99-1996 J.E.M. Ag Supply Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

Listen to this article

Neither the PPA’s original nor its recodified text indicates that its protection for asexually reproduced plants was intended to be exclusive. The 1930 PPA amended the general patent provision to protect only the asexual reproduction of a plant. And Congress’ 1952 revision, which placed plant patents into a separate chapter 15, was only a housekeeping measure that did not change the substantive rights or the relaxed requirements for such patents. Plant patents under the PPA thus continue to have very limited coverage and less stringent requirements than sec. 101 utility patents. Importantly, chapter 15 nowhere states that plant patents are the exclusive means of granting intellectual property protection to plants.

That the PVPA specifically authorizes limited patent-like protection for certain sexually reproduced plants does not evidence Congress’ intent to deny broader sec. 101 utility patent protection for such plants. While the PVPA creates a comprehensive statutory scheme with respect to its particular protections and subject matter, giving limited protection to plant varieties that are new, distinct, uniform, and stable, nowhere does it restrict the scope of patentable subject matter under sec. 101. The PVPA contains no statement of exclusivity. Furthermore, at the time the PVPA was enacted, the PTO had already issued numerous utility patents for hybrid plant processes, which reaffirms that such material was within sec. 101’s scope.

The PTO has assigned utility patents for plants for at least 16 years, and there has been no indication from either Congress or agencies with expertise that such coverage is inconsistent with the PVPA or the PPA. Congress has not only failed to pass legislation indicating that it disagrees with the PTO’s interpretation of sec.101; it has even recognized the availability of utility patents for plants.

200 F.3d 1374, affirmed.

Local Effect: The decision affirms current law of the Federal Circuit.

Thomas, J.; Scalia, J., concurring; Breyer, J., dissenting.