SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Climate-Ready Crop Patents Present Danger For Biodiversity, Group Says

    Published on 26 October 2010 @ 4:26 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    NAGOYA, JAPAN – A civil society group this week warned government officials gathered here against patents on “climate-ready” crops and what they characterised as an attempt to obtain an exclusive monopoly over plant gene sequences. The group asked states at the United Nations biodiversity conference to recognise that such patents are a threat to biodiversity and to the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources.

    Yesterday, the ETC Group held a side event and presented a paper [pdf] alleging that the six largest global agrochemical and seed corporations are filing wide-scope patents with the aim of obtaining a monopoly on plant gene sequences that “could lead to control of most of the world’s plant biomass” for food, feed, fibre, fuel or plastics.

    Biomass is defined by the group as “material derived from living or recently-living biological organisms.” Biomass includes all plants and trees, microbes, but also by-products like organic waste from livestock, food processing and garbage, they said. “Climate-ready” crops are engineered to address climate change challenges.

    According to the paper, there was a significant upsurge of patents published (both applications and issued patents) related to “climate-ready” genetically engineered crops in the last two years. Some 262 patent “families” encompassing 1,663 patent documents worldwide were published from June 2008 to June 2010, representing a significant increase, and including specific claims to “abiotic stress tolerance”, which refers to resistance to drought, heat, flood, cold and salt. “A patent family contains a set of related patent applications and/or issued patents that are published in more than one country or patent office (including national and regional patent jurisdictions),” said the paper. The list of patents and their details are published in the paper.

    The scope of those patents could potentially “become the broadest and most dangerous patent claims in intellectual property history,” the paper said.

    The claims of the patents extend to multiple characteristics in “scores of genetically modified crops and even to the harvested food and feed products,” it said.

    Six companies – DuPont, BASF, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow – along with their biotechnology partners, control 201 of those 262 claims, or 77 percent, ETC said. The public sector has only 9 percent.

    There are high economic interests at stake, according to the paper, which said that the global market for drought tolerance in maize alone is estimated at $2.7 billion, while the US Department of Agriculture estimates the global bio-based market for chemicals and plastics will top $500 billion per year by 2025.

    Rulings May Reduce Patent Scope

    In July 2010, the European Court of Justice issued a ruling denying Monsanto intellectual property rights over exports of soy meal from Argentina to the European Union. The seed giant went to court against Dutch importers of soy meal from Argentina containing DNA sequences of its herbicide-tolerant soy, which was not under patent in Argentina (IPW, Biodiversity, Genetic Resources, Biotech, 7 July 2010). The decision “made clear that claims on DNA sequences do not extend to derivative or processed products,” ETC said.

    ETC warned against proprietary, “high-tech” seeds that “will not be accessible – or suitable for – the vast majority of the world’s farmers.”

    The paper calls for alternative paths for climate resilience, which “ultimately depends on agricultural biodiversity, local seed systems and agro-ecological processes in the hands of farming communities.” Under-utilised crops and plant diversity that provide natural tolerance to harsh conditions are one alternative option to “technological fixes.”

    “Indigenous and local farming communities that have developed and managed that diversity and their role in developing strategies for climate change adaptation must be recognised, strengthened and protected,” it said.

    ETC also called for governments to reject the “corporate climate agenda” at the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November-10 December, and asked that the Governing Body of the International Seed Treaty meeting in Bali, Indonesia in March 2011 “take action to stop the patent grab on climate-related genes and technologies as a violation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.”

    Local Farming Knowledge Deemed Essential

    Agricultural biodiversity is a subset of larger biodiversity, Pratap Shrestha of USC Canada, a non profit organisation, said at another side event on 21 October, on farmers’ innovations, agricultural biodiversity and climate change. Farming communities have played a vital role in local food systems and food security, agricultural knowledge and innovation on genetic resources. The side event was organised by the Development Fund, a non-profit organisation based in South Africa and the United States developing innovative “financing vehicles that can attract private-sector capital for community purposes,” according to their website.

    Local farming communities are sustaining a wide variety of crops, not only major food crops, but also neglected and under-utilised food crops, uncultivated and wild food crops. They have a diversified knowledge on the crops such as nutritional quality or medicinal use, said Shrestha.

    There is little use of farmers’ knowledge and innovation in formal research and development on agrobiodiversity conservation, he said, and there is a rapid erosion of this knowledge.

    The 10th meeting of the Conference of the Party of the Convention on Biological Diversity, taking place from 18-29 October, named two working groups to negotiate items of the agenda, notably to establish a strategic plan. “Working group one” is talking about agriculture biodiversity but they are not talking monopoly and intellectual property rights, said Pat Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group.

    Patents “make fun of the international plant treaty (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture), and the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) to secure the exchange of plant genetic resources, Mooney said. He asked that patent offices such as the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office and the Japan intellectual property office either reject patents on climate-ready crops, or revoke them if already granted, as they “violate food security,” he said.

    Fair prices, fair markets and strong farmers’ rights would reverse the trend of farmers leaving their land, he said. At present, the vast majority of global agriculture is produced by small farmers.

    Mooney said the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Committee on World Food Security, which took place on 11-14 October, “showed amazing progress.” Olivier de Schutter “gave an incredibly optimistic speech,” he said.

    Link to press release from de Schutter event here.

    A new FAO study released 26 October argues that the preservation of plant biodiversity, particularly in wild relatives of crops generally used for food, is critical to future food security. It is available here.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. R Saha says:

      Is it possible for the Japanese civil society group to share the list of patents related climate ready crops? Stakes of biodiversity rich countries are quite high because such patents are certainly built around the local indigenous knowledge which may be century old. Climate ready crops are beneficial to the whole human community and unlawful ownership may not be good in long run.

    2. wackes seppi says:

      Demagoguery at its best. Every trick is used to increase FUD, among them: listing applications knowing very well that a significant number thereof will not issue or will issue with a considerably reduced scope; listing application numbers together with grant numbers, and listing continuations; lining up patent applications just because they include somewhere in the text a keyword, whether or not there is a link with climate.

      Two easy examples:
      1. The first Alliance One International, Inc. patent application in the list is for a cultivar (or variety) of – mind it – tobacco. Claim 38 seeks to cover backcrossing, a method well known to plant breeders, to produce a slightly modified version of that – and only that – cultivar. Claim 39 then specifies the “method of claim 38, wherein the trait is selected from the group consisting of herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, disease resistance, nematode resistance, tolerance to abiotic stress, yield enhancement, improved leaf characteristics, altered reproductive capability, and altered chemical composition”.
      2. The second DuPont (Pioneer) patent in the list is for a maize variety. There is a string of claims designed to cover genetically modified versions of that – and only that – variety. For instance claim 7 reads: “The seed of claim 2, further comprising a transgene”. The next claim then lists types of transformation: “…male sterility, site-specific recombination, abiotic stress tolerance, altered phosphorus, altered antioxidants, altered fatty acids, altered essential amino acids, altered carbohydrates, herbicide resistance, insect resistance and disease resistance.” The same technique has been used, I assume, for the dozens of other DuPont (Pioneer) patents and applications for varieties.

      If Spacemen had become a concern for agriculture both lists would have included “resistance to Spacemen”.

      The DuPont patents and applications for varieties are also convenient to illustrate another trick: they have only been filed in the United States and are thus of no or at best little relevance for the rest of the world. Their relevance is further limited by the fact that they relate to varieties adapted to the growing conditions in the United States, not in, say, tropical countries.

      More generally, because of the nature of the patent system, which obliges the inventor to run without delay to the patent office, a good number of applications appear to be fairly speculative. Concrete results in the form of new varieties, if at all, will take time to materialise. The speculated “aim of obtaining a monopoly on plant gene sequences that ‘could – note the conditional form here – lead to control of most of the world’s plant biomass’ for food, feed, fibre, fuel or plastics” is pure (unpatentable!) invention. On the other hand, the patent applications for promising inventions signal that invention to would-be partners. It begs reminding that an effective deployment of genetic innovations requires production of varieties adapted to particular growing conditions and that no “gene giant” is able to do that on its own for all crops and all farmers.

    3. Biodiversity, Climate Change Policy On Convergent Roads | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] Climate-Ready Crop Patents Present Danger For Biodiversity, Group Says [2] [...]

    4. Biodiversity: Bountiful Source For Cosmetics, But Needs Respect | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] Climate-Ready Crop Patents Present Danger For Biodiversity, Group Says [3] [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.