Tools of Extraction or Means of Speculation? Making Sense of Patents in the Bioeconomy

Over the last few decades, Europe has seen a rise in applications for “native trait” patents on conventionally bred plants. Based on expert interviews, participant observation, patent statistics and document analysis, this chapter discusses what constitutes the (potential) value of these patents for various stakeholders. Native trait patents are a legacy of biotech plant patents from the 1980s and 1990s but follow different material, legal and economic logics. Unlike GMO patents, it would be wrong to view them as tools with which to extract surplus value from farmers. Neither, however, are they simply a means to capture investment from stock markets. There is no single business model that could explain the rush of companies to apply for patents in conventional plant breeding; therefore, patents must be understood as complex value objects that fulfil different functions for different actors and that often defy their original purpose of stimulating and protecting innovation.

Plant Patents in the European Union: Recent Developments

Biotechnology has become one of the most promising and important technologies for the development of innovation in agriculture. The economic importance of the invested resources justifies that innovators ask for an adequate means of protection to compensate their efforts. There are two possible ways of protection of the developments in plant innovation: A sui generis system born in the middle of last century in order to protect the results of traditional breeding processes, on the one hand; and the patentability of plant inventions which normally are the result of biotechnological processes which operate at the cellular level. The coexistence of these two systems of protection in the European Union causes some frictions which have to be solved, not only by the legislator, but also by the courts and the patent offices when they apply the law to a constantly evolving reality.

Plant Patents in the European Union: Recent Developments

Biotechnology has become one of the most promising and important technologies for the development of innovation in agriculture. The economic importance of the invested resources justifies that innovators ask for an adequate means of protection to compensate their efforts. There are two possible ways of protection of the developments in plant innovation: A sui generis system born in the middle of last century in order to protect the results of traditional breeding processes, on the one hand; and the patentability of plant inventions which normally are the result of biotechnological processes which operate at the cellular level. The coexistence of these two systems of protection in the European Union causes some frictions which have to be solved, not only by the legislator, but also by the courts and the patent offices when they apply the law to a constantly evolving reality.

To Protect or Not to Protect: Guide for Deciding on Public Release or Intellectual Property Protection of New Plant Cultivars and Germplasm

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and universities have a long and successful history of developing enhanced germplasm and cultivars that are transferred through public release. Today, nonprotected public release may not be the most appropriate mechanism. Intellectual property (IP) protection as it pertains to the plant germplasm and cultivars is involved and complex. Unlike other scientific areas, in the United States there are three distinct mechanisms to protect plants—namely, utility patents, plant patents, and plant variety protection certificates. Each of these mechanisms offers different criteria for protection and covers different types of plants. This article is a practical tool to help research institutions and scientists decide when to consider releasing a germplasm or cultivar, which factors to consider, who should be involved, and whether IP protection is appropriate.

Does Intellectual Property Protection Bring Advantage to Innovators And Consumers? Perceptions of Kenyan Small Agro-Food Processors

Enriching understanding of the complex relationship between intellectual property protection and local perceptions on how it benefits innovator and consumer in food value chain is an important policy effort towards food security and economic development of an agricultural society. This paper concerns intellectual property of small entrepreneurs as an intangible human capital that would spurs their ingenuity and innovation in processing foods to feed the exponentially growing population. The study sampled opinions of 132 micro and small agro-food processors in Kenya on intellectual property and its effect on developing advantageous products for them and consumers. Patent and trade secret were used as predictors of advantageous products. The two variables were modeled using linear regression techniques to find their effects on food products that would end starvation and generate enough income for the innovators (advantageous products). The study found out that the contribution of trade secrets was positive and patenting inverse to both the innovator and customer at marketplace. In the opinion of agro-food processors, intellectual property protection did not significantly influence the advantage of food products to the innovator and the end user. This implies that, small scale agro-food processors have not fully appreciated the importance of intellectual property rights. Therefore the study suggests the food processors are sensitized and current intellectual property legal framework be enhanced to promote innovation among the micro and small entrepreneurs. Borrowing from United States and China, the administration of intellectual property protection should be a one-stop-shop for policy development and enforce laws and all other intellectual proprietary matters. Interested further studies could be done on trade mark, copyrights and plant patents.

Considerations for Commercial Plant Introduction From Public Gardens

Public gardens can benefit from the introduction of new plants to the horticulture industry. There are many ways to develop and discover new plants in the public garden setting, whether it be through plant breeding, exploration or simply discovering a sport or mutation. The characteristics of plants suitable for the commercial display industry include short time to flower, no day-length requirement, easy and fast propagation, natural branching and inherent short height. Over the last 20 years, the process of plant development and introduction has changed enormously. Now, elements such as strong brands and marketing campaigns, plant patents or plant breeders’ rights, trademarks and the ability of a new plant to thrive in mass production settings are important considerations when making a new plant release. In addition, public gardens must evaluate potential commercial partners to ensure that they get the maximum benefits from the process. This paper describes that process and gives recommendations for some of the key stages with reference to plants released by Longwood Gardens in Philadelphia.