Bifalgorithm post · Property · Because new plants may differ from old only in color
Variety Protection
Variety Protection (Property · Because new plants may differ from old only in color) — "Nor does the passage of the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act support t…
Ideas in this flowchart
- The 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act does not support the Government’s position or alter the plain meaning of § 101.
- The 1930 Act excluded sexually reproduced plants because new varieties could not then be reproduced true-to-type through seedlings.
- By 1970, true-to-type reproduction was generally recognized as possible.
- The 1970 Act extended plant patent protection to sexually reproduced plants.
- Nothing in the language or history of the 1970 Act indicates that it was enacted because § 101 excluded living things.
- The exclusion of bacteria from plant variety protection does not support the petitioner’s position.
- The legislative history gives no reason for excluding bacteria.
- The exclusion may reflect agreement with In re Arzberger, which held that bacteria were not plants under the 1930 Act.
- The exclusion may instead reflect the Patent Office’s prior issuance of patents for bacteria under § 101.
- Absent a clear indication that Congress addressed issues directly related to the present question, its actions cannot be read as modifying § 101’s plain meaning.
- An abbreviated list of patented inventions further underscores the breadth of patent protection.
- The list includes the telegraph, telephone, electric lamp, airplane, transistor, neutronic reactor, and laser.
