A plant breeders rights case that was settled last week should reinforce the message that seed companies are serious about protecting their patent rights, says an official with Proven Seed.
Most farmers respect the rules that give companies exclusive rights to the sale and distribution of certain varieties, said Bruce Harrison, product manager for Proven Seed.
But there are always some who think they can save money by breaking the rules, and that’s why violators have to be pursued.
“If we don’t protect our rights, then more farmers will probably take that approach,” he said in an interview last week.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Last week Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. announced it had settled a two-year-old claim against Reavie’s Seed Farm of Arborfield, Sask.
Proven Seed, a division of United Grain Growers Ltd., is the exclusive distributor of Pioneer Hi-Bred genetics in Western Canada.
The case, which had been brought to the Federal Court of Canada, maintained that Reavie’s had violated the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act by producing, advertising and selling the canola variety Garrison, belonging to UGG, along with a Pursuit Smart brand variety owned by Pioneer.
Under the out-of-court settlement Reavie’s agreed to stop producing and selling UGG and Pioneer varieties, provide assurances it no longer possessed any such varieties, and provide information on the quantities it had sold. If the settlement is breached, Pioneer and UGG can seek immediate relief through the courts.
Bob Reavie, one of the owners of Reavie’s Seed Farms, said in an interview his company didn’t know it was doing anything illegal.
“We didn’t realize the implications of multiplying them,” he said, adding that while he didn’t know the PBR rules at the time, “I became pretty aware of them after that.”
Jim Gumpert, canola marketing manager for Pioneer Hi-Bred, said in a press release his company will take aggressive steps to protect ownership rights for its germplasm, adding there are a number of similar legal proceedings under way.
“Our company has invested more than $1 billion in genetic research over the past five years,” he said. “If we lose our ability to recoup that investment, we can’t make the improvements in genetics our customers need to improve their productivity in the future.”
Harrison said that all farmers would lose out if research companies cut back on plant breeding because they can’t protect their intellectual property rights, adding he believes most farmers understand that those companies need to make a return on their research investments.
While Proven Seed will actively pursue violators, the company will judge each case on its merits before deciding what action to take.
“We don’t want to go after individual farmers that sell a few bags to their neighbors,” he said. “We want to go after guys who are really having an impact on our business.”
When the company discovers a violation, it tells the individual he is breaking the law and asks for an explanation. Many aren’t aware of the rules and agree to stop at that point, and generally the case won’t be pursued.
“But there are others who you know understand PBR law completely and are basically trying to make a buck,” said Harrison.
Reavie said the new rules are allowing the big companies to take over the seed industry: “It’s hard on small-time operations like ours, just trying to grow a bit of seed.”
