{
  "id": "RL31568",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31568",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101371,
      "date": "2002-09-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:04:44.739941",
      "title": "Plants, Patents, and Seed Innovation in the Agricultural Industry",
      "summary": "Agricultural research and seed distribution systems within the United States have become\nincreasingly privatized. Private plant breeders have turned to the intellectual property system on\nthe grounds that research and development expenses should be recovered. Intellectual property laws\nallow innovators to appropriate the benefits of their inventions by excluding others from reproducing\nand selling the protected subject matter.\n  In recent years, plant breeders have pursued intellectual property rights through three different\nstatutes. The Patent Act of 1952 allows inventors to obtain utility patents, which pertain generally\nto technological products and processes. The Plant Patent Act of 1930 additionally provides for\nplant patents, awarded for distinct and new varieties of plants that have been asexually reproduced. \nFinally, the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 provides for the issuance of plant variety\nprotection certificates for new, distinct, uniform and stable plant varieties that have been sexually\nreproduced. \n  Due to the overlap among these three statutes, some legal uncertainty existed as to whether\nplant breeders could obtain multiple, concurrent intellectual property rights. In its 2001 decision in\n J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. , the U.S. Supreme Court\nconfirmed\nthat an innovative plant may be awarded a utility patent, even though it may also be subject to\nprotection under one of the plant-specific statutes.\n  Response to the  J.E.M. v. Pioneer \u00a0decision has been mixed. Some observers\n believe that by\nenacting more specific legislation for plant innovation, the intent of Congress was to foreclose utility\npatent protection for such inventions. In addition, some commentators have asserted that the\npossibility of utility patents for seed-bearing plants effectively eliminates certain PVPA provisions\nthat favor farmers and scientific researchers. Others have been more favorably disposed towards this\noverlap between intellectual property regimes, observing that the rights and responsibilities presented\nunder the three statutes differ.\n  Should Congress have an interest in legislating in this area, a variety of options are available. \nIf the availability of utility patents for plants is deemed sound, then no action need be taken. \nAlternatively, if legislative activity is deemed prudent, Congress could impose new restrictions upon\nthe subject matter eligible for utility patents, introduce infringement exemptions within the utility\npatent statute, or encourage the agricultural industry to develop guidelines on permissible uses of\npatented plant innovations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31568",
          "sha1": "a35a69f0fa2af16fd9a64c5f4f0ba28fbf2ac567",
          "filename": "files/20020913_RL31568_a35a69f0fa2af16fd9a64c5f4f0ba28fbf2ac567.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020913_RL31568_a35a69f0fa2af16fd9a64c5f4f0ba28fbf2ac567.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}