No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Intellectual Property: Plants Patentable Under the Utility Patent Statute, PVA, and PVPA
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
In J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that utility patents may be issued for newly developed, sexually reproduced plants and plant seeds. Specifically, the Court denied the petitioner's contention that the exclusive means of protecting sexually reproduced plants and plant seeds are found in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA). The Court instead affirmed the decisions of the District Courts and the Federal Circuit and held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 or the Utility Patent Act) also allows for the patenting of living organisms.
The respondent, Pioneer Hi-Bred, a large seed producer, filed suit for patent infringement on the part of the petitioner, J.E.M. AG Supply, doing business as Farm Advantage, Inc., for reselling bags of respondent's patented hybrid seeds. Pioneer is a major producer and manufacturer of hybrid seeds.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002
References
J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 122 S. Ct. 593, 596 (2001).Google Scholar
35 U.S.C. §§ 161–164 (1994 ed. and Supp. V).Google Scholar
7 U.S.C. $ 2321 et seq.Google Scholar
J.E.M. AG Supply, 122 S. Ct. at 606.Google Scholar
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1813 (N.D. Iowa 1998).Google Scholar
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., 200 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
J.E.M. AG Supply, 122 S. Ct. at 606.Google Scholar
35 U.S.C. $ 101 (“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement therefor, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”).Google Scholar
See J.E.M. AG Supply, 122 S. Ct. at 597.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See Id.Google Scholar
See J.E.M. AG Supply, 122 S. Ct. at 594.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).Google Scholar
J.E.M AG Supply, 122 S. Ct. at 598.Google Scholar
Id. “As Congress recognized, ‘the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.’” Id. (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 313).Google Scholar
See id. “As in Chakrabarty, we decline to narrow the reach of $ 101 where Congress has given us no indication that it intends this result.” Id. at 606.Google Scholar
See Id. at 599.Google Scholar
Id. at 602.Google Scholar
Id. at 603.Google Scholar
Id. at 606. “Stare decisis, however, prevents us from any longer regarding as an open question — as ambiguous — whether ‘composition of matter’ includes living things.” Id. (citing Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 312–13).Google Scholar
Id. at 607.Google Scholar
See Id. at 608.Google Scholar
See O'Connor, K.W., “Patenting Animals and Other Living Things,” Southern California Law Review, 65 (1991): 597–621, at 620 (arguing that intellectual property rights do not extend to the patenting of human beings because the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars such ownership interest).Google Scholar
See Hecht, E.J., “Beyond Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg: The Controversy over Transgenic Animal Patents Continues,” The American University Law Review, 41 (1992): 1023–74 (discussing transgenic animal patents from an agricultural perspective).Google Scholar
See Id. at 1040.Google Scholar
See Id. at 1041.Google Scholar
See Id. at 1042.Google Scholar
See O'Connor, , supra note 25, at 607 (stating the PTO decision in 1987 that it would grant utility patents for “non-naturally occurring nonhuman, multicellular living organisms, including animals”).Google Scholar