Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

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

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, pages 1161–1164 (2002)Cite this article

Although the US Supreme Court upheld the patent eligibility of plants, issues remain concerning the decision's implementation and other forms of plant IP protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l., Inc., 122 S. Ct. 593 (2001), rehearing denied, 122 S. Ct. 1600 (2002).

  2. Janis, M.D. & Kesan, J.P. Designing an optimal intellectual property system for plants: a US Supreme Court debate. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 981 (2001).

  3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).

  4. For the non-obviousness requirement, see 35 USC §103. For the enablement requirement, see 35 USC §112, ¶1. Before J.E.M., the PTO and the lower courts had already begun the process of determining how to apply these traditional utility patent prerequisites to plant breeding and plant biotechnology innovations. See, e.g., Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

  5. Smyth, S. et al. Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 537 (2002).

  6. 35 USC §271(a).

  7. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 US 17 (1997).

  8. Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada, Inc., 2002 FCA 309 (Court of Appeal, Sept. 4, 2002) [Schmeiser II]. For the trial court's decision, see Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser, 12 CPR (4th) 204 (2001).

  9. Schmeiser II, slip op. at ¶57.

  10. Moreover, one prominent Federal Circuit judge has criticized the existence of even the narrow exception. See Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring).

  11. See 7 USC §2544 (1994). The PVPA also includes a separate provision shielding from infringement “any act done privately and for noncommercial purposes.” 7 USC §2541(e).

  12. Janis, M.D. Sustainable agriculture, patent rights, and plant innovation. Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 9, 105–117 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 7 USC §2543. The saved-seed exemption also allows farmers to engage in “bona fide” sales of saved seed “for other than reproductive purposes.” Id. See also 7 USC §2401(b)(1)–(2) (defining the concept of “bona fide” sales for “nonreproductive purposes”).

  14. Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, No. 01-1390 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2002).

  15. See also Monsanto Co. v. Trantham, 156 F.Supp.2d 855 (W.D. Tenn. 2001) (discussing similar issues at trial-court level).

  16. See, e.g., Indiana House Bill No. 1119 (Jan. 30, 2002).

  17. For a more detailed historical and empirical analysis of the PVPA, see Janis, M.D. & Kesan, J.P. Plant variety protection: Sound and fury...? Houston L. Rev. (in press).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Iowa College of Law,

    Mark D. Janis & Jay P. Kesan

  2. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, College of Law and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs,

    Mark D. Janis & Jay P. Kesan

Authors
  1. Mark D. Janis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jay P. Kesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janis, M., Kesan, J. Intellectual property protection for plant innovation: Unresolved issues after J.E.M. v. Pioneer. Nat Biotechnol 20, 1161–1164 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1102-1161

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1102-1161

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing