Advertisement

RETRACTED ARTICLE: A Case for a Limited Breeding Exemption from Patent Protection

  • Zhiqian Wan
  • Samuel MengEmail author
Article

Abstract

A breeding exemption in breeder’s rights law has not been specified in the patent laws of most countries. Since breeding exemption is not a part of research exemption, this paper argues that it is necessary and feasible to introduce into the patent system a limited breeding exemption. Compared with a comprehensive breeding exemption, a limited breeding exemption impairs patent rights less, conforms to the three-step test in Art. 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and is in the public interest. The liability rule is suggested to be used to facilitate the commercialisation of final varieties.

Keywords

Plant variety rights Plant patent Breeding exemption Research exemption TRIPS Agreement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of a grant from the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science of China (No. 16BFX168).

References

  1. Anderson JE (2003) Public policy-making: an introduction. Fifth edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bessen et al (2000) Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Working Paper Department of Economics, pp 00–01Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan JM, Yoon YJ (2000) Symmetric tragedies: commons and anticommons. J Law Econ 43:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai M (2004) Madey v. Duke University: shattering the myth of universities’ experimental use defense. Berkeley Technol Law J 1:190Google Scholar
  5. Correa CM (2000) Intellectual property rights, the WTO and developing countries: the TRIPS Agreement and policy options. Zed Books, London, pp 75–76Google Scholar
  6. Davison MJ, Monotti AL, Wiseman L (2015) Australian intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutfield G (2011) Food, biological diversity and intellectual property, the role of the international union for the protection of new varieties of plants (UPOV). Quaker United Nations Office Intellectual Property. Issue Paper, p 9Google Scholar
  8. Fennell LA (2004) Common interest tragedies. Northwest Univ Law Rev 98:829Google Scholar
  9. Graff GD (2009) The political economy of agricultural biotechnology policies. J Agrobiotechnol Manag Econ 12(1):34Google Scholar
  10. Guido C, Douglas M (1972) Property rules, liability rules and inalienability: one view of the cathedral. Harv Law Rev 85:1089–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harabi N (1996) Patents in theory and practice: empirical results from Switzerland. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9606/. Accessed 12 May 2017
  12. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heitz A (1994) The history of the UPOV convention and the rationale for plant breeders’ rights. In: 1991 seminar on the nature and rationale for the protection of plant varieties under the UPOV convention (UPOV, 1994), pp 25–26Google Scholar
  14. Heller MA (1998) The tragedy of the anti-commons: property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harv Law Rev 111:621–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holzapfel H, Sarnoff JD (2008) A cross-atlantic dialog on experimental use and research tools. Intell Prop Law Rev 48(151):2–96Google Scholar
  16. Hsu SL (2016) A comparative study on research exemptions in plant breeding under intellectual property rights protection. Queen Mary J Intell Prop 1:92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janis MD (2001) Sustainable Agriculture, Patent Rights, and Plant Innovation. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 9(1):91–117Google Scholar
  18. Janis MD et al (2002) The future of patent law: U.S. plant variety protection: sound and Fury…? Houst L Rev 39:727–778Google Scholar
  19. Jonge B, Louwaars N (2011) IP practices in the Netherlands: IPRs and technology transfer to developing countries. In: Genugten WV, Meijknecht A (eds) Harnessing intellectual property rights for development objectives: the double role of IPRs in the context of facilitating MDGs Nos 1 and 6. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 234–240Google Scholar
  20. Jördens R (2002) Legal and technological developments leading to this symposium: UPOV’s perspective. In: WIPO-UPOV symposium on the co-existence of patents and plant breeders’ rights in the promotion of biotechnological developments. Geneva 25 OctGoogle Scholar
  21. Kur A (2011) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test: How much room to walk in the middle ground? In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system: proposals for reform for TRIPS. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 239–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu WZ (2007) On the predicament of realizing public interest of public policy. Chin Public Adm 8:26–29Google Scholar
  23. Louwaars N et al (2009) Breeding business. The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeder’s rights. Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands, CGN Report, p 14Google Scholar
  24. McManis CR (2002) Are there TRIPS-compliant measures for a balanced co-existence of patents and plant breeders’ rights? Some lessons from the U.S. experience to date. http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/itstream/123456789/809/1/007_Are%20there%20TRIPS%20%20Compliant%20Measures%20for%20a%20Balance%20Co-Existence.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2017
  25. McMinn A (2006) Judicial interpretation of 35 USC Sec 271(e)(1): an improper expansion beyond the legislative intent. Albany Law J Sci Technol 16(195):197–230Google Scholar
  26. Merges RP (1999) Institutions for intellectual property transactions: the case of patent pools. University of California, Berkley, p 5Google Scholar
  27. Merges RP, Nelson RR (1990) On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev 90:839–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moser P (2013) Patents and innovation: evidence from economic history. J Econ Perspect 27(1):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller JM (2001) No “dilettante affair”: rethinking the experimental use exception to patent infringement for biomedical research tools. Washington Law Review, p 76. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346545. Accessed 12 May 2017
  30. Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J Econ Behav Organ 63:648–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagaoka S, Aoki R (2006) Economics of research exception. IIR working paper 06-04, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University. http://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/iirwps/06-04.html.%20Accessed%205%20May%202017, http://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/iirwps/06-04.html. Accessed 5 May 2017
  32. Pardey P et al (2013) The evolving landscape of IP rights for plant varieties in the United States, 1930–2008. Nat Biotechnol 31:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pate GN (2002) Analysis of the experimental use exception. NC J Law Technol 3:253–270Google Scholar
  34. Prifti V (2013) The breeding exemption in patent law: analysis of compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. J World Intell Prop 16(5–6):218–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prifti V (2015) The breeder’s exception to patent rights. International law and economics. Springer, Cham, p 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider I (2009) Can patent legislation make a difference? Bringing parliaments and civil society into patent governance. In: Haunss S, Shadlen KC (eds) The politics of intellectual property: contestation over the ownership, use, and control of knowledge and information. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129–157Google Scholar
  37. Scotchmer S (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. J Econ Perspect 5(1):29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shapiro C (2009) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. In: Heller MA (ed) Commons and anticommons, vol II. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 291–322Google Scholar
  39. Straus J (2002) Measures necessary for the balanced co-existence of patents and plant breeders’ rights – a predominantly European view, WIPO-UPOV Symposium on the Co-existence of Patents and Plant Breeders’ Rights in the Promotion of Biotechnological Developments, 25 October 2002Google Scholar
  40. Strandburg KJ (2004) What does the public get? Experimental use and the patent bargain. Wisconsin Law Review, Madison, p 123Google Scholar
  41. Trojan CG (2012) Problem-solving approaches to the issue of the overlap between patent law and breeders’ rights in the plant breeding sector. Report Submitted to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Agriculture and Innovation 31 July, p 20Google Scholar
  42. Van Eecke P et al (2009) Monitoring and analysis of technology transfer and intellectual property regimes and their use. In: Results of a study carried out on behalf of the European Commission (DG Research). Brussels, Dublin, p 139Google Scholar
  43. Van Overwalle G (2006) The implementation of the biotechnology directive in Belgium and its after-effects: the introduction of a new research exemption and a compulsory licence for public health. Int Rev Intell Prop Compet Law 37:889–920Google Scholar
  44. Van Overwalle G et al (2007) Dealing with patent fragmentation in ICT and genetics: patent pools and clearing houses. First Monday, p 12. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/1912/1794. Accessed 12 May 2017
  45. Yu PK (2009) The objectives and the principles of the TRIPS Agreement. Houst Law Rev 46:1020Google Scholar
  46. Zwahlen R (2011) Gene patents’ stifle research? Patently biotech. http://www.biotech-now.org/public-policy/patently-biotech/2011/06/gene-patents-stifle-research#. Accessed 12 May 2017

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor; College of Humanity and LawHuazhong Agricultural UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Senior Research Fellow; University of New England Business SchoolArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations