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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >

    Revised EPO Patent For Conventional Broccoli Has Public Interest Ramifications

    Published on 27 October 2011 @ 5:57 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A patent for a conventionally bred form of the common household vegetable broccoli appears to be on its way to acceptance by the European Patent Office following a change to the patent by the company filing it, according to sources. The decision not to revoke the patent, which has been the subject of protests and now calls for action in national courts, could clear the way for hundreds of other vegetable patents to follow, a source said.

    In a rather legal format, the EPO announced on 25 October that an oral hearing in the so-called “broccoli” case had been cancelled, which observers say clears the way for approval of the patent in question. The cancellation of hearing came from the removal of objection by competing companies to the patent filer.

    The move calls into question the bounds of patentability on plants and animals, after the EPO appeal board last year rejected patents on conventional breeding such as occurs in nature. The European Patent Office Enlarged Board of Appeal was asked to review the patentability of a grant on broccoli, and another patent on a tomato. The patented broccoli and tomato plants were not genetically modified, but rather simply bred conventionally as farmers have done for ages, according to sources.

    Plant varieties are not patentable and are protected under a sui generis system at the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV).

    The board in December 2010 decided that “essentially biological processes for the production of plans (or animals)” are excluded from patentability (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,10 December 2010).

    The broccoli and tomato cases, one patented by Plant Bioscience Ltd. (EP 1069819) and the other by the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture (EP 1211926), had been brought before the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal after France-based seed cooperative Limagrain Group, Swiss biotech company Syngenta, and multinational food company Unilever filed complaints, respectively. Plant Bioscience already markets in the United Kingdom a “new variety” of broccoli made from conventional breeding methods.

    According to the EPO, Limagrain and Syngenta alleged that “the patent protects an essentially biological method of breeding plants excluded from patentability under the European Patent Convention (EPC) binding on the EPO.”

    Now, Limagrain and Syngenta appear to have been satisfied with the modification to the broccoli patent and conditionally removed their opposition, which caused cancellation of the hearing. With their opposition removed, approval of the patent becomes likely, according to Patrick Durisch, health programme coordinator at the Berne Declaration, a Swiss NGO. It is unclear what specifically triggered the change of views by the companies. The companies could not be reached on deadline.

    The EPO said the appeal board maintained its position against patenting of conventional breeding, but further refined it. “Taking into account the ruling of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO that methods for the production of plants which comprise conventional breeding steps as well as technical ones are not patentable under the applicable European patent law,” the EPO said, “the patentee has proposed to limit its original patent by excluding the breeding methods. Thus, only the broccoli plants as such remain protected.”

    “The two firms appealing the patent made their request for a public hearing conditional on whether the board decides not to follow the proposal of the patentee,” EPO added. “Therefore, the board will now issue its reasoned decision in writing.”

    The oral hearing in the tomato case is scheduled for 8 November.

    Protests at EPO; Call for Action in National Courts

    Durisch of the Berne Declaration called the change to the patent a “cheap trick” by Plant Bioscience’s lawyers. Activists thought that the December 2010 decision was “the end of the story,” he said, and that the next step would be EPO repeal of the patent. But that did not happen as the company resubmitted the patent with a focus on the end product rather than the process. The patent had been pending opposition, which now removed effectively means the patent is confirmed, he said.

    Hundreds of people representing farmers, environmental and development organisations protested yesterday outside the EPO in Munich, raising concern that patent monopoly rights are being given on basic “resources needed for daily living.” They are calling on European governments to take action in national courts to prevent such patents from proceeding.

    Speakers at the demonstration included representatives from organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the German Family Farmers Organisation, and the international coalition of “No Patents On Seeds”, according to a press release.

    “Granting patents on plant varieties or on conventional breeding is prohibited within Europe. This patent is in conflict with both prohibitions. If the existing patent law is so inadequately worded that any legal challenge is bound to fail then it has to be changed. This is the only way to protect the interests of consumers, farmers and breeders,” said Christoph Then, patent expert for Greenpeace and a speaker from the No Patents On Seeds coalition.

    Concern was also raised about the impact of such patents on global food prices and developing countries. “In making these decisions the European Patent Office is playing an irresponsible game,” said Francois Meienberg of the Berne Declaration. “Breeders as well as farmers can only assume their responsibility for world food security if they have free access to seeds. The ongoing rise in food prices must not be further fueled by patent monopolies.”

    Ruth Tippe from the No Patents on Life! Initiative said that further patents with claims on bread, flour and noodles (EP1331845) and cucumber (EP1433378) are also due to be granted. “The EPO is about to grant further patents very soon,” she said. “For example, on 2 November a patent will be granted to Bayer claiming cucumber derived from conventional breeding. If this development is not stopped, there will soon be patents on air, light and love.”

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Coming To Plates In Europe: Patented Vegetables, Produced By Conventional Breeding | Greediocracy says:

      [...] there is already a “tomato” patent, and according to this article on the affair, there are plenty more in the pipeline: Ruth Tippe from the No Patents on Life! Initiative said that further patents with claims on [...]

    2. Coming To Plates In Europe: Patented Vegetables, Produced By Conventional Breeding « waweru.net says:

      [...] "broccoli" patent, there is already a "tomato" patent, and according to this article on the affair, there are plenty more in the pipeline: Ruth Tippe from the No Patents on Life! Initiative said that further patents with claims on [...]


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 184.72.141.31