Court Affirms Seeds and Plant Patents of Pioneer Hi-Bred

AgBiotech Reporter Feb00

Pioneer Hi-Bred has won a key decision on the patentability of seeds and plants from seeds in the US Federal Court of Appeals. The decision affirmed a ruling by the Iowa District Court that seeds and plants from seeds can be patented. "This is an important ruling for plant breeders every-where," said Herb Jervis, Pioneer chief intellectual property counsel. "It provides a conducive environment for the development of new varieties that will bring benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment."

The suit began after Marvin Redenius, a farm-supply dealer, allegedly bought Pioneer seed from a third party and sold it to his customers. There is no doubt that Pioneer was paid for the seed; what concerned Pioneer is that Redenius was not a Pioneer dealer. Doyle Karr, Pioneer spokesman, says that Pioneer has a lot invested in its reputation, and wants to ensure that handling, storage and delivery are done in a way which preserves it through authorized Pioneer dealers. "The seed has our logo on it," Karr explains. "It's our image."

It has long been accepted that the owner of a patent has broad rights to control how patented items are used, and Pioneer, intending to protect its rights and reputation filed suit against Redenius to enforce them. Redenius responded by claiming Pioneer's plant patents were void- not merely the 17 patents which covered the seed sold in this case, but all of Pioneer's plant patents. The defendants moved, on that basis, for a dismissal of Pioneer's suit.

The Iowa District Court considered only one issue: whether the US Patent and Trademark Office has the authority to grant patents on sexually reproducing plants, or whether the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) is the only way for breeders to protect their rights. The court noted that the language of the patent law was intentionally broad, and designed to encompass "every-thing under the sun that is made by man." Indeed, this interpretation was applied in the Chakrabarty case, in which the US Supreme Court declared living organisms to be patentable.

When it comes to plant patents, the questions became more involved. In the end, the Federal Circuit Court agreed with the Iowa District Court. It ruled that plant breeders have their choice of intellectual property protection - either through utility patents or through the US Plant Variety Protection Act; and the court specifically held that the two acts were consistent with each other.

The court also specifically addressed the claim that plants were 'products of nature,' and unpatentable because they could not properly be described. To this, the court replied that "although there remain the traditional categories of what have never been viewed as patentable subject matter, viz., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, the policy underlying the patent system fosters its application to all areas of technology-based commerce."