Patent Basics for the Non-Practitioner: Part IV of IV: PLANT PATENTSOctober 11, 2007 | By: Thomas F. Zuber, Esq. Plant patents may issue for plants that are stable and reproduced by asexual reproduction, and not a potato or other edible tuber reproduced plant. More specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 161 states: Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of the United States Code relating to patents for inventions also apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided. 35 U.S.C. § 161. In other words, a plant patent must also satisfy the requirements of patentability noted above in regard to utility patents. One notable exception provided for is that a plant patent will not be declared invalid for noncompliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 so long as the description of the plant is as complete as is reasonably possible. 35 U.S.C. § 162. In sum, a plant patent requires:
· That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area;
One issued, a plant patent lasts for twenty years from the date of filing the application. A plant patent grants the patent holder the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States. 35 U.S.C. § 163. * The author, Thomas F. Zuber, Esq., is a partner of Zuber & Taillieu LLP, specializing in intellectual property transactions. ** This article is for informational purposes only. This article does not constitute legal advice and, in the absence of a fully executed retainer agreement, no attorney-client relationship exists between its reader and Zuber & Taillieu LLP or any of its attorneys. For more information, please read our disclaimer. » More Patent Law Articles from Zuber & Taillieu LLP |
Sign up for legal updates at our website LawUpdates.com and stay on the cutting edge of federal law.
In Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, (C.A.Fed. (Tex.), 2007), the Federal Circuit declared that the public sale of goods produced by a process more than one year before a patent is filed places that process not only in the Section 102(b) prior art, but also in the Section 103 prior art. The Federal Circuit thus made it much more difficult for inventors to obtain patents on any process related to such goods once they have been sold, no matter what efforts are taken to keep such process secret and undisclosed…
Revisiting Markman-Cybor: Good Law But for How Long?
If the Federal Circuit’s recent opinions in Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 469 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2006), are any indication, the age of the Markman-Cybor regime may be coming to a close. Eight of the twelve judges expressed their concerns about the current status of claim construction, making a grant of certiorari likely.
Patent Basics for the Non-Practitioner: Part IV of IV: PLANT PATENTS
This article is for non-practitioners seeking to familiarize themselves with the basics of patent types and patentability requirements. This article is Part IV of a four part series.
© Zuber & Taillieu LLP. All Rights Reserved.