Abstract
The changing environment for plant related innovations requires an evolution of related IPRs. In view of the legislative intent of IPRs to foster innovation, different options are evaluated. This section analyses the general considerations for IPR systems and the underpinning legislative intent, the correlation of IP strength and innovation flow, and the legislators’ dilemma to provide strong IP to reward existing innovation and to enable access to enable new innovation. It lays out the different options and the primary scenarios for the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Complex” industries may be described as sectors where patents have a large strategic bargaining value, while “discrete” industries designate areas where patents have large stand-alone innovation value (Cohen et al. 2000).
- 2.
Golden Rice is a variety of rice (Oryza sativa) produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. It is intended to mitigate a shortage of dietary vitamin A, a deficiency is estimated to kill per year 670,000 children under the age of 5 and cause an additional 500,000 cases of irreversible childhood blindness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice. Accessed February 3, 2022.
- 3.
A patent thicket hardly existed in the use countries for Golden Rice, i.e., countries in Southeast Asia, where biotech patents have rarely been filed.
- 4.
Companies developed biotech products under licenses or cross-licenses. The complexity of the IP and the competition landscapes were limited so that license deals have been possible with reasonable efforts. Meanwhile the majority of the early enabling technology patents expired and there is a basic tool kit of off-patent technologies. In addition, plant biotech patents have been relevant for few MNCs which were develo** their own GM traits, but not for breeders at large. Plants with GM traits can usually be easily identified and are limited to a few crops, so that breeders are able to avoid issues.
- 5.
Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), Decision G 3/19 “Pepper” (May 14, 2020); OJ EPO 2019, A34. Available under http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/44CCAF7944B9BF42C12585680031505A/$File/G_3-19_opinion_EBoA_20200514_en.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2022.
- 6.
See “Economic Analysis of Intellectual Property.” Available at: https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/LawEconomics/ip.htm. Accessed February 3, 2022.
- 7.
In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) the US Supreme Court found that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement. A court must still weigh a “four-factor test”: (1) irreparable injury (2) remedies are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
- 8.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should … be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.” F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1936.
- 9.
See UK Governments, Press release September 29, 2021: Plans to unlock power of gene editing unveiled. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-to-unlock-power-of-gene-editing-unveiled. See also Defra consultation: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/agri-food-chain-directorate/the-regulation-of-genetic-technologies/. Accessed February 3, 2022.
- 10.
Scenario 2 would not require such solution, but it would also be a clear signal of market failure and under-utilization of innovation which hopefully can be avoided in view of the challenges of climate change.
References
Becerril J, Abdulai A (2010) The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: A propensity score-matching approach. World Dev. 38:1024–1035
Bessen JE et al. (2000) Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 00-01. 3 p. Harvard University, Cambridge. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=206189
Blakeney M (2009) Intellectual property rights and food security. CABI, Wallingford, p 266
Cohen W et al (2000) Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)”. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7552
Correa C (2012) TRIPS-related patent flexibilities and food security options for develo** countries policy guide. Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). Geneva. 32 p
Correa C et al (2015) Plant variety protection in develo** countries: A tool for designing a sui generis plant variety protection system: An alternative to UPOV, 1991. APREBES, Bonn, Germany, p 94
Derclaye E, Leistner M (2011) Intellectual property overlaps: a European perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK. ISBN 9781847316516
Dubock A (2014) The politics of Golden Rice. GM Crops & Food 5:210–222. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.967570
Dutfield G (2011) Food, biological diversity and intellectual property. Global Economic Issue Publications Intellectual Property, Issue Paper No 9. Quaker United Nations Office. 24 p. https://quno.org/sites/default/files/resources/UPOV%2Bstudy%2Bby%2BQUNO_English.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Dutfield G (2017) Intellectual property rights and the life sciences industries: A twentieth century history. Routledge, London, p 304
EC - European Commission (2021) EC study on new genomic techniques (summary webpage). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology/ec-study-new-genomic-techniques_en. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Fiedler A (2013) Der Computerprogrammschutz und die Schutzrechtskumulation von Urheber- und Patentrecht. Nomos Verlag; https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845249810.
Geiger A (2015) Schutzkumulationen. Mohr Siebeck Verlag. ISBN 978-3-16-153982-4
Greenlee LL (1991) Biotechnology patent law: perspective of the first seventeen years, prospective on the next seventeen years. Univ Denver Law Rev 68(2):127–140
Gurry F (2013) Re-thinking the role of intellectual property. Lecture in Melbourne and Sydney (August 22, 2013). Melbourne Law School. Issue 10. December 2013. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-wipo/en/dg_gurry/speeches/dg_speech_melbourne_2013.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Heller M (1998) The tragedy of the Anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to Markets. Harv Law Rev 111:621–688
Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701
Johansen B (2012) Leaders make the future, 2nd edn. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN-10: 9781609944872
Joly PB, Hermitte MA (1993) Plant biotechnology and patents in Europe: an economic analysis of alternative models of intellectual property rights. Biotechnol Rev:76–94
Kock MA (2017) Patenting non-transgenic plants in the EU. In: Matthews D, Zech H (eds) Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and the Life Sciences, pp 132–159
Kock MA (2020) G 3/19 ‘Pepper’ – patentability of plants obtained by breeding processes is this the end? Bio-Sci Law Rev 17(5):177–183
Kock MA (2021) Open intellectual property models for plant innovations in the context of new breeding technologies. Agronomy 11,6:1218. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061218. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/6/1218/pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Kolady D et al (2010) Intellectual property rights, private investment in research, and productivity growth in Indian agriculture. IFPRI Discussion Paper 0103. IFPRI, Washington, DC. 48 p
Kowalski SP, Kryder RD (2002) Golden rice: a case study in intellectual property management and international capacity building. 13 RISK 47:24p
Krattiger A et al (2007) Golden Rice: A product-development partnership in agricultural biotechnology and humanitarian licensing. p. 11–14. In Krattiger A et al (eds) Executive guide to intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S. Available online at: www.ipHandbook.org. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Kur A (2009) Cumulation of rights with regard to threedimensional shapes - two exemplary case studies. In: Dusollier S, Cruquenaire A (eds) Le Cumul des Droits Intellectuels, pp 155–175
Ledford H (2021) New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01572-0. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Lence SH et al (2005) Welfare impacts of intellectual property protection in the seed industry. Am J Agric Econ 87:951–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00780
Lence SH et al (2015) Intellectual property in plant breeding: Comparing different levels and forms of protection. Eur Rev Agric Econ 43:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv007
Lesser W, Mutschler MA (2004) Balancing investment incentives and social benefits when protecting plant varieties: implementing initial variety systems. Crop Sci 44:1113–1119
Lightbourne M (2016) Food security, biological diversity and intellectual property rights. Routledge, London, p 328
Long J (2013) Global food security and intellectual property rights. Mich State Int Law Rev 21:115–123
Louwaars NP (2005) Impacts of strengthened intellectual property rights regimes on the plant breeding industry in develo** countries: a synthesis of five case studies. Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, The Netherlands 176 p
Mace AC (2009) TRIPS, eBay, and Denials of Injunctive Relief: Is Article 31 Compliance Everything? Columbia Law School Sci Technol Law Rev https://doi.org/10.7916/D8542TXR.; https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8542TXR. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Manne G (2012) The anti-patent crowd seems to think your smartphone doesn’t actually exist. Available at: https://truthonthemarket.com/2012/09/19/the-anti-patent-crowd-seems-to-think-your-smartphone-doesnt-actually-exist/. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
McGuire MR (2011) Kumulation und Doppelschutz: Ursachen und Folgen des Schutzes einer Leistung durch mehrere Schutzrechte. GRUR 113(9):767–774
Naseem A et al (2010) Private-sector investment in R&D: A review of policy options to promote its growth in develo**-country agriculture. Agribusiness 26:143–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20221
Potrykus I (2010) Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. New Biotechnol 27:466–472
Regibeau R, Rockett K (2011) Assessment of potential anticompetitive conduct in the field of intellectual property rights and assessment of the interplay between competition policy and IPR protection, Study prepared for the European Commission, p 38 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2012_technology_transfer/study_ipr_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Reuters Business News (18.01.2021) France backs non-GMO regulation for crop gene-editing in EU. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-agriculture-gmo/france-backs-non-gmo-regulation-for-crop-gene-editing-in-eu-idUSKBN29N1T9. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Sanderson J (2013) Can intellectual property help feed the world? Intellectual property, the PLUMPYFIELD network and a sociological imagination, p. 145–173. In: Lawson C, Sanderson J (eds) The intellectual property and food project: from rewarding innovation and creation to feeding the world. Ashgate, Farnham, U.K., p 260
Schimmelpfennig D (2004) Agricultural patents: are they develo** bad habits? Choices. May 19–23. American Agricultural Economics Association. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Seed World (12.01.2021) ISF Statement On The Notification Of Genome Edited High-GABA Tomato In Japan. https://seedworld.com/isf-statement-on-the-notification-of-genome-edited-high-gaba-tomato-in-japan. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Shapiro C (2001) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Jaffe AB et al (eds) Innovation policy and the economy, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 119–150
Shavell S (2004) Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law 148
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by Edwin Cannan (1977) with a Preface by George J. Stigler. Vols I (524 p) and II (568 p). University of Chicago Press
Stiglitz JE (2008) Economic foundations of intellectual property rights. Duke Law J 57:1693–1724
Tabarrok A (2012) Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin. In Current Affairs Economics Law. Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin. Available at: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/09/patent-theory-on-the-back-of-a-napkin.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Tripp R et al (2006a) Intellectual property rights for plant breeding and rural development: Challenges for agricultural policymakers. Agricultural and Rural Development Notes, No. 12. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9603. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Tripp R et al (2006b) Intellectual property rights: Designing regimes to support plant breeding in develo** countries. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c6bf/b9484a3fcacab8b6a9e7381968adc5a020fa.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Tripp R et al (2007) Plant variety protection in develo** countries. A report from the field. Food Policy 32:354–371
Trommetter M (2008) Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural and Agro-Food Biotechnologies to 2030. OECD International Futures Programme. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michel-Trommetter/publication/23984578_Intellectual_property_rights_in_agricultural_and_agro-food_biotechnologies_to_2030_C_OECD_International_Futures_Programme/links/0046353b1760d1f069000000/Intellectu-al-property-rights-in-agricultural-and-agro-food-biotechnologies-to-2030-C-OECD-International-Futures-Programme.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2022
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kock, M.A. (2022). Potential Solutions for the Future Challenges. In: Intellectual Property Protection for Plant Related Innovation . Law for Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06297-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06297-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06296-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06297-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)