Vol. 2 (2004-2005)

Click link to view PDF (opens in new window)

Robyn Ott, Protection of Plant Varieties and the Farmer's Rights Act, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH 14 (2004)

Ms. Ott discusses India’s laws pertaining to protection of plant varieties and farmers’ rights. The Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act of 2001 in order to spur the development of new varieties of plants by providing protection for developers of new plant varieties.

Jo Lynn Jeter, Agricultural Biotechnology: United States Case Law, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 15 (2004)

Ms. Jeter discusses the scope of protection offered by the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA) and the Patent Act of 1952. Each of these laws provides distinct types of protection for distinct categories of living matter.

Robyn Ott, Patentability of Plants, Animals and Microorganisms in India, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 16 (2004)

Ms. Ott gives an overview of patentability requirements in India for plants, animals, and microorganisms. India is a signatory country to the Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Systems (TRIPS) agreement and has recently come into full compliance with the terms of that agreement.

Robyn Ott, Applying the Patents Act to Living Materials in India, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 17 (2004)

Ms. Ott discusses the legal effect of India’s Patents Act and the general requirements for determining the patentability of living matter under the Act.

Steven Ruby, International Patent Treaties: An Attempt to Make Intellectual Property Rights in Living Matter More User-Friendly, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 18 (2004)

Mr. Ruby provides an overview which highlights the major international treaties governing the patentability of living matter and discusses the essential terms thereof.

Steven M. Ruby, The UPOV System of Protection: How to Bridge the Gap Between 1961 and 1991 in Regard to Breeders' Rights, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 19 (2004)

Mr. Ruby discusses the provisions of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), an international treaty governing the patentability of plant varieties. The various signatory countries to this convention have adopted different amendments thereto and this eBrief outlines the basic framework within which one must work when seeking patents in these jurisdictions.

Jo Lynn Jeter, Agricultural Biotechnology:  U.S. Policy Regarding Patent Applications, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 20 (2004)

Ms. Jeter discusses the administrative regulations and policies pertaining to patents on living matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been delegated considerable discretion by Congress to oversee the patent process. It is essential for one seeking a patent or patent-like protection in the United States to become familiar with the contents of the Manual on Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and various guidelines issued by USPTO. This eBrief provides helpful insight into these topics.

Katrina McClatchey, The Impact of Novartis on the European Patent Convention's Exception to Patentability for "Plant Varieties," 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 21 (2004)

Ms. McClatchey discusses the impact of a decision in the year 2000 in the case of NOVARTIS/Transgenic Plant upon European Patent Convention (EPC) jurisprudence. Ms. McClatchey concludes that although the EPC may exclude a plant-related invention if the subject-matter claimed is a product which is strictly limited to a specific plant variety or specific plant varieties, the European patent nevertheless remains a viable option for biotechnologists with plant-related inventions.

Katrina McClatchey, The Effect of the "Onco-Mouse" Decisions on the Exception to Patentability for "Animal Varieties" Under the European Patent Convention, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 22 (2004)

Ms. McClatchey discusses recent and significant decisions in the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding an animal-related invention known as the “Onco-mouse” and provides guidance on how the exception to patentability for “animal varieties” under European Patent Convention (EPC) Article 53(b) has been interpreted and implemented with respect to animal-related inventions.

Steven M. Ruby, The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture:  Friend of the International Farmer, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 23 (2004)

Mr. Ruby discusses the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and its International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture as well as other agreements including the Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Systems (TRIPS) agreement and the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) agreement. Each of these agreements strikes a unique balance between the competing interests of breeders and farmers.

Jo Lynn Jeter, Agricultural Biotechnology:  United States Statutory Law, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 24 (2004)

Ms. Jeter discusses the three types of patent and patent-like protection available in the United States for living material: utility patents, Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) certificates, and plant patents. A utility patent, as would be obtained for an ordinary invention, provides the greatest protection but is typically more difficult and expensive to obtain. The plant patent and PVPA certificate provide attractive alternatives to inventors and breeders. Plant patents are designed to protect asexually-reproduced plants. PVPA certificates are not patents at all, and are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to protect sexually-reproduced plants.

Katrina McClatchey, The European Patent Office and the European Patent:  An Open Avenue for Biotechnologists and "Living Inventions", 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH 25 (2004)

Ms. McClatchey discusses the function and jurisdiction of the European Patent Convention (EPC) treaty and the European Patent Office (EPO) that the treaty established. The EPO issues a single patent that is enforceable in as many countries as the applicant wishes to designate. This makes obtaining patent protection in many European countries not only possible but extremely efficient as well. While the requirements for a European patent are similar to the requirements for a United States patent, Ms. McClatchey highlights some important distinctions of which biotechnologists should be aware.

Yoonjin Buyn, Plant Variety in the Republic of Korea:  Seed Industry Law, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 26 (2005)

A native of the Republic of Korea, Ms. Byun provides an overview of South Korea’s Seed Industry Law which incorporates the principles and requirements of the UPOV (Union internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales) Convention. Ms. Byun’s discussion consists of a brief introduction (Part I), an overview of the scope and variety of protections offered by SIL (Part II), the rights created by SIL’s protections (Part III), and the duration of protection (Part IV).

Alexandra R. Harrington, Courthouses, Bookshelves, and Portals:  The Implications of U.S. v. American Library Association on First Amendment Forum Analysis and Future Internet-Based Litigation Strategies, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 27 (2005)

Alexandra R. Harrington is a 2005 Juris Doctor candidate at Albany Law School of Union University. In this note, Ms. Harrington discusses the arguments in the amici briefs filed in United States v. American Library Association, and analyzes the impact of these arguments on the majority and dissenting opinions in the case. From this analysis, she then draws conclusions as to what types of arguments will be most persuasive to the Court in future cases involving internet-related litigation.

E. Parker Lowe, Emailer Beware:  The Fourth Amendment and Electronic Mail, 2 OKLA. J.L. & TECH. 28 (2005)

Mr. Lowe analyzes the Fourth Amendment implications of electronic mail (email).  Mr. Lowe argues that the principle that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not mere places leads to the conclusion that there is some amount of Fourth Amendment protection applicable to the contents of private emails.