U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART II— PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS › Chapter CHAPTER 15— PLANT PATENTS

35 U.S.C. § 161

Patents for plants

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001). · cites it 8× “) (Utility Patent Statute), cover plants that also fall within the scope of two more specific statutes, the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U. S. C. § 161 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp.”
Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “” 35 U.S.C. § 161 . Thus, section 161 “engrafts the Plant Patent Act onto the basic patent law, which requires us to apply thereto all the rules, regulations, and provisions of the basic patent law,” except as otherwise provided.”
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). · cites it 2× “[7] The Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U. S. C. § 161 , provides in relevant part: "Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propogated…”
Application of Edward Burton Legrice, 301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962). · cites it 6× “The express provision of 35 U.S.C. § 161 permits the granting of patents on the particular classes of plants therein enunciated which include “Rosa Floribunda Plants” disclosed in the applications on appeal.”
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). “(Plant Variety Protection Act); 35 U.S.C. §§ 161 - 164 (Plant Patent Act of 1930).”
In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979). · cites it 3× “376 , now codified as 35 U.S.C. § 161 et seq.), legislation directed specifically to plant breeders and conspicuous for its total inattention to anything other than the plant varieties of the type that Luther Burbank had then recently popularized.”
In Re Wilhelm Elsner. In Re Keith W. Zary, 381 F.3d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “” 35 U.S.C. § 161 (2000). The grant accompanying a plant patent includes “the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts.”
Yoder Bros. v. California-Florida Plant Corp., 537 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “Post BGA: Plant Patents After BGA ended, around the end of 1971, Yoder started patenting some of its new varieties under the Plant Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 161 et seq. Several salient differences existed between the rights conferred by a plant patent and the rights secured under…”
In Re Beineke, 690 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “Beineke (“Beineke”) appeals from the decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of two plant patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 161 . Ex parte Beineke (“2011-1459 Final Decision ”), No.”
Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 786 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 116 (a); see also 35 U.S.C. §§ 161 , 171. One can be a joint inventor, and thus within the meaning of “whoever in- vents,” as long as he contributes to the conception of the invention, even if he does not conceive of the entire inven- tion.”
Monsanto Co. v. Trantham, 156 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). · cites it 3× “Defendant argues that the passage of the Plant Patent Act (“PPA”), codified at 35 U.S.C. § 161 , implicitly modifies the utility patent act, codified at 35 U.”
State Ex Rel. Mix v. Newland, 560 P.2d 255 (Or. 1977). “See 35 USC § 161 (1970). 2 The trial court also ordered that Newland could purge the contempt on performance of certain conditions: sfc sjc % "2.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.