37 



CURRENT STATUS OF PROTECTION 



In summary, for a plant patent or PVP, the protection is straightforward. Protec- 

 tion extends to the variety described in the document. PPA covers the whole plant, 

 whereas the PVPA covers only the seeds for the plant variety. If the statutes are 

 changed to reflect the 1991 UPOV Convention (discussed above), plant parts would 

 also be protected and derived varieties which retain essential characteristics would 

 be covered. The utility patent system allows for claims of varying scope and empha- 

 sis depending on the nature of the invention and the prior art. 



Several key provisions of the PVPA are not equivalent to any provisions in the 

 utility patent or plant patent systems. These include mandatory license, a series of 

 statutory exemptions for saved seed, an exemption for sales by persons whose pri- 

 mary occupation is farming (neighbor to neighbor sales), and a research exemption. 



WHAT IS INFRINGEMENT? 



Unlicensed propagation of a protected cultivar for any purpose is an infringement 

 of breeders' rights except for neighbor to neighbor sales. A research exemption is 

 recognized in the PVPA but is not implicit in the PPA or the utility patents. If 

 someone infringes upon the patent the burden of proof falls upon the patent holder. 

 Failure to pay royalties assigned to the plant cultivar is against the law and is no 

 different from stealing. More detailed infringements upon the PVPA are described 

 in Public Law 91-577. 



ROBERT F BARNES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SO- 

 CIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

 AND SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA, MADISON, WI 



Mr. Barnes. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and 

 colleagues, my name is Robert Barnes, executive vice president for 

 the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science and Soil Science 

 Societies of America. Often we are called the tri-Societies. We are 

 headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. 



The Crop Science Society of America, along with the American 

 Society for Horticultural Science, cosponsored a workshop entitled 

 "Intellectual Property Rights: Protection of Plant Materials" held 

 the 26th to the 28th of January this year in Washington, DC. Joint 

 sponsorship and partial support for that workshop was provided by 

 the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science, and Education. 



The workshop built upon some ideas and topics that were 

 brought out in a previous conference held in Anaheim, California, 

 in 1989, which the tri-Societies, Horticultural Science, and other so- 

 cieties sponsored. There were 116 attendees at the 1993 workshop 

 and they represented a very diverse array of individuals, represent- 

 ing the legal aspect, plant breeding and genetics, the seed industry, 

 legal, political, public, private, a good array and other areas of in- 

 terest. 



And as a result, a special publication from the January confer- 

 ence will be issued and excerpted materials from the executive 

 summary and the work group reports are packaged in this portfolio 

 for the committee. I would at least encourage the executive sum- 

 mary to be entered into the record, if not the entire portion. 



Senator Kerrey. Without objection, it will be entered. 



Mr. Barnes. The rights of inventors to secure legal property pro- 

 tection for their creative efforts and discoveries as provided in the 

 U.S. Constitution. You have heard an array of discussion as to 

 what has happened since that time. 



Within the last decade, the options to exercise this right for 

 plant-derived intellectual property have expanded to include utility 



