25 October 2002Geneva1 Plant variety rights - The Breeders Exemption Tim Roberts © 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Creating a Research Use Exemption that Better Fulfills the Patent Bargain Katherine J. Strandburg DePaul University College of Law (2004 Wisconsin L. Rev.)
Advertisements

Dubai Conference May 2004 Molengraaff Institute Center for Intellectual Property Law (CIER) 2 OVERVIEW Domain Concepts Methodologies Problematic Issues.
Access to and Use of Traditional Knowledge A view from industry Bo Hammer Jensen.
Ato221 - WIPO-UPOV Symp. on IPRs in Plant Biotech., Gva, Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement 3.Members may also exclude from patentability:
WIPO-UPOV SYMPOSIUM October 25, 2002UPOV. Rolf Jördens Vice Secretary-General UPOV LEGAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO THIS SYMPOSIUM: UPOVS.
To Sow or Not to Sow – Dilemmas at the Intersection of IP with Trade Srividhya Ragavan University of Oklahoma Law Center.
September 21, 2006 DePaul University, Chicago, IL APLF- DePaul University College of Law 2006 Symposium on Intellectual Property Law.
Ship Safety and Security Implementation of Masked Callsigns
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
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.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Traditional Knowledge and the TRIPS Agreement Yovana Reyes Tagle University of Helsinki.
IPRs in Plant Breeding a live debate Niels Louwaars Director Plantum.
1 International Workshop on seed Session: Intellectual Property Rights in Seed Sector Ben Rivoire Technical/ Regional Officer, UPOV Antalya, Turkey December.
India’s Plant Protection Issues Srividhya Ragavan Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law Center.
Climate change, agriculture & intellectual property rights.
Protecting Our Food But Leaving Our Harvest? Srividhya Ragavan University of Oklahoma Law Center.
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.
Ownership of Computer Software Ethical Questions and Concerns.
Computer Engineering 294 IP R.Smith 5/ Intellectual Property What is it? Why is it important? – What is it designed to do? What are its basic forms?
France: A Country on the Move Protecting your Intellectual Property Internationally.
THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARITIES AND FARMERS’ RIGHTS ACT 2001 – INDIA Objectives: –-Protection of the rights of farmers for their contribution made at.
THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PROTECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE The Philippine Experience Presented by: Marga C. Domingo-Morales Senior Policy.
Intellectual Property Rights: Protection or Monopolization?
W HAT CAN BE PATENTED – AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ? András Jókúti Hungarian Intellectual Property Office Ankara, 25 January 2011.
Udo von Kröcher 1 Enforcement of Plant Variety Rights in the Agricultural Sector in Germany Udo von Kröcher Bundessortenamt (Federal Plant Variety Office)
Characteristics of a Market Economy
Intellectual property Week 19 Tom Underhill. Intellectual property Patents Registered designs/design rights Case study/Questions/update (DA). Details:
Introduction to IP Ellen Monson Director Intellectual Property Office University of Cincinnati.
By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts
Preparing a Provisional Patent Application Hay Yeung Cheung, Ph.D. Myers Wolin, LLC March 16, 2013 Trenton Computer Festival 1.
Intellectual Property Department, Hong Kong SAR Government1 Public Discussion Forum on Review of Certain Provisions of the Copyright Ordinance Session.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property Intellectual effort, not by physical labor Intangible property Lawsuits involve infringement.
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.
Access to Genetic Resources & Traditional Knowledge The Bellagio compulsory cross-licensing proposal for benefit sharing consistent with more competition.
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights FAO Regional Workshop on WTO Accession Damascus, October 2008 Hamish Smith Agriculture and.
National Smartcard Project Work Package 8 – Intellectual Property Report.
1 Ethical Issues in Computer Science CSCI 328, Fall 2013 Session 17 Software as Intellectual Property.
PROTECTING YOUR IP RIGHTS Waldo Steyn, Senior Associate, Intellectual Property December 2012.
Federation Against Software Theft. What Is Copyright? What is copyright infringement? What are the penalties for copyright infringement? What is a trade.
A: Copy –Rights – Artistic, Literary work, Computer software Etc. B: Related Rights – Performers, Phonogram Producers, Broadcasters etc. C: Industrial.
1 Ethics of Computing MONT 113G, Spring 2012 Session 32 Software as Intellectual Property.
PRACTICAL IPR IMPACT on the US SEED INDUSTRY Presented at WIPO-UPOV Symposium on Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Biotechnology Geneva, Switzerland.
CUTS International Capacity Building Training Programme on Advance IPR, WTO-Related Issues and Patent Writing April 28-May 02, 2008, Jaipur TRIPS – Article.
STT2073 Plant Breeding and Improvement Intellectual Properties.
Stephanie Roof, CRA Proposal Manager Sponsored Projects Administration BALL STATE UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.
Chapter 10 Intellectual Property Rights Twomey, Business Law and the Regulatory Environment (14th Ed.)
Regional Seminar on Enforcement of Plant Variety Rights Warsaw, Poland 11 and 12 May 2006 GENERAL BACKGROUND ON TECHNICAL ASPECT Julia Borys COBORU.
Intellectual Property Law Introduction Victor H. Bouganim WCL, American University.
Lecture 27 Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property simply defined is any form of knowledge or expression created with one's intellect. It includes.
An Overview of Intellectual Property by John Slaughter September 26, 2009 © John Slaughter All Rights Reserved.
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.
Huib Ghijsen ISF. 2  Mission  PBR / PVP  Patents  Other forms of protection  IP IT-PGRFA & CBD/Nagoya Protocol Source: Crispeels, 2008.
Patent Review Overview Summary of different types of Intellectual Property What is a patent? Why would you want one? What are the requirements for patentability?
International Aspects of Plant Variety Protection Srividhya Ragavan University of Oklahoma.
Protecting Innovation
Technology Transfer Office
Overview of presentation
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Intro to Intellectual Property 3.0
SOCIAL,ETHICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
Intellectual Property, Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, and Franchising
IP Protection under the WTO
Plant Biotechnology and Plant Breeder’s Rights :
Studio Legale Sena e Tarchini
TRIPS Art. 27.3(b) and Agriculture
Presentation transcript:

25 October 2002Geneva1 Plant variety rights - The Breeders Exemption Tim Roberts © 2002

25 October 2002Geneva2 Topics for discussion Why a special IP system for plants? The Breeders Privilege under PVP Essentially derived Other restrictions on breeding

25 October 2002Geneva3 We need IP for plants To recognise and encourage work of plant innovators To allow recovery of investment –breeding takes much time and money –products are easily copied

25 October 2002Geneva4 Without IP Breeding must be done by public bodies (eg Governments) Governments fallible Lose benefits of –self-interest ( ) –competition –diversity

25 October 2002Geneva5 Why PVP? Patents are the standard way of protecting technical developments Do we need a separate system? Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine ratione - William of Occam –true of both natural and man-made laws

25 October 2002Geneva6 Problems of patenting Can (should?) organisms be patented? –You cant invent life, only discover it –Its immoral - intrinsically or in consequences –Breeding is not reproducible Arent new varieties obvious? Are the rights of the patentee appropriate? –Too weak - or too strong?

25 October 2002Geneva7 UPOV Sui generis system –Provided a new right to protect specific varieties - not a patent –Because it is not a patent, the variety: need not be inventive (non-obvious), just distinct need not be reproducible - just stable written description not essential –Rights over the variety are not so strong as a patent would give problems of ethics, and monopoly, reduced

25 October 2002Geneva8 Is UPOV still needed? Organisms now patentable –TRIPs says so - but plants dont have to be. –Need for written description supplemented by deposit BUT –Many varieties still thought obvious –continuing controversy over appropriate rights

25 October 2002Geneva9 UPOV system Designed specifically to protect the work of breeders Takes account of users needs Specifically reserves rights for further development

25 October 2002Geneva10 Freedom to develop - PVP Important purpose of IP is to promote technical advance –To promote the progress of science and useful arts.. (US Constitution, Art 1, s.6) Most patent laws have research exemption Breeders traditionally work by incremental improvement of existing materials Must be free to continue

25 October 2002Geneva11 Research Exemption in PVP The Breeders Privilege UPOV 91, Art 15(1) (1)(Compulsory exceptions) The breeder's right shall not extend to (i)acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) acts done for experimental purposes and (iii)acts done for the purpose of breeding other varieties, and, …[derived varieties aside], acts...[of commercial exploitation].. in respect of such other varieties. It is never an infringement of a PVP to use the variety for further breeding. It is generally not an infringement of a PVP to exploit or sell the new variety bred. Exception for essentially derived varieties

25 October 2002Geneva12 Essentially derived varieties Varieties are by definition distinct from each other Under UPOV 1978, no registered variety could infringe another ( repeated use aside ) So very similar varieties were registered GM technology made this worse - single gene differences So UPOV 1991 extended protection to essentially derived varieties (Art 14.5)

25 October 2002Geneva13 Essential derivation a variety shall be deemed to be essentially derived from another variety ("the initial variety") when –(i) it is predominantly derived from the initial variety, or from a variety that is itself predominantly derived from the initial variety, while retaining the expression of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the initial variety, –(ii) it is clearly distinguishable from the initial variety and –(iii) except for the differences which result from the act of derivation, it conforms to the initial variety in the expression of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the initial variety. [Article 14.5.b, UPOV 1991]

25 October 2002Geneva14 Examples of Essential Derivation Article 14.5.c, UPOV 1991 Varieties obtained by: –selection of mutants (naturally occurring or induced) –somaclonal variants (from tissue culture); – GM technology; – back-crossing (repeatedly?) List not exhaustive - may be others –marker-assisted selection from crosses????

25 October 2002Geneva15 This means…? A PVP holder can now challenge a close copy of a successful protected variety If the new variety has a closely similar phenotype, and a closely similar genotype, there is a prima facie case of essential derivation This may be rebutted by proof that the new variety was not bred from the original variety How close is too close? –Industry is trying to develop schemes –room for argument - and eventually litigation

25 October 2002Geneva16 Points to note Essential derivation is for courts, not PVP offices, to decide Essentially derived varieties have themselves no protection against further derivation –so to prove that the claimants variety was itself essentially derived is a defence The breeders privilege is unaffected –the derived variety may be registered, but not exploited Of course, there is some deterrence - but the right to use in breeding remains

25 October 2002Geneva17 Freedom to develop - general Is freedom to develop under PVP enough? Other rights –patents –CBD rights –trade secrets –contractual rights

25 October 2002Geneva18 Trade Secrets (1) The patent system requires the inventor to teach the public how to operate the invention Not consistent with secrecy The PVP system does not require public teaching So can (probably) combine with trade secrecy –not for seed sold to public –but for parent lines of hybrids

25 October 2002Geneva19 Trade Secrets (2) All forms of information.. if –(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and –(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public Misuse now a criminal offence in USA Proper means - means what?

25 October 2002Geneva20 Development agreements between breeders Restrictions on seed sales - shrink-wrap licences! –sale for planting for consumption –no rights to breed –inbreds vs hybrids Enforceability? –may differ from country to country Contractual terms

25 October 2002Geneva21 PVP allows access for further development Other rights may not Should they? ********** Conclusion

25 October 2002Geneva22