39 



The recommendation is that the PVPA of 1970 should be revised 

 to conform to 1991 UPOV regarding farmer exemptions and essen- 

 tially derived varieties. 



That concludes the quotes from the recommendations, and I wish 

 to thank you for allowing me to come and share the results of this 

 1993 workshop on the protection of intellectual property. 



Although there may be questions that may have to be resolved in 

 terms of the specific definitions of essentially derived varieties for 

 various individual crops, we believe that the drafters of this legisla- 

 tion are to be commended in providing a concrete step through its 

 amendment to come into compliance with the 1991 UPOV Conven- 

 tion. Its passage will fulfill one of the major recommendations of 

 this workshop. 



I thank you for the opportunity to be here. 



[The "Intellectual Property Rights: Protection of Plant Materi- 

 als" Executive Summary follows:] 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



Intellectual Property Rights: Protection of Plant Materials 



A workshop entitled "Intellectual Property Rights: Protection of Plant Materials" 

 was held in Washington, DC, 26-28 January, 1993. The participants included 116 

 individuals from a broad range of disciplinary, professional, and administrative in- 

 terests. Plenary speakers addressed such topics as goals of inventors, owners, and 

 users; implications of non-U. S. protection, procedures, and practices for U.S. innova- 

 tors; the status of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection; science-based identi- 

 fication of plant genetic materials; and national legislative issues. 



Five work groups, each composed of a cross section of conferees, addressed critical 

 issues and problems in the following areas: (i) licensing; (ii) research and farmer ex- 

 emptions; (iii) germplasm and information exchange; (iv) ethical and social concerns; 

 and (v) the impacts of property protection on research agendas. Each work group 

 was asked to address current practices in both the public and private sectors and to 

 develop recommendations for policies and educational programs that would improve 

 the property protection system and mitigate any negative impacts on research and 

 information exchange among scientists. The deliberations of each group were then 

 summarized and the five highest priority issues from all groups were identified. Rec- 

 ommendations to address each of these priority issues were then developed, along 

 with a description of expected outcomes if the recommendations were implemented. 



LICENSING WORK GROUP 



Licensing was recognized by both private and public sector attendees as the pri- 

 mary vehicle by which intellectual property rights are transferred from inventors to 

 users. The private sector is generally comfortable with licensing; however, all recog- 

 nize that there is uncertainty in evaluating the commercial potential of individual 

 plant "inventions." One commonly used form of license is a material transfer agree- 

 ment (MTA), which usually conveys the right to use plant materials for research 

 purposes only. These agreements are encouraged. 



Conferees encouraged consistent licensing practices at public institutions. Compa- 

 nies, however, often do not know what office or person to deal with in universities 

 and often are not informed when potentially valuable material is available for licen- 

 sure. Public institutions were encouraged to protect their intellectual property posi- 

 tions, and to offer a basis for licensing materials that might have commercial value. 

 It was also recognized that exclusive license agreements, especially if a public insti- 

 tution is the licensor, can create tensions about germplasm access among plant 

 breeders. 



The manner in which plant breeders are treated, as inventors, was also perceived 

 as a serious issue. A majority of participants believed it was important to encourage 

 a uniform policy within and among public organizations. Team efforts could be dis- 

 couraged if breeders and their coworkers are not treated uniformly. In many cases 

 it is extremely difficult to determine "who is the inventor." 



Concern was also expressed about the impact of exclusive licenses on the credibil- 

 ity that public organizations have with the general public. It is especially important 



