Intellectual Property Rights in Living Matter Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University of Oklahoma College of Law © 2006 Drew L. Kershen,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WIPO / UNITAR Workshop on International IP WIPO Coordination Office New York March 21, 2006 Basic Principles of Patents Karl F. Jorda David Rines Professor.
Advertisements

IMPACT OF PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION John Calvert United States Patent And Trademark Office.
Agrobiodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights: Selected Issues under the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Innovation - Lab National Institute for Standardization And Industrial Property Patenting procedure Overview.
Open Forum for Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa organized by AATF at a luncheon held at Jacaranda Hotel on 30 November 2006 from 12noon to 2pm.
Making the rules of the world Geoff Tansey Green Feast, 12 Mar 2008.
IPRS, SEEDS & FARMERS’ RIGHTS Clare Westwood PAN AP.
Interface between patent and sui generis systems of protection of plant varieties The 1978 UPOV Act does not allow both systems to be applied to the same.
Agricultural Biotechnology: Legal Liability Issues Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Copyright 2006 Drew L.
MONSANTO v. SCHMEISER The U.S. Perspective 78 TH IPIC ANNUAL MEETING October 14 – 16, 2004 Bruce C. Haas.
(2) The Big Picture Vavilov Centers Diversity Lost Thomas Jefferson, Seed Saver Key Legal Moments.
IPRs in Plant Breeding a live debate Niels Louwaars Director Plantum.
India’s Plant Protection Issues Srividhya Ragavan Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law Center.
Climate change, agriculture & intellectual property rights.
Emerging Challenge? Accessing Genetic Resources : the building blocks of new technologies Access and Benefits Sharing, an emerging issue transitioning.
GMO Study Committee Iowa State Legislature December 13, 2005 Coexistence and Legal Liability Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
THE ROLE OF TRADE AND THE WTO IN ENSURING FOOD SECURITY Trócaire Development Review 2010 Launch Friday November 12th 2010.
Adapted from David G Kay -- SIGCSE 2003 Intellectual Property.
Mark D. Janis Professor of Law University of Iowa College of Law.
Intellectual Property An intangible asset, considered to have value in a market, based on unique or original human knowledge and intellect. Intellectual.
1 Biopiracy by Jan Priegnitz ©®™. 2 Structure history about patents in general history about patents in general the value of biodiversity the value of.
P A R T P A R T Crimes & Torts Crimes Intentional Torts Negligence & Strict Liability Intellectual Property & Unfair Competition 2 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Business.
1 Intellectual Property Protection for Plants in the United States Anne Marie Grünberg Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Units 1661 and 1638.
Intellectual Property & Biotechnology Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor Univ. of Oklahoma Law Center Copyright 2003, Drew L. Kershen, all.
THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PROTECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE The Philippine Experience Presented by: Marga C. Domingo-Morales Senior Policy.
Chapter 25 Intellectual Property Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Drew L. Kershen University of Oklahoma College of Law Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law Copyright 2005, all rights.
Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Dr. Shakeel Bhatti Secretary, ITPGRFA.
MSE602 ENGINEERING INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
STSE Case study-Plants: Anatomy, Growth and Function Expectation to be covered -Research the way plants are fundamental to Canadian Society based on the.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
The Relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - State of play in the TRIPS Council - WTO Symposium on Trade and Sustainable.
Survey of Disputes Involving GMO Patent Rights Carlyn Burton 1 August 18, th ACS National Meeting.
Session 4: The Convention on Biological Diversity Making Access Decisions.
Chapter 08.  Describes property that is developed through an intellectual and creative process  Inventions, writings, trademarks that are a business’s.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 22, 2009 Class 6 Patents: Multilateral Agreements (Paris Convention); Economics of International Patent.
Creating a Conducive Environment for Biotechnology: The Cartagena Protocol as an Enabling Framework Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University.
Session 6 : An Introduction to the TRIPS Agreement UPOV, 1978 and 1991 and WIPO- Administered Treaties.
Genetic Resources Policy and Intellectual Property I. Ownership and control of genetic resources II. Movement of genetic resources III. Intellectual Property.
Intellectual Property Rights in Living Matter Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University of Oklahoma College of Law © 2007 Drew L. Kershen,
The Basics of Intellectual Property Law Understanding IP by A. David Spevack, Office of Naval Research.
Global Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights on Plant Genetic Resources Bonwoo Koo International Food Policy Research Institute International Seminar.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Chapter 6. WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? Intellectual Property is a term used to describe works of the mind (art, books, films,
Guatemala: An evaluation of Biosafety Regulations Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor Univ. of Oklahoma, College of Law Copyright 2007, all.
Law and Policy of Relevance to the Management of Plant Genetic Resources Session 7: IPRs II: How Intellectual Property Rights Can Affect the Daily.
Session 9: Cross-Cutting Issues. Law and Policy of Relevance to the Management of Plant Genetic Resources  To describe the key cross-cutting.
STT2073 Plant Breeding and Improvement Intellectual Properties.
Law and Policy of Relevance to the Management of Plant Genetic Resources Objectives of Day Four 1.To discuss and understand how intellectual property.
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Welcome and Thank You © Gordon & Rees LLP Constitutional Foundation Article 1; Section 8 Congress shall have the Power to... Promote the Progress.
Intellectual Property Law Introduction Victor H. Bouganim WCL, American University.
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and The Convention on Biological Diversity Training Workshop The International.
Law and Policy of Relevance for the Management of Plant Genetic Resources Objectives of Session 6 To discuss the meaning of sui generis protection.
International Aspects of Plant Variety Protection Srividhya Ragavan University of Oklahoma Law Center.
Patent Process and Patent Search 6a Foundations of Technology Standard 3: Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies.
Huib Ghijsen ISF. 2  Mission  PBR / PVP  Patents  Other forms of protection  IP IT-PGRFA & CBD/Nagoya Protocol Source: Crispeels, 2008.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP Lecture No: 18 BY CH. SHAHZAD ANSAR.
Role of the Land Grant University in Plant Breeding and Biotechnology Randy Woodson Agricultural Research Programs Purdue University.
INTELECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Chapter 06: LEGAL ISSUES FOR THE ENTREPRENEUR
Introduction Intellectual property includes the application of property in the areas of trade secrets, patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
The Global Landscape of IP/TK
Farmers’ Rights in India
1999 MOSAICC 2001 CBD BONN GUIDELINES
Objectives of Day Three
Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Ph. D
COPYRIGHT & IPR IN DIGITAL AGE- ISSUES & CONCERNS FOR LIBRARIES
Jonathan D’Silva MMI Intellectual Property 900 State Street, Suite 301
Presentation transcript:

Intellectual Property Rights in Living Matter Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University of Oklahoma College of Law © 2006 Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved

Legal Foundation -- Fundamentals U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8: “The Congress shall have the Power [cl. 8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to the respective Writings and Discoveries.” Federal Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, Plant Variety Certificates State Trade Secrets: e.g. parental lines for hybrids Geographical Designations: e.g. Hawaiian Kona coffee Patents on living organisms Canada, European Union, Japan, Australia UPOV (1961/1991) TRIPs Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) There are no international patents -- WIPO

United States Plant Patent Act of 1930 Asexually reproduced plants – cuttings, grafting Single plant – one claim, clones Requirements Novelty Distinctiveness Non-Obviousness Description as complete as reasonably possible Biological deposit Subpart of General Patent Law – USPTO Horticultural industry– flowers, fruits Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, amend Sexually reproduced plants by pollination, seeds – the variety Requirements New Distinct Uniform Stable Seed Deposit Plant Variety Certificate – sub-patent IPR -- USDA Exemptions from infringement Public Interest Exemption Research Exemption Farmer’s Exemption

United States Patent Act of 1952 (1791) – the general utility patent law Scope: useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter Requirements New Useful Non-Obvious Description Written description (reduced to practice) Enablement Biological deposit Funk Brothers Seed Company v. Kalo Inoculant Company (1948) – invention v. discovery Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) – scope of patents – man-made, genetically engineered bacteria for breaking down crude oil J.E.M. Ag. Supply, Inv. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (2001) – inbred & hybrid seed corn, non-transgenic Scope of patent Relationship to other IPR laws Dual protection

Legal Issues: Infringement Protection of intellectual property (seed breeding) All crops, not just transgenic crops J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Plant variety certificates, Plant Patent Act (asexually reproduced), Utility Patents Trade Secrets (hybrids) – parental lines Saving seeds For own farm only for plant varieties (only PVPA) Bin run, not brown bag or seed exchange Contractual prohibition for patented plants For agronomic reasons not feasible for hybrids Self-pollinated crops: Soybeans, wheat, canola (rarely) Farmers quite capable on economic calculation about seed costs Infringement Litigation As of Jan 2005, 98 lawsuits Monsanto and farmers Monsanto has won 73 of 73 resolved lawsuits Numerous other settlements; in fact, most settle quickly

Legal Issues: Infringement of Patents All infringement cases, both conventional and transgenic, except two, farmers admitted that they saved patented seeds intentionally. Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada, Inc. In 1997 Schmeiser sprayed canola with Round-up; purposefully harvested seed from surviving plants; purposefully segregated the harvested seed; purposefully used the harvested, segregated seed for the 1998 crop – approximately three acres Tests on 1998 seed sample from Humbolt Elevator divided into three portions and sent directly to Schmeiser, Monsanto, and an independent expert; Schmeiser subdivided his portion and sent half to the independent expert Results: S65%; M95-98%; IES 65%; IEH 95-98% The Canadian courts (trial, appellate, and Supreme Court) found factually that he purposefully saved and planted patented seed that he knew or should have know contained a patented gene for herbicide tolerance. Canadian judges concluded that Schmeiser’s explanations for 1997 presence were not plausible – legally irrelevant because 1998 claim

References: Infringement Adventitious presence should not create legal liability for infringement under patents. Patent law will protect the truly innocent infringer Trace levels of patented trait are commercially irrelevant at trace levels Seed developers have no incentive to pursue innocent infringer Company pledges to pursue only intentional infringers Kershen, Of Straying Crops and Patent Rights, 43 Washburn L. J (2004) Siebrasse, The Innocent Bystander Problem in the Patenting of Higher Life Forms, 49 McGill L. J (2004) Siebrasse, A Remedial Benefit-Based Approach to the Innocent User Problem in the Patenting of Higher Life Forms, 20 Can. Intell. Prop. Rev (2003)

University of Hawaii Taro Patents Three patents obtained in 2002 Plant patents, not utility patents Palauan and Hawaiian varieties as parental lines Conventional sexual breeding from which the single plant selected Single plant claimed from asexual reproduction by tissue culture and stem (huli) propagation No claim to taro as taro; no claim to taro by sexual reproduction – these are not legally possible Stem (huli) exchange would be prohibited by the law Common prohibition in the horticultural industry

Taro Patent Questions University of Hawaii owns the patents Can grant a license to whomever and under whatever conditions Prudential judgments How to distinguish from other “sacred” plants? Unique to Hawaiian culture First Amendment – establishment of religion questions

Taro Patent Questions How to deal with escalating demands? The charge of biopiracy Permission from Palau Women’s Council (oversight of lo’I kalo) and Palauan government in 1993; collection in 1994 No need for permission in the United States – plants within the United States are basically common heritage Convention on Biological Diversity – 1992/1993 Art. 15 Access to Genetic Resources prior informed consent on mutually agreed terms aim of sharing fairly and equitably the commercial utilization Art. 16 Access to and Transfer of Technology – clear recognition of intellectual property Palau is a member of CBD

Taro Patent Questions Charge of Biopiracy continued FAO & Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) – 1994 Materials Transfer Agreement Intellectual Property Rights recognized and protected Plant Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture Treaty (PGRFA) – 2002/2004 Art. 12 Facilitated access to plant genetic resources Purpose of treaty is to create multilateral system of exchange no IPRs “in the form received” but IPRs for plant genetic resources that have undergone innovation Art. 13 Benefit-sharing information, technology transfer, capacity building, sharing of monetary benefits of commercialization mandatory trigger comes from IPRs Palua is not a member of PGRFA Treaty Charge of Biopiracy rejected; praise for UH and its scientists

Taro Patent Questions What impact on the Samoan farmers? Samoan farmers requested help due to disease infestation (leaf blight and root rot) Agreement that only commercial Samoan farmers will pay any royalty Differentiation endorsed by PGRFA Art. 13.d(ii) Native Hawaiian group with patent could prevent Samoan farmers from growing the taro developed for them Palau and Hawaii gave lost nothing and gained knowledge and three excellent taro varieties

Thank you. I look forward to answering questions about IPRs in living matter or other questions about agricultural biotechnology law and policy