What is the significance of the Beineke case in plant patent law?
The Beineke case (In re Beineke, 690 F.3d 1344, 103 USPQ2d 1872 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) is significant in plant patent law as it clarified the scope of patent-eligible plants under 35 U.S.C. 161. The MPEP summarizes the key points:
“In Beineke, the Federal Circuit held that two century-old oak trees found on the lawn of a home were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 161 because they were not created from inception by human activity and created by the inventor (i.e., the patent applicant) as required by the 1930 Act, nor were they ‘newly found seedlings’ under the 1954 amendment.”
The significance of this case includes:
- It reinforced that plants must be “invented or discovered” through human intervention to be patent-eligible.
- It clarified that naturally occurring plants, even if newly discovered, are not eligible for plant patents unless they meet specific criteria (e.g., being a “newly found seedling” in a cultivated state).
- It emphasized the importance of human activity in the creation or discovery of patent-eligible plants.
This case helps define the boundaries between patent-eligible plant innovations and naturally occurring plants, which is crucial for both inventors and patent examiners in the field of plant patents.
To learn more: