Search

The plant variety protection system (PVP), which started in 1968 to protect the rights of breeders, was first launched in Korea in 1998 with 27 species, including rice and barley. In 2008, the forest sector started the PVP system, which was later than the agricultural sector, and included 15 species of chestnut, oak mushroom, etc. It was then extended to all plants species in 2012. The new plant variety protection system protects the rights of the breeder for a new variety when it has novelty, denomination, distinctness, uniformity, and stability. In the past decade, a total of 424 new varieties of forest plant applications have been filed, and 193 new varieties have been registered. The number of applications of new varieties has increased every year, with 18 new varieties applied in the early stages of the forest sector’s PVP system, and 20~30 new varieties are registered each year. In the early stages of the operation of the PVP system, the central and local governments mainly took the applications (82 applications), but recently, due to consulting, promotion of the PVP system and support of breeders, applications to the private sector, such as individual breeders and the seed industry have increased (107 applications). The National Forest Seed Variety Center (NFSV) publishes Test Guidelines (292 books) and DUS test manuals (7 books), and conducts the “PVP system information session” every year of the PVP system settlement. NFSV will continue to implement policies for protecting the rights of breeders and the development of the bio-industry sector. These efforts provide a new provision against the Nagoya Protocol Paradigm with the promotion of the forest bio-industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Julius-Kühn-Archiv is the property of Julius Kuehn Institut and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To get the protection for essentially derived variety, the initial variety must be a protected first, because the dependence can onlyexist in relation to protected variety. While determining whether a variety is EDV or not, it is to be noted that, an EDV can bedirectly derived from the initial variety or from any variety that itself is predominantly derived from the initial variety. Hencethere can be "cascade" of derivations. In determining the cascade of derivation, it should be noted that each EDV shall only bedependent on one, the protected initial variety; a cascade of dependence shall not exist. This principle of dependence has beenintroduced to better protect the breeder of the initial variety and not those having made just derivations. More recently, based onthe general opinion of its members, ISF moved to the definition of only one threshold that would divide the scale of conformityinto two parts: below the threshold there would be no presumption of essential derivation, above the threshold there would bepresumption of essential derivation and the burden of proof of non predominant derivation would fall on the breeder of theputative essentially derived variety. The threshold will certainly vary from species to species, depending on the existing geneticvariability within the species and the established breeding procedures. To eliminate the ‘copycat breeding’ or ‘cosmetic breeding’,the concept of ‘essential derivation’ was included in the revised UPOV convention Act (UPOV, 1991).This paper thereforefocuses on the imminent challenges to the breeders and the responsibilities they need to shoulder to respect and promote the IPand plant variety protection in India to usher in an era of incentives and benefit sharing for the plant breeders.

Several African countries and regional organizations are investing in the establishment of a plant variety protection system modeled on the UPOV 1991 Convention, which currently provides the strongest, international standard for plant variety protection. Whereas proponents argue that strong protection of breeder's rights will incentivize breeding and the introduction of new varieties for farmers, opponents fear that the proposed legal framework is unsuitable for African countries as it may hamper traditional farming practices of using and exchanging farm-saved seed. These informal or farmer-managed seed systems supply more than 80% of the total food crop seed used by farmers. The challenge for African countries is to strike a balance between protecting the interests of breeders through the incentive function of plant breeder's rights for the commercial market, and the leeway that needs to be provided to smallholder farmers that depend on informal sources for their seed security and survival. And to do so in a practical and legally enforceable manner. This paper explores how African countries and regional organizations can establish such balance through a differentiated approach to plant variety protection, which sets different levels of protection for different crops in relation to different categories of farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protection of plants through the patent system and through a sui generis system of plant variety protection causes numerous difficulties and tensions when the protection granted overlaps and intersects. This article explores the particular difficulties that arise in relation to plant research. It considers and contrasts the scope of the research exception as it applies to intellectual property rights (IPR) and the difficulties caused by the divergences in scope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how intellectual property rights (IPR) for plants are protected in the U.S. Plant breeders in the U.S. can protect their IPR through plant patents, plant variety protection, and utility patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), under the Department of Commerce, is responsible for the administration of patents, copyrights and trademarks.

The article discusses the influence of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) on the establishment of effective plant variety protection (PVP) system. The UPOV Convention was established to encourage innovation in plant breeding. The criteria established by the UPOV Convention for the protection of plant variety are distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS).

The Indian government was obliged to extend private property rights to plant varieties under the World Trade Organisation's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. This paper analyses the implications of India's TRIPS-induced Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPVFRs) Act for small producers. The Indian Act gives formal recognition to farmers' rights and upholds the principle of benefit sharing. This notwithstanding, it is argued that it will be very difficult for small farmers to benefit from the legislation since the Act is designed to protect the rights of parties that are able to prove that they are innovators in agriculture. The extension of private property rights to plant varieties will lead to higher seed prices and could lead to further erosion of genetic diversity in the country, negatively impacting farmers. Importantly, the Indian government's decision to accede to the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties Convention (UPOV), coupled with the provisions of the 2004 National Seed Bill, severely compromise the farmers' rights provisions in the PPVFRs Act, putting into question the Indian government's commitment to protecting farmers' rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of the World Trade Organization imposes an obligation on all member countries to protect plant varieties either by patents or by a sui generis regime or by a combination of both. India explored the sui generis option to provide protection to plant varieties. This legal regime recognizes the rights of commercial breeders and also grants a positive right to farmers and goes beyond the widely recognized international sui generis regime represented by the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV). Notwithstanding this, India has made an application to join UPOV. However, with the present plant variety law, India's membership application to join UPOV may not be successful. The recent development of bringing the Seeds Bill, which dilutes farmers' rights provisions in the plant variety law, is important in this regard. The article argues that if the Seeds Bill is passed in its present form, it will dilute the beneficial provisions of the plant variety law and pave the way for India to join UPOV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protection of plant varieties is an aspect of intellectual property rights. In Jordan, while some attention has been paid to traditional rights such as copyright, trademark and patent, until recently, virtually no attention has been paid to intellectual property rights with respect to plant varieties. This article reviews the development of intellectual property rights in Jordan for new plant varieties. This article then examines the Law on Protecting New Varieties of Plants. Particularly, the examination is based on comparison with the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to determine the extent to which the Jordanian law meets the rules of these international treaties. To conclude, the article finds that while the Law on Protecting New Varieties of Plants is a landmark in the development of intellectual protection in Jordan, there are certain issues that need to be addressed. To help improve the existing protection for new plant varieties, the article suggests certain actions that can be taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The article describes the progress in providing a system of plant variety protection (PVP) in the states of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI). Following a brief introduction to the missions of OAPI, the challenge of creating a system of PVP suited to the situation in the member states is explored. The solution to this challenge, the introduction of a uniform system in accord with UPOV guidelines, was achieved by the agreement, and ratification in 2002, of Annex X of the Bangui Agreement. The practicalities of setting up testing and examination centers, and the determination of the initial 19 genera and species for protection from the start date in 2006 are described. Finally, the potential societal and economic benefits flowing from this form of PVP are summarized. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In reviewing the progress of plant variety protection based on the UPOV Convention, the author briefly describes the original Convention of 1961 and the revisions in 1972, 1978 and 1991. He goes on to examine the results of the substantial increases in membership and in grants of protection. One such result is greater interaction with conventions and treaties such as TRIPS and the Convention on Biodiversity. Issues described in this context include the conservation of and access to genetic resources (GR), disclosure of origin of GR, prior informed consent for the use of GR, benefit sharing and farmers’ rights. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Recent advances in genetic engineering nowallow the design of programmable biologicalartifacts. Such programming may include usageconstraints that will alter the balance ofownership and control for biotechnologyproducts. Similar changes have been analyzedin the context of digital content managementsystems, and while this previous work is usefulin analyzing issues related to biologicalprogramming, the latter technology presents new conceptual problems that require morecomprehensive evaluation of the interplaybetween law and technologically embeddedvalues. In particular, the ability to embedcontractual terms in technological artifactsnow requires a re-examination of disclosure andconsent in transactions involving such artifacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]