Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation

Abstract

This chapter examines the legal context in which agricultural innovation occurs. It looks at the relationship between intellectual property rights and agriculture. It considers those intellectual property laws which are most relevant to agricultural innovation: plant variety rights, patents, geographical indications and trade secrets. It concludes with a consideration of the impacts of biodiversity laws upon agriculture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    [2000] HCA 14.

  2. 2.

    [2000] HCA 14 at para.26.

  3. 3.

    69 F 3d 1560 (1995).

  4. 4.

    69 F 3d 1560 at 1562–1563 (1995).

  5. 5.

    383 US 1 at 5–6 (1966).

  6. 6.

    447 US 303 (1980).

  7. 7.

    342 F. Supp 2d 584 (2004).

  8. 8.

    Monsanto Canada, Inc and Monsanto Company v Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises 2001

    FCT 256, para 12.

  9. 9.

    Monsanto Canada, Inc. v. Schmeiser. [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34.

  10. 10.

    302 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

  11. 11.

    200 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. granted, 148 L. Ed. 2d 954 (2001)

  12. 12.

    District Court of The Hague 249,983/HAZA 05/2885, March 19, 2008.

  13. 13.

    Case C-428/08.

  14. 14.

    Monsanto Technology LLC v Cargill International S.A [2007] EWHC 2257 (Pat).

  15. 15.

    Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., 851 F. Supp. 2d 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (No. 11-CV-2163)

  16. 16.

    Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

  17. 17.

    Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 901 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Organic Seed Growers, 851 F. Supp. 2d at 548.

  19. 19.

    Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013) at p.13.

  20. 20.

    Ibid at p.14.

  21. 21.

    Organic Seed Growers, 851 F. Supp. 2d at 548.

  22. 22.

    Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2013) at p.13.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Ibid at [660], [662], [669], [686].

  25. 25.

    Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187

  26. 26.

    Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169

  27. 27.

    [2014] WASC 187 at [307].

  28. 28.

    [2014] WASC 187 at [328]–[330], [336]–[338].

  29. 29.

    [2014] WASC 187 at [333]–[334], [335].

  30. 30.

    [2014] WASC 187 at [341]–[343].

  31. 31.

    Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA 169

  32. 32.

    Ibid at para 385.

  33. 33.

    Ibid at para 426.

  34. 34.

    Ibid at para 745.

  35. 35.

    Ibid at para 704.

  36. 36.

    Ibid at para 744.

  37. 37.

    Ibid at para 135.

  38. 38.

    Ibid at para 136.

  39. 39.

    Larry Hoffman and Others v Monsanto Canada Inc and Bayer Cropscience Inc. 2005 SQKB 225.

  40. 40.

    ibid. at para 22.

  41. 41.

    Heritage Seeds Pty Ltd. [2007] Australian Trade Marks Office (ATMO) 4 (25 January 2007).

  42. 42.

    U.S. Reg. No. 1709019.

  43. 43.

    U.S. Reg. No. 1559414.

  44. 44.

    U.S. Reg. No. 2,816,123.

  45. 45.

    U.S. Reg. No. 2,685,923.

  46. 46.

    (1978) Qd R 72.

  47. 47.

    35 F.3d 1226 (eighth Cir. 1994).

  48. 48.

    Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

References

  • Azmi, I. M. A. G. (2004). The protection of plant varieties in Malaysia. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7(6), 877–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, B. A. (2003). Geographical indications, property rights and value-added agriculture. Iowa Ag Review, 9(4). article1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (1989). Legal aspects of technology transfer to developing countries. Oxford, UK: ESC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (1996). Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights. In A concise guide to the TRIPs agreement. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2002). Intellectual property aspects of traditional agricultural knowledge. In R. E. Evenson, V. Santaniello, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Economic and social issues in agricultural biotechnology (pp. 43–60). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2012a). Intellectual property enforcement. A commentary on the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA). Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2012b). Patenting of plant varieties and plant breeding methods. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63(3), 1069–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2016). Organic versus GM agriculture in the courtroom in Australia and the USA. In N. Kalaitzandonakes et al. (Eds.), The coexistence of genetically modified, organic and conventional foods government policies and market practices (pp. 113–136). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2017). Geographical indications and environmental protection. Frontiers of Law in China, 12(2), 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brahmi, P., & Chaudhary, V. (2011). Protection of plant varieties: Systems across countries. Plant Genetic Resources Journal, 9(3), 393–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramley, C., & Bienabe, E. (2012). Developments and considerations around geographical indications in the developing world. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coke, S. (2002). Copyright and gene technology. Journal of Law and Medicine, 10(1), 97–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derzko, N. (1993). Protecting genetic sequences under the Canadian copyright act. Intellectual Property Journal, 8, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, B. (2002). Sui generis systems for plant variety protection. Options under TRIPS. A discussion paper. Geneva: QUNO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. (2006). Geographic indications, trade and the functioning of markets. In M. Pugatch (Ed.), The intellectual property debate: Perspectives from law (Economics and political economy) (pp. 345–360). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerz, A., & Dupont, F. (2006). Comté cheese in France: Impact of a geographical indication on rural development. In P. van de Kop, D. Sautier, & A. Gerz (Eds.), Origin-based products: Lessons for pro-poor market development (pp. 75–87). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: KIT Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L.R. (2002). Intellectual property rights in plant varieties: An overview with options for National Governments (FAO Legal Papers Online #31). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilardi, A., & Blakeney, M. (2004). International encyclopaedia of intellectual property treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanniah, R. (2005). Plant variety protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8(3), 283–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnell, G. (1995). Protection of results of genetic research by copyright or design rights? EIPR, 17, 357–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayton, I. (1982). Copyright in genetically engineered works. The George Washington International Law Review, 10(2), 191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. (2017). Export restrictions in plant breeder’s rights. Journal of International Economics, 20(4), 883–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kireeva, I., Xiaobing, W., & Yumin, Z. (2009). Comprehensive feasibility study for possible negotiations on a geographical indications agreement between China and the EU, EU-China IP2. Brussels, Belgium: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclavière, B. (1962). La protection des droits des obtenteurs sur les nouvelles espèces ou varieties des plantes et la Convention de Paris du 2 Décembre 1961 pour la protection des obtentions végétales, (April, 1962) No. 168. Bulletin Technique D’information Des Ingénieurs Des Services Agricoles, cited in Heitz, A. (1991). The History of the UPOV Convention and the Rationale for Plant Breeders’ Rights, Paper delivered at UPOV Seminar on the Nature of and Rationale for the Protection of Plant Varieties under the UPOV Convention, Buenos Aires, 26–27 Nov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masarek, A. (2010). Treetop view of the cathedral: Plant variety protection in South and Southeast Asian least developed countries. Emory International Law Review, 24, 433–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsanto. (2019). Saved seed and farmer lawsuits’. Available at http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx. Accessed 29 Sept 2019.

  • Ramanna, A. (2003). India’s plant variety and farmers’ rights legislation: Potential impact on stakeholder access to genetic resources (EPTD Discussion Paper No. 96). Washington, DC: IFPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranjan, P. (2009). Recent developments in India’s plant variety protection, seed regulation and linkages with UPOV’s proposed membership. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(3), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (2008). Sui generis plant variety protection systems: Liability rules and non-UPOV systems of protection. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 3(10), 659–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UPOV. (1987). The history of plant variety protection, in, UPOV, the first twenty-five years of the international convention of the protection of new varieties of plants. Geneva, Switzerland: UPOV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, L. (2010). Cultivating farmers’ rights: reconciling food security, indigenous agriculture, and TRIPs. (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43(1), 223–254.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

Authors
  1. Michael Blakeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Blakeney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

  2. Hackett Professor of Agriculture Chair and Director of The UWA Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Kadambot H. M. Siddique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blakeney, M. (2020). Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. In: Blakeney, M., Siddique, K. (eds) Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4611-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation