Case Study: Enola Bean Patent - Bio-Piracy

holywood

The Enola Patent: Plagiarism(剽窃) or Innovation

Enola, Mayocoba: One in the Same?

The patent controversy over the Enola bean, also known as the mayocoba bean in Mexico, is the "most recent example of companies abusing the U.S. patent system for commercial advantage." n12 In particular, this controversy illustrates the potential conflicts between intellectual property protection under U.S. law and the rights of traditional farmers in foreign countries. n13 This dispute also illustrates the international disagreement between the industrialized world and the developing world over the patenting of organic life. n14 Several recent patent disputes  [*120]  involving foreign commodities(农产品, 商品, 日用品), such as basmati rice and the neem tree, n15 also demonstrate how the attempt to patent the resources of the developing world invades the sovereignty of these nations and redefines the meaning of property rights. n16

Environmental activists have called the Enola patent a "textbook case of biopiracy." n17 Patents, like the Enola patent, disregard the same genetic results achieved by developing nations through centuries of breeding and cross-fertilization. n18 The underlying issue in this controversy is whether the international public should own genetic material as a common good, or conversely(相反地), whether life forms should become the intellectual property of the corporate world, which can afford to develop and patent them, and subsequently market them at a higher price to the developing world. n19

In Patent 5,894,079, n20 inventor Larry Proctor claimed he created a new, useful and nonobvious n21 product by breeding a new field bean variety that produced a distinctly yellow-colored seed,  [*121]  which remained relatively unchanged by the season. n22 According to the patent, Proctor found yellow field beans in a package of dry and edible beans purchased in Mexico and brought them to the United States in 1994. n23 Proctor selected the yellow beans from the package, planted them in Montrose, Colorado and allowed them to self-pollinate(对...授粉). n24

The resulting plants had abnormally large leaves and produced pods(豆荚) containing yellow seeds. n25 Proctor harvested seeds from plants that exhibited desirable characteristics, such as smaller leaves, strong adherence of the pod to the branch and resistance to pod shattering(脱粒). n26 The seeds were planted and allowed to self-pollinate in 1995 and again in 1996. n27 Proctor's patent claims the characteristics of the field bean cultivar(栽培变种) Enola surpass similar field bean cultivars. n28 In addition, the patent also claims that the Enola bean possesses a unique shade of yellow as defined by the Munsell Book of Color. n29

In addition to the utility patent on the "improved" variety of bean, the United States also granted Proctor a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate, which gave Proctor and his company, Pod-Ners, the sole right to commercialize the Enola bean. n30 He  [*122]  used both the patent and the PVP certificate to have the U.S. Custom Service block the import of similar seeds from Mexico. n31

In October 1999, Proctor sued two U.S. importers for patent infringement for the importation and sale of yellow beans that resembled(类似) the patented Enola bean. n32 A countersuit, filed by Tutuli Produce, a U.S. importer of mayocoba beans, n33 claims the patent is invalid and unenforceable because Tutuli Produce has imported the same beans under the names "peruano" and "mayocoba" from Mexico since 1994. n34

Mexican mayocoba bean farmers will face severe consequences if the Enola patent is not invalidated. For example, Tutuli Produce, in addition to other importers and bean growers, will owe Proctor six cents a pound for beans sold on either side of the border. n35 Since mayocoba beans sell for twenty-seven cents a pound in Los Angeles, the six cents a pound royalty drives Mexican farmers out of the market. n36 Consequently, most bean farmers have either shifted to other crops or confined(被限制的) their mayocoba crop sales to regional markets because of the royalties demanded by Proctor. n37 Last year, yellow bean production in Mexico fell from 250,000 tons to 96,000 tons. n38

[*123]  As a result of this controversy, several entities have challenged the validity of the Enola patent. In December 2000, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), n39 an agricultural research center, sought re-examination of the Enola patent, claiming the patent violates the 1994 United Nations Agreement, which states that plant varieties held in trust cannot be patented. n40 CIAT is the first agricultural research center in the developing world to challenge a U.S. patent on a crop. n41 In addition to CIAT's challenge, the Mexican government has pledged(使发誓；决心做) to spend $ 200,000 to fight the patent n42 because its tests demonstrate the Enola bean is genetically identical to a bean that was registered in Sinaloa in 1978. n43 Despite Mexico's pledge to fight the patent, environmentalists argue Mexico should not have to use scarce financial resources defending a patent that should not have been granted to Proctor in the first place. n44 If the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office invalidates Proctor's patent, any lawsuit relating to the enforcement of the Enola patent will be declared moot(无实际意义的). n45 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office admits the patent challenge is meritorious(值得称赞的); however, the reexamination process could take months.

holywood

nXX is footnote. Sorry not to erase it...

这个案子讲了一个美国佬，从墨西哥弄了一种豆子过来种，选了一下种，然后就申请了个专利，从此就要求禁止从墨西哥进口这种豆子，否则就要收专利费。

这是一个典型的生物海盗案例。