Any mandatory patent regime raises even more problems of balancing competing interests. Although UPOV 1991 provided a limited right to both save seed and breed some plant varieties, these 'rights' cease to exist under most patent regimes ( J.E.M. Agric. Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, 2003; Moufang, 2003). For example, UPOV 1991 allows experimentation with breeding any varieties so long as such varieties are not sold, whereas patent acts typically do not provide any exceptions for experimentation with patented plant products; accordingly, farmer's rights go from limited experimentation under UPOV to zero experimentation under a patent regime. In addition, under many patent regimes, there is a very narrow exception for experimental use of any kind, including non-commercial use (Fédération Internationale, 2003, p. 3; Madey v Duke Univ., 2003). Furthermore, if patents are the only type of IPR available for plant products, this could further exacer bate tensions between TRIPS and the CBD; notably, accusations of biopiracy and misappropriation of resources are associated only with patents, rather than PVP (Vivas Eugui, 2003, pp. 18-19).
Was this article helpful?