2016 CIOPORA Guide to Plant Breeders' Rights

The aim of Plant
Breeders’ Rights
(PBR) – or any
system of IP – is to
serve as a tool to
stimulate invention,
as breeding and
inventing benefit the
progress of mankind
and society. For
entrepreneurs and
inventors of plants
or otherwise, strong
IP regulations are
indispensable and
essential.
by Mia Buma
Intellectual Property
Systems: a tool, not a goal
In horticulture, PBR and other IP
rights are the bread and butter
interest for the breeder, and an
interest that concerns the entire
industry chain. Because of this, it
is vital to safeguard the separate IP
systems. However, all concerned
parties in the supply chain have
failed to do so adequately…together,
we need to take action.
To save and improve
the PBR System
As the horticulture industry, we
have not maintained our PBR
system well enough and or prepared
it for new developments. Why, for
example, is the patent system now
seen as a threat for the sector? Because
our industry did not succeed
in solving the weak points in the
PBR system.
UPOV, the International Convention
for the Protection of New Varieties
of Plants, has not been updated
since 1991; at that time there were a
limited amount of UPOV member
countries compared to today, there
were hardly any genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), and we
weren’t yet living in a digital world.
Now consider that issues like minimum
distance, essentially derived
varieties (EDVs) and the development
of patents are used more often
in the sector. If we do not succeed
in solving our own problems with
the PBR system, it will very likely
be taken over by other systems in
the future.
Minimum Distances
In Spring 2016, CIOPORA and
AIPH gave a joint presentation at
the UPOV meetings in Geneva
to ask again for their attention on
the matter of minimum distance
between varieties, meaning how
different varieties must be in order
to be granted separate PBR protection
and to fall out of the scope
A ‘clear difference’ in today’s practice can be seen in the picture: one variety has
red; the other variety has green pedicels. Obviously, the difference is ‘clear’ in the
sense that it can be seen - from underneath the plants. Still, the question is whether
breeders want candidate varieties to be granted CPVR protection on the basis of
such small differences.
of an earlier protected variety.
Minimum distance is one of the
cornerstone concepts of the UPOV
PBR System, and has been a highly
controversial issue since the beginning
of the convention.
The ornamental industry urgently
needs progress in this matter in
order to achieve a broader distance
between protected varieties. Horticultural
breeders and growers need
to distinguish themselves with their
products on the market in order
to gain return on their investment,
and breeders in particular to
benefit from protection titles that
give them stronger and better
enforceable rights. As Thomas
Leidereiter wrote in the 2013
CIOPORA Chronicle (page
40):
“Each new candidate variety
should literally be “new”, to be
able to get a reasonable share in
the market or to even develop
its own market. This means the
candidate should be ‘sufficiently’
unique or ‘original’ compared to
the varieties already available on
the market.” He hit the nail on
its head by continuing, “PBR,
as an IP right, constitutes a legal
32 www.FloraCultureInternational.com | October 2016