User:Jtoman1/Plant Patent Act of 1930

= Plant Patent Act of 1930 = The Plant Patent Act of 1930 (enacted on 1930-06-17 as Title III of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff, ch. 497, 46 Stat. 703, codified as 35 U.S.C. Ch. 15) is a United States federal law that made it possible to patent new varieties of plants, excluding sexual and tuber-propagated plants.

History
The Patent Act of 1793 was among the first patent laws in U.S. history to declare what could be patent eligible. This law stipulates that any "art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter" could be patent eligible if it represents a discovery or novel improvement that could be useful to society. In return for full disclosure of the characteristics and workings behind the discovery or improvement, the patent holder assumes a monopoly over his or her product lasting fourteen years in which he or she has the ability to bar others from capitalizing on his or her product until the patent's expiration. However, this statute would be tested in the mid to late nineteenth century as plant originators began seeking patent protections for their products. The "product of nature" doctrine, which held that individuals could not acquire patents for things that naturally occurred and that were already created by God, went uncontested until this time when significant strides in plant breeding and agricultural technologies were made and when the growing demand among private firms for legal protections became overwhelming.

Several developments from the mid-nineteenth century to the turn of the twentieth century contributed to the rise of private breeding and the ensuing problems that were associated with unfettered private breeding practices. In the mid-nineteenth century, U.S. importation of global seed and plant varieties increased immensely. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was established in 1862, and this agency presided over the procurement and distribution of new seeds and plants that became increasingly accessible to the public. In addition to the USDA's practices was the passage of two key acts that drove the transition from extensive agriculture to intensive agriculture that focused on scientific application to improve the efficiency of agricultural practices as opposed to the quantity of output. These acts were the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Adams Act of 1906 which both had a similar effect of spurring private research by providing financial incentives.

As private breeding practices began to take shape, seedsmen and horticulturists encountered problems in maintaining control over their products once they were sold because a buyer could easily use the seed or plant part to make his or her own supply of products which could then be sold. In response to these issues, plant breeders developed tactics such as price inflation to maintain market control as well as trademarks and contractual agreements as forms of legal protection for their products. However, these economic and legal avenues were ineffective because they were difficult to enforce and buyers managed to find ways to circumvent these flimsy protections. Lobbyists persisted in seeking protections for their plant products, and in 1930 their endeavors culminated in the passage of the Plant Patent Act by Congress which set an important precedent in extending patent protections to asexually reproducing plants.

Stipulations
Lawmakers had to consider whether plant varieties and technologies in the early nineteenth century were compatible with the four core principles that have prevailed since the advent of U.S. patent law. The four key questions that corresponded to each of the principles in deciding whether plants were patent eligible were:


 * 1) Could plants be statutory subject matter?
 * 2) Could a plant be described and enabled?
 * 3) Could a plant be distinguished from "prior art" plants?
 * 4) Could claims be precise enough to identify the invention?

The Plant Patent Act of 1930 put an end to disputes over the patentability of plants by providing solutions to each of these four key questions. In response to the question of whether plants could be statutory subject matter, Congress proclaimed that it had the constitutional authority to extend patent protections to plants as part of its duty to promote the advancement of science. Protections were limited to asexually reproducing plants because at the time this was the only method of reproduction that guaranteed that identical clones containing the same desired characteristics as the patented parent plant could be made. Furthermore, tuber-propagated plants, such as potatoes, yams, and Jerusalem artichokes, were excluded from patent protection in order to prevent patent holders from assuming monopolies over major food sources that were sold. In response to the second question of whether plants could be described and enabled, the Plant Patent Act stipulated that a plant could be patent eligible "if the description is as complete as reasonably possible." Such descriptions include, but are not limited to, traits such as color, size, texture, ripeness, and acidity. In addition to providing a sufficient description of the new plant, a patent applicant must also disclose the manner in which the plant can be asexually propagated, thereby satisfying the second condition of enablement by providing others with the necessary knowledge and tools to make and use the offspring that exhibit the same desired characteristics as the patented parent plant. Although the Plant Patent Act does not outline specific standards regarding distinguishable traits, the courts have weighed in on this issue by affirming that new plants that possess characteristics that are not found in known varieties, regardless if they are inferior or superior traits, can be patent eligible. In response to the fourth question regarding claims to the new patent, the Plant Patent Act stipulates that one of the main requirements for claiming ownership of a novel and complete plant product is the submission of a claim by the applicant acknowledging his or her ownership of the invention as well as providing the name of the new plant variety or species.

Impacts on Future Patent Legislation and Market Structures
The Plant Patent Act of 1930 was the first of its kind to extend patent protections to living organisms, specifically asexually propagated non-tuber plants. In reconciling the advancements in plant breeding practices and technologies in the mid to late nineteenth century with the core principles of patent eligibility that were fortified by early patent laws and court rulings, the Plant Patent Act not only cemented an important spot in American patent law history, but transcended the long-established "product of nature" doctrine that had continuously denied patent eligibility for biological materials, ultimately paving the way for future patent legislation and Supreme Court case rulings such as the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 and the ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, respectively, that greatly increased the scope of patent protections for living organisms.

Numerous empirical studies since the Plant Patent Act's inception have lent important insight into the ways in which patent protections for plants have played out in the market. In general, inventors will seek patents when their products are likely to be produced on a large scale and distributed widely, which is expected for competitors selling plant varieties due to the reproducible nature of their products. However, even if a firm is able to obtain a plant patent, exclusion costs can limit a firm's ability to enforce the patent. For example, varieties such as strawberries and certain grape species have been shown to have high exclusion costs due to the fact that it is relatively easy for growers to propagate these varieties as opposed to pears, apples and peaches that require more skilled production techniques and rigorous testing that both contribute to lower exclusion costs. Additionally, smaller private competitors have been able exploit the statute's inability to define clear boundaries between distinct plant products in terms of their genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. The ambiguity in the statute has allowed plant originators to diversify their products through hybridization and other techniques in order to acquire patents despite infringements of the original plant, thereby creating a narrow product space that affords minimal protection for a product that in actuality encompasses a broad range of plant varieties.