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

35 U.S.C. § 163

Grant

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

In the case of a plant patent, the grant shall include 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, throughout the United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, & Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, & Donna Rodrigues, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “376 (current version at 35 U.S.C. § 163 (1988)) (emphasis added).”
Yoder Bros. v. California-Florida Plant Corp., 537 F.2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1976). “35 U.S.C. § 163 . The district court ruled that the act of asexual reproduction was complete at the time the cutting was taken.”
Application of Edward Burton Legrice, 301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962). “Another answer to this apparent “anomaly” is implicit in 35 U.S.C. § 163 . The plant patent grant differs from that given with respect to other inventions.”
Van Well Nursery, Inc. v. Mony Life Ins., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (E.D. Wash. 2006). “For purposes of proving the third element, in a plant patent infringement action the paten-tee must prove under 35 U.S.C.A. § 163 that the alleged infringing plant is an asexual reproduction, that is, that it is the *1335 progeny of the patented plant.”
Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 4× “12 The Act specifies that plant patent protection “shall include the right to exclude others from 13 asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so 14 reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States, or from importing…”
Kim Bros. v. Hagler, 167 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “” 35 U.S.C.A. § 163 . Because of the difficulty of properly describing a plant, the Congress has waived the provisions of § 112 of Title 35 and provided that no plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with that section “if the description is as complete as is…”
Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “Claims Two through Five: Patent Infringement 7 Driscoll’s alleges Defendants “have infringed and continue to infringe” Camarillo, 8 Amesti™, Lusa™, and Marquis™ “in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 163 and 271.”2 (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 9 22, 27, 32, 37.”
Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “Claims Two Through Five: Patent Infringement 23 Driscoll’s alleges Defendants “have infringed and continue to infringe” Camarillo™, 24 Amesti™, Lusa™, and Marquis™ “in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 163 and 271.” (ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 25 22, 31, 40, 49.”
Washington State Univ. v. Pro Orchard Mgmt. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “4 To prove the third element in a plant patent infringement action, “the patentee 5 must prove [under 35 U.S.C. § 163 ] that the alleged infringing plant is an asexual 6 reproduction, that is, that it is the progeny of the patented plant.”
Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “” 35 U.S.C. § 163 . 27 Driscoll’s seeks to hold Defendants liable for two distinct types of infringing conduct: (1) 28 the crossbreeding that took place in Spain with the use of Patented Plants; and (2) the importation 1 and use of seeds in the United States that had been grown…”
Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021). “48 at 7 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 163 ).) Defendants maintain “so 27 reproduced” means “asexual reproduction by another [—] in other words, use, sale, and offering 28 for sale of a plant constitute an infringement only where the user, seller, or offeror also asexually 1 reproduced the…”
David Austin Roses Ltd. v. GCM Ranch LLC (N.D. Tex. 2025). “See 35 U.S.C. § 163 . Specifically, the owners of plant patents have “the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from .”
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.