Patents to plants which are stable and reproduced by asexual reproduction, and not a potato or other edible tuber reproduced plant, are provided for by Title 35 United States Code, Section 161 which states: Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190). The plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which developed or discovered by applicant, and which has been found stable by asexual reproduction. To be patentable, it would also be required: (1) That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area. (2)That the plant is not a plant which is excluded by statute, where the part of the plant used for asexual reproduction is not a tuber food part, as with potato or Jerusalem artichoke. (3) That the person or persons filing the application are those who actually invented the claimed plant; i.e., discovered or developed and identified or isolated the plant, and asexually reproduced the plant. (4) That the plant has not been sold or released in the United States of America more than one year prior to the date of the application. (5)That the plant has not been enabled to the public, i.e., by description in a printed publication in this country more than one year before the application for patent with an offer to sale; or by release or sale of the plant more than one year prior to application for patent. (6) That the plant be shown to differ from known, related plants by at least one distinguishing characteristic, which is more than a difference caused by growing conditions or fertility levels, etc. (7) The invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention by applicant.

In Nortel's recent bankrupcy, the liquidation of the IP assets led to a bidding war. Google offered $900M for the patents; Apple and Microsoft created an alliance (with RIM, Sony, EMC, Ericsson) to offer $4.5B for the same patents^. Certainly there was a great disparity in these bid prices. How can you objectively determine the value of a portfolio and patent duration. Let the tools at IPstreet.com help you.

A patent is a property right for an invention granted by a government to the inventor. A United States patent gives inventors the right "to exclude others" from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their invention throughout the United States or importing their invention into the United States. In exchange for this monopolistic protection, the inventor must publicly disclose the invention (the patent document) and must pay the United States Patent Office (USPTO.gov) to prosecute (application fees) and maintain (maintenance fees) the patent.

Hello and welcome to our little slice of the World, a place where passion and opinions run high in our niche area, which just so happens to be the world of patents, innovation, technology, business and other areas of intellectual property. Although Lewis Lee, our founder, is a patent attorney, and many of the contributors to our content are IP counselors, the content should NOT be considered to be legal advice, but rather are intended to be informational. No attorney-client relationship is established through your use of IP Street. For more information please check our Disclaimer, Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

Proper organization of a patent porfolio is essential to be prepared to properly navigate the IP landscape. One key issue is related to inventorship. Consider the Pfizer patent, patent # 5,760,06^, which is commonly known as the COX-2 inhibitor. Pfizer is currently in a $1B lawsuit because Searle, the original owner of the patent, failed to include a key inventor on the patent. Pfizer inherited this mess when they acquired Pharmacia, who had previously acquired Monsanto, who had previously acquired Searle. Ignorance is not a defensible excuse in patent litigation.