7 U.S.C. § 2321
Establishment
There is hereby established in the Department of Agriculture an office to be known as the Plant Variety Protection Office, which shall have the functions set forth in this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001).
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001). “1542 , as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 2321 et seq., and the Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U.”
Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1995). “The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, 7 U. S. C. § 2321 et seq., protects owners of novel seed varieties against unauthorized sales of their seed for replanting purposes.”
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). “held that new plant breeds were eligible for utility patents under § 101 notwithstanding separate statutes providing special protections for plants, see 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. (Plant Variety Protection Act); 35 U.”
Monsanto Co. v. David, 516 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “A utility patent on a gene sequence, David claims, does not entitle the holder of that patent to enforce its grant of exclusivity against growers of plant varieties that contain the gene sequence. Monsanto responds by arguing that the holding of J.”
Monsanto Co. v. Homan McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “McFarling challenged the Missouri court’s jurisdiction, and raised various counterclaims and defenses including charges of antitrust violation, patent misuse, and violation of the Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.”
Monsanto Co. v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “1542 , as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq., the federal antitrust laws, the patent misuse doctrine, and the patent exhaustion and first sale doctrines — and to damages as calculated under the 120 multiplier in the Technology Agreement.”
In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979). “We briefly mention the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 ( 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq.), which provides for “certificates of plant variety protection” to be issued by the Department of Agriculture to developers of “Soybeans * * * [and other] major U.”
Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013). “We considered there whether an inventor could get a patent on a seed or plant, or only a certificate issued under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. We decided a patent was available, rejecting the claim that the PVPA implicitly repealed the Patent…”
B. C. Cotton, Inc. v. Voss, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2339 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “§§ 161-164 ), the federal Plant Variety Protection Act ( 7 U.S.C. §2321 et seq.), state and federal trademark and trade name acts ( 15 U.”
Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trs. v. United States, 92 F.4th 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “The Claims Court then held a trial, which addressed several 1 The definitions of “invention” and “subject inven- tion” also address plant varieties that may be protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. That language is not applicable here.”
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Peoples Gin Co. & Hollandale Seed & Delinting Co., Inc., 694 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1983). “CLARK, Chief Judge: Delta & Pine Land Company brought this action against Peoples Gin Company and Hollandale Seed & Delinting Company alleging that they had infringed its rights under the Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2321 , et seq. The district court granted summary…”
In re Bergy, 563 F.2d 1031 (C.C.P.A. 1977). “§ 101 , further supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend organisms to be included within the scope of such terms. Both the Senate Judiciary Committee report (S.”
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.