Who owns the technology of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plants?
In the United States, a very long running interference battle over who first invented using Agrobacterium to transform plants has recently been decided. News of this critically important outcome comes only from the declared winner “Monsanto” and so the details of the claims in question are sketchy. What is clear though is that the patent that will soon issue is going to have a patent term of 17 years counted from the date of issuance.
For more information on the patents and science surrounding this technology, an overview may be downloaded. (Download as PDF)
No tags for this post.Schmeiser v Monsanto
By this time, most of you have heard that ‘Monsanto won’ over Percy Schmeiser in the Canadian Supreme Court. Actually, Mr Schmeiser was found to have infringed Monsanto’s patent but no damages were assessed. It was a close decision and a momentous one for two main reasons. Several commentators have written about how genetically-engineered plants are essentially, if not expressly, protectable because of the gene introduced. In another blog entry, I will discuss that issue. For this entry, however, I raise the possibility that the Court has defined “use” of a patented invention in such a way that that there may now be an exemption for basic science research in Canada.
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser 2004 SCC 34.
(more…)
New postings at cambiaIP resource web site
The cambia IP site has posted a new white paper (patent landscape analysis) on “Resistance to Phosphinothricin” as well as a new tutorial called “Can IP rights protect plants?“.
No tags for this post.Nap Hal - Comments Addressed
An interested reader commented on the post in which I expressed approval for the decision of the Indian Government to not oppose the European Patent, now owned by Monsanto, that used Nap Hal. The reader raised several points that I would like to address. I also hope that it evokes more discussion on this topic area.
(Sidebar - there are currently 5 parties opposing this patent, including Greepeace and the European Flour Milling Association)
(more…)
Nap Hal Patent Revisted
Hurrah! The Indian Government has decided not to oppose the European Patent awarded to Monsanto for wheat derived from Nap Hal land race. Advice given to the Indian Government rightly recognized that the patent in no way affected farmers’ right to grow the variety in India.
News taken from The Financial Express, 13 March 2004.
No tags for this post.Syngenta and Monsanto Settle Patent Dispute
Two patent disputes between these two giants has been settled: a patent interference in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over who deserves a patent on transgenic broad leaf crops, and a patent infringement suit brought by Syngenta. The press releases from both companies provides little other information about what patents are at issue, making it difficult for this author to discuss the claims and their possible impacts.
The press release states that each company gets
“royalty-free, non-exclusive licenses related to the development, use and sale of transgenic crops containing agricultural technologies such as insect-protection and herbicide-tolerance produced through the use of the cross-licensed Agrobacterium-mendiated transformation technology.”
This settlement will likely be good for the customers of Monsanto and Syngenta, but if, as is surmised from the press release, that these patents encompass basic tools for plant transformation, we urge wide-spread licensing to all ag-biotech companies.
No tags for this post.Monsanto suspends sales of GM Soybean in Argentina
According to an IPS News article (dated 10 Feb 2004) Monsanto has decided to suspend sales of genetically modified (GM) soybean in Argentina. Argentina is the 3rd largest producer of soybean, behind Brazil and the US. The article says competition from black market sales of GM soy in Argentina is the reason Monsanto has ceased both sales of GM soy and all further R&D on GM soybean within Argentina.
Although farmers are entitled to cull seeds for the use of replanting new crops (Argentina’s 1973 seed law), the problem is the illegal sales of culled GM soybean seeds on the black market. Farmers argue the problem is not from small- or medium-sized farms selling culled GM seeds. Instead, the farmers say that they do not have the large scale seed infrastructure that would be required to produce the current large volumes of black market GM seeds. Furthermore, the farmers contend that the huge growth in black market sales indicates that the current controls and enforcement procedures are not adequate, and moreover it should be dealt with by the Argentine government.
No tags for this post.