17 



Plant breeders are developing for the future. And, as they seek protection, the 

 concept of essentially derived will continue to challenge the entire industry. Section 

 12 does not, in the opinion of the ASTA, maintain or promote a fair playing field for 

 breeders. Breeders and farmers alike cannot afford to wait for companies to with- 

 draw applications and then resubmit them because they are eligible for real protec- 

 tion. Further complicating the issue are backlogs at the PVP office and research al- 

 ready in progress. Is it fair to assume that plant breeders will put their research on 

 hold because they can't be effectively protected from crop exemptions and the inter- 

 nal issue of essentially derived? Is it realistic for this subcommittee to believe that 

 companies will simply maintain current research strategies and be unaffected by 

 this current proposal? Can American agriculture afford to put the seed industry in 

 this dangerous position? 



I urge this subcommittee to rethink and continue the debate on this provision. To 

 do anything less serves to weaken the intent and spirit of the legislation. I have 

 attached to my formal statement a copy of language that the ASTA has drafted. 

 The substitute language outlines, from our perspective, corrective statements that 

 would address this situation. I would respectfully request that this subcommittee 

 and the full committee review this language and consider its merits. [Ed. Note: See 

 page 22.] 



Section 12 adversely affects the seed industry and the entire plant breeding com- 

 munity. The ASTA believes that our experience and potential exposure demands 

 our participation and comment. As our ability to compete and effectively serve 

 America's farmers is in serious question, it seems reasonable and necessary for our 

 perspective to be heard. I urge this subcommittee to continue discussions on Section 

 12. 



In addition, Mr. Chairman, the ASTA has one other discussion topic that we 

 would like to advance as a way of strengthening the PVP amendments. It is provid- 

 ed in the spirit of identifying a number of what we consider a "minor" modification 

 that would streamline the PVP office and its ability to issue PVP certificates in a 

 timely manner that benefits the farmers and the seed industry. [Ed. Note: See "Ad- 

 ditional Item," below.] 



As further clarification, I am also including an ASSINSEL document that outlines 

 the principle of essentially derived. The proposal gives further clarification on this 

 important concept and should be useful in further deliberations. [Ed. Note: See page 

 23.] 



Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity 

 to express the concerns, support, and enthusiasm for this legislation. To be sure, the 

 dialogue will continue and the ASTA is most appreciative of this hearing. Mr. 

 Chairman, you have our pledge that ASTA remains supportive of this legislation, 

 with the exception of Section 12 in its current form. 



I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have and if you desire spe- 

 cific information or clarification, I have a number of technical experts with me that 

 can offer further guidance or explanation. 



ADDITIONAL ITEM TO CONSIDER INCLUDING IN S. 1406 



Section 62. Insert the language from the Patent Act as recommended by the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture's Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board. 



Section 62(b) be deleted and replaced by: 



(b) Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the application within 6 

 months after any action therein, of which notice has been given or mailed 

 to the applicant or within shorter time, not less than thirty days, as fixed 

 by the Commissioner in the such action, the application shall be regarded 

 as abandoned by the parties thereto unless it be shown to the satisfaction of 

 the Commissioner that such delay was unavoidable. 



The Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board considered and recommended this 

 change to improve the efficiency of the Office. Presently, the PVP Office allows 6 

 months for nearly all responses. This includes requesting clarification of descrip- 

 tions considered to conflict within exhibits. For example, the flower could be de- 

 scribed as purple in exhibit B and exhibit D and as white in exhibit C. For such 

 requests, 30 days would appear to be sufficient with the possibility of requesting an 

 extension of time where the question is more complicated than the PVPO interpret- 

 ed. 



