22 



ASSINSEL STATEMENT FOR THE QUESTION OP ENTRY INTO FORCB OP THE NEW CONCBPT 

 OP ESSENTIAL DERIVATION (E.D.) OF ARTICLE 14 PARA. 5 OP THB 1991 RBVISBD TEXT 

 OP THE IIPOV CONVENTION IN NATIONAL LAVS 



Adopted by the Genera) Assembly of ASSINSEL in Nairobi, on Hay 28, 1993 



After careful consideration of the 

 Involved, the following Ik concluded: 



economic, legal and technical aspects 



In the case of national implementation of the 1991 Convention (see chapter IX 

 of the 1991 revised text of the WPOV Convention) the nev concept of E.D. should 

 Include the following: 



1. All existing Plant Breeder's Rights (pnR) before implementation should be 

 regarded as independent and should enjoy all the rights given by the 

 revised Convention. 



2. Nevertheless, only where such a protected plant variety is not itself an 

 essentially derived variety (E.D.V.) should the holder enjoy the rights 

 under article 14, par. 5 of the revised Convention. 



3. All E.D.V. for which an application for PI1R has been filed or acts 

 mentioned In article 14, par. 1 of the revised Convention have been done 

 first on or after the Implementation date should be subject to the nev 

 concept of E.D. and dependency. 



4. The date of filing an application for PDR should be decisive and not the 

 date of granting PDR. 



5. There should he no difference between the date of application and acts 

 with the plant variety because at the date of application it can be 

 imputed that acts have already been done with this variety (e.g. 

 production of propaqatlng material). 



For elucidation purposes the following (possible) time diagram Is annexed 



1994 IHPI.KHENTATION OP UPOV CONVENTION 



, , p p . 



2) P 



3) 



^ no dependence 



P' ^ yes, dependence 



P P* > yes. dependence 



-»- 



1984 1986 1988 1990 1997. 1991 1996 1990 2000 2002 2004 2006 



P = original/Initial variety (protection starts) 



p'= from P essentially derived variety (application date or first acts) 



