Commentaries
Rice / © Michel de NijsFor a variety of reasons, intellectual property reporting in newspapers, newsletters and blogs written by non-IP professionals often contains inaccuracies and misinformation. Yet, IP professionals rarely write for an audience other than their own kind or their clients. In this section, we examine reporting – and commenting – on a variety of IP issues, technology generation, access and use, some of which are controversial topics.
The Enola Bean Controversy
The United States Government awarded both Plant Variety Protection and a patent for the Enola bean 
. Pod-ners LLC, the owner of these rights, enforced its patent and PVP certificate against alleged infringers. Verbal and legal attacks against Pod-ners garnered much publicity. The CIAT and ETC Group , the opponents to Enola bean legal protection believed that the bean was no different than yellow beans grown in Mexico and as such, was both misappropriated and undeserving of legal protection.
Patenting Climate Change
The ETC Group has recently released a communiqué 
charging that large, multinational agricultural companies are patenting plant genes important in combating the effects of global warming. As discussed in our commentary, the paper contains some truths, some non-truths, and lacks the necessary information to support its wide-ranging conclusions.
Warted Pumpkin Patent Application
The publication of the U.S. patent application “Warted Pumpkin” sparked an outcry of anger and protest from ETC Group and seed organizations–these groups asserted that warted pumpkins have been known and grown for centuries and thus are not patentable subject matter. Four organizations ultimately submitted the requisite documents and fees to qualify as a “third-party submission.” Since then, the Examiner relied on one of the references to reject the claims; the rejections were countered by the inventor, and the examination process continues.
Basmati Rice Controversy
The Basmati rice controversy erupted over a United States patent, owned by RiceTec Corp., which was titled “Basmati rice.” It was popularly viewed as a claim on all Basmati rice (see, Trade Environment Database (TED) case study and BBC article "India should tackle rice patent" , but actually claimed methods of making photoperiod-independent rice strains with characteristics similar to Basmati rice. Examples can be found in the
Commentary (coming soon)
DISCLAIMER
- The information contained in the commentaries was believed to be correct at the time it was prepared. New patents and patent applications, altered status of patents, unknown facts and case law may have resulted in changes in the information provided.
- HarvestChoice does not offer legal advice. As legal advice depends upon the specific circumstances of each party, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for advice of competent counsel. In addition, please be aware that intellectual property law varies considerably from country to country, so some information in these pages may not be applicable to your situation. Although we make every attempt to provide current information, we cannot promise that everything on this web site is complete or up to date.
- The commentaries in this section represent the personal opinions of Carol Nottenburg and other Authors and are provided for informational purposes only. Neither Harvest Choice, Cougar Patent Law or Authors make any representations or warranties of any kind regarding the material in these posts and furthermore, will not be liable for any damages of any kind arising from the use of this section.
