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.
Feed/

Variety Protection

Channel

Property

1 page

"Nor does the passage of the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act support the Government’s position. As the Government acknowledges, sexually reproduced plants were not included under the 1930 Act because new varieties could not be reproduced true-to-type through seedlings. Brief for Petitioner 27, n. 31. By 1970, however, it was generally recognized that true-to-type reproduction was possible and that plant patent protection was therefore appropriate. The 1970 Act extended that protection. There is nothing in its language or history to suggest that it was enacted because § 101 did not include living things. In particular, we find nothing in the exclusion of bacteria from plant variety protection to support the petitioner’s position. See n. 7, supra. The legislative history gives no reason for this exclusion. As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals suggested, it may simply reflect congressional agreement with the result reached by that court in deciding In re Arzberger, 27 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1315, 112 F.2d 834 (1940), which held that bacteria were not plants for the purposes of the 1930 Act. Or it may reflect the fact that prior to 1970 the Patent Office had issued patents for bacteria under § 101. In any event, absent some clear indication that Congress “focused on [the] issues … directly related to the one presently before the Court,” SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 120-121, 98 S.Ct. 1702, 1713, 56 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978), there is no basis for reading into its actions an intent to modify the plain meaning of the words found in § 101. See TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 189-193, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2299-2301, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978); United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 80 S.Ct. 326, 331, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960). Even an abbreviated list of patented inventions underscores the point: telegraph (Morse, No. 1,647); telephone (Bell, No. 174,465); electric lamp (Edison, No. 223,898); airplane (the Wrights, No. 821,393); transistor (Bardeen & Brattain, No. 2,524,035); neutronic reactor (Fermi & Szilard, No. 2,708,656); laser (Schawlow & Townes, No. 2,929,922). See generally Revolutionary Ideas, Patents & Progress in America, United States Patent and Trademark Office (1976)."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.