IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umaesp/119346.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008

Author

Listed:
  • Pardey, Philip G.
  • Koo, Bonwoo
  • Drew, Jennifer
  • Nottenburg, Carol

Abstract

The United States was the first country in the world to explicitly offer intellectual property protection for plant varieties. Beginning in 1930, asexually reproduced plants were afforded plant patent protection, in 1970 sexually propagated plants could be awarded plant variety protection certificates, and beginning in 1985, courts confirmed that varieties of all types of plants were eligible for utility patents. From 1930 to 2008, a total of 34,340 varietal rights applications were lodged. The number of rights being sought continues to grow, with 42 percent of all the varietal rights claimed since 2000. Contrary to popular perception, most of these rights are for horticultural crops (69 percent), with ornamentals accounting for the lion’s share of the horticulture-related rights (73 percent, or 50 percent of all plant rights). Food and feed crops constitute only 24 percent of the rights sought, although just two crops (corn and soybean) made up 84 percent of the 3,719 varietal rights claimed via utility patents. The structure of these rights has changed dramatically over the years. During the 1930s when the only rights on offer were plant patents, 72 percent of the rights sought were for ornamental crops and individual innovators played a substantial role (50 percent of the rights). By 2004-2008, the annual applications for plant patents had increased in number but fallen to a 60 percent share of the total rights claimed. During this recent period, utility patents were as popular as plant variety protection certificates, and ornamentals made up a large but much reduced share of the total (52 percent). Individual innovators accounted for only 12 percent of the rights, whereas the corporate sector sought the dominant share of varietal rights (82 percent in 2004-2008). These intellectual property markets are complex, with corporations, universities and other agencies seeking different types of rights for different crops.

Suggested Citation

  • Pardey, Philip G. & Koo, Bonwoo & Drew, Jennifer & Nottenburg, Carol, 2012. "The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008," Staff Papers 119346, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:119346
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.119346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/119346/files/Staff%20Paper%20P12-1--InSTePP%2012-01-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.119346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, Carol Adaire & El-Osta, Hisham S. & Green, Robert C., 2006. "Economic Well-Being of Farm Households," Economic Brief 34095, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Alan C. Marco & Gordon C. Rausser, 2008. "The Role of Patent Rights in Mergers: Consolidation in Plant Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 133-151.
    3. John E. Losey & Linda S. Rayor & Maureen E. Carter, 1999. "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae," Nature, Nature, vol. 399(6733), pages 214-214, May.
    4. Deepthi Elizabeth Kolady & William Lesser, 2009. "But are they Meritorious? Genetic Productivity Gains under Plant Intellectual Property Rights," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 62-79, February.
    5. Bessen, James, 2008. "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 932-945, June.
    6. Alston, Julian M. & Venner, Raymond J., 2002. "The effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act on wheat genetic improvement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 527-542, May.
    7. Alan C. Marco & Gordon C. Rausser, 2008. "The Role of Patent Rights in Mergers: Consolidation in Plant Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 133-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ting Meng & Richard Carew & Wojciech J. Florkowski, 2020. "Determinants of the grant lag and the surrender lag of horticultural crop plant breeders’ rights applications: Survival analysis with competing risks," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 489-512, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro D. SCOPELLITI, 2010. "Competition And Economic Growth: A Critical Survey Of The Theoretical Literature," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(1(11)_Spr), pages 70-93.
    2. Cédric Schneider, 2011. "The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition fillings," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 565-579, October.
    3. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    4. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nolan, Elizabeth & Santos, Paulo & Shi, Guanming, 2012. "Market concentration and productivity in the United States corn sector: 2002-2009," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125941, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Mercedes Campi, 2017. "The effect of intellectual property rights on agricultural productivity," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 327-339, May.
    7. Naseem, A. & Nagarajan, L. & Pray, C., 2018. "The role of maize varietal development on yields in Kenya," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277321, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Ting Meng & Richard Carew & Wojciech J. Florkowski, 2020. "Determinants of the grant lag and the surrender lag of horticultural crop plant breeders’ rights applications: Survival analysis with competing risks," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(4), pages 489-512, December.
    9. Nadolnyak, Denis & Miranda, Mario J. & Sheldon, Ian, 2011. "Genetically modified crops as real options: Identifying regional and country-specific differences," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 455-463, July.
    10. Kolady, Deepthi & Spielman, David J. & Cavalieri, Anthony J., 2010. "Intellectual property rights, private investment in research, and productivity growth in Indian agriculture: A review of evidence and options," IFPRI discussion papers 1031, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Sheldon, Ian M., 2008. "The Biotechnology Sector: "Bounds" to Market Structure," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6078, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Galushko, Viktoriya & Gray, Richard & Smyth, Stuart & Arnison, Paul, 2010. "Resolving FTO Barriers in GM Canola," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188092, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    13. Hervouet, Adrien & Langinier, Corinne, 2018. "Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(1), January.
    14. Lesser, William H., 2000. "An Economic Approach To Identifying An 'Effective Sui Generis System' For Plant Variety Protection Unders Trips," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 25996, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    15. Christos Agiakloglou & Kyriakos Drivas & Dimitris Karamanis, 2016. "Individual inventors and market potentials: Evidence from US patents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 147-156.
    16. Cristiano Antonelli & Alessandra Colombelli, 2011. "The generation and exploitation of technological change: market value and total factor productivity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 353-382, August.
    17. Lence, Sergio H. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Alston, Julian & Smith, J. Stephen C., 2015. "Intellectual Property in Plant Breeding: Comparing Different Levels and Forms of Protection," Staff General Research Papers Archive 38978, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    19. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    20. Adrien Hervouet & Marc Baudry, 2011. "Promoting innovation in the seed market and biodiversity: the role of IPRs and commercialization rules," Post-Print hal-02012239, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:119346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daumnus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.