35 U.S.C. § 162
Description, claim
No plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with section 112 if the description is as complete as is reasonably possible.
The claim in the specification shall be in formal terms to the plant shown and described.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1958–2017 · leading case: Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). “" 35 U. S. C. § 162 . No Committee or Member of Congress, however, expressed the broader view, now urged by the petitioner, that the terms "manufacture" or "composition of matter" exclude living things.”
Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “It explained that the work of the plant breeder “in aid of nature” was subject to patent protection.”
In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979). “” The substance of this sentence is today the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 162 . In this connection, we note further that while that provision was needed to secure protection to the plant breeders, no such modification of the statutes has ever been necessary to make possible…”
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “For those reasons, it was improper for the district court to instruct the jury as it did in the sentence at issue here.”
Application of Edward Burton Legrice, 301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962). “§ 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 that, by the express provision of 35 U.S.C. § 162 , a plant patent cannot be declared invalid if its…”
Yoder Bros. v. California-Florida Plant Corp., 537 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1976). “The only express provision modifying the applicability of the invention patent statutes for plant patents is contained in 35 U.S.C. § 162 , which says that no plant patent will be invalidated for noncompliance with § 112 (description) if the description is as complete as is…”
Application of Alexander D. Argoudelis, Clarence De Boer, Thomas E. Eble & Ross R. Herr, 434 F.2d 1390 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “In regard to plants, a general dispensation from the requirements of § 112 has been accorded by 35 U.S.C. § 162 . It is urged that the same should be true here.”
Kim Bros. v. Hagler, 167 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “” 35 U.S.C.A. § 162 . In view of the discussion to follow, the rules established by the Patent Office are of interest.”
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.