

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a quality ladder model to study the R&D incentive impacts of intellectual property rights with a "research exemption" or "experimental use" provision. The innovation process is sequential and cumulative and takes place alongside production in an infinite-horizon setting. We solve the model under two distinct intellectual property regimes, characterize the properties of the relevant Markov perfect equilibria, and investigate the profit and welfare effects of the research exemption. We find that firms, ex ante, always prefer full patent protection. The welfare ranking of the two intellectual property regimes, on the other hand, depends on the relative magnitudes of the costs of initial innovation and improvements.

show abstract

Section: A Model Of Sequential and Cumulative Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plant Variety Protection Patents and The "Research Exemption"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation

Moschini¹,

Yerokhin²

2008

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the US domestic level, Janis and Kesan pointed out in a series of studies on the subject (Janis, 2001; Janis and Kesan, 2001a, b; 2002a) that the Plant Variety Protection Act “plays only a marginal role in stimulating plant breeding research in the United States” (Janis and Kesan, 2002b, pp. 727–778) 77 and that “modest statutory amendments to the PVPA have shown no real promise of lifting the PVPA up from this secondary status”.…”

Section: Innovation Incentives and Agricultural Biodiversity Conservamentioning

confidence: 99%

Commodifying Agricultural Biodiversity and Development‐Related Issues

Chiarolla

2006

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the question of whether sui generis plant variety rights legislation has become redundant due to the growing use of patents for the protection of plant‐related inventions. It considers the extent to which the patent system needs to be modified in order to prevent agricultural exemptions, enjoyed by plant breeders and farmers under sui generis plant variety protection (PVP), from being overridden by patent claims that extend to plants and plant varieties. It is suggested that sui generis PVP regimes should respond to broad societal objectives and promote sustainable agriculture. The intellectual property right system should be able to support commercial and research activities compatible with the diversification of crops, the promotion of development and commercialization of under‐utilized crops and species, the development of new markets for local varieties and “diversity‐rich” products. The economic efficiency of the patent system should also be scrutinized with regard to its ability to preserve the fulfilment of these development goals.

show abstract

“…However, because plants are not excluded from national patent laws, utility patents granted to individuals who discover a new and useful process were introduced in the mid1980s, and covered all claims of the issued utility patent including hybrid seeds, plant cells, genes and proteins and tissue cultures. As a result, utility patents were considered a much stronger form of protection than PVPA or PPA in terms of permitting the applicant to claim multiple (Janis and Kesan 2002b).…”

Section: Patenting Of Plant Genetic Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: Shifting patterns in plant cultivar protection for field crops in Canada

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carew, R., Florkowski, W. J. and DePauw, R. 2015. Review: Shifting patterns in plant cultivar protection for field crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 813Á829. In an era of increased globalization of agricultural trade and rapid biotechnology advances in developing crops with multiple traits, public and private institutions are facing increasing pressure to protect their technologies and develop partnerships to fund research. Under the auspices of international intellectual property rights agreements, Canada adopted stronger intellectual property rights policies to protect new plant cultivars and reward owners for their innovative efforts. This paper illustrates how Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) applications for agriculture field crop (cereals, oilseeds, pulses) cultivars and registered cultivars by the Canadian Variety Registration Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (VROCFIA) have evolved over the past 20 yr in response to changes in domestic and international plant cultivar protection policies. The paper also examines the patenting pattern for plant-related traits and technologies. The paper found the bulk of PBR applications for field crops were accounted for by oilseeds followed by cereal and pulse crops such as field pea. In contrast to wheat and canola, which are protected by PBR and registered by the Canadian VROCFIA, pulse crops such as lentil have been developed by Canadian universities and funded by producer levies and released to growers without PBR protection. Among plant-related patents, most of them were credited to corn followed by canola and soybean. The Canadian public sector filed plant patents mainly for canola and concentrated on traits such as insect and disease resistance. The bulk of canola or soybean PBRs applications were by multinational life science seed companies, while the majority of wheat and barley were credited to public institutions such as the Canadian federal department of agriculture and universities.Key words: Intellectual property rights, Plant Breeders' Rights, UPOV 91, variety registration system, plant-related patents Carew, R., Florkowski, W. J. et DePauw, R. 2015. Article de synthe´se: É volution de la protection des cultivars de grandes cultures au Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 813Á829. Face a`la mondialisation grandissante des e´changes agricoles et au de´veloppement de cultures aux caracte`res multiples graˆce aux progre`s rapides de la biotechnologie, les institutions publiques et prive´es sont de plus en plus contraintes de prote´ger leurs technologies et de s'associer pour financer la recherche. Dans la foule´e des ententes internationales sur la protection de la proprie´te´intellectuelle (PPI), le Canada a renforce´ses politiques de PPI afin de prote´ger les nouveaux cultivars et de re´compenser les obtenteurs pour leurs efforts. Cet article montre comment les droits des obtenteurs relatifs aux cultivars et aux varie´te´s des grandes cultures (ce´re´ales, ole´agineux, le´gumineuses) homologue´s par le Bureau d'enregistrement des varie´te´s de l'Ag...

show abstract

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

Cited by 25 publications

References 2 publications

Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation

Patents, Research Exemption, and the Incentive for Sequential Innovation

Commodifying Agricultural Biodiversity and Development‐Related Issues

Review: Shifting patterns in plant cultivar protection for field crops in Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About