7 U.S.C. § 2543

Right to save seed; crop exemption

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

Except to the extent that such action may constitute an infringement under subsections (3) and (4) of section 2541 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, it shall not infringe any right hereunder for a person to save seed produced by the person from seed obtained, or descended from seed obtained, by authority of the owner of the variety for seeding purposes and use such saved seed in the production of a crop for use on the farm of the person, or for sale as provided in this section. A bona fide sale for other than reproductive purposes, made in channels usual for such other purposes, of seed produced on a farm either from seed obtained by authority of the owner for seeding purposes or from seed produced by descent on such farm from seed obtained by authority of the owner for seeding purposes shall not constitute an infringement. A purchaser who diverts seed from such channels to seeding purposes shall be deemed to have notice under section 2567 of this title that the actions of the purchaser constitute an infringement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1982–2008 · leading case: Asgrow Seed Co. v. Denny Winterboer & Becky Winterboer, D/B/A Deebee's, 982 F.2d 486 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Asgrow Seed Co. v. Denny Winterboer & Becky Winterboer, D/B/A Deebee's, 982 F.2d 486 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 11× “The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that 7 U.S.C. § 2543 (1988) (the crop exemption) of the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA or Act) quantitatively limits a farmer’s sale of PVPA seed to the amount of seed necessary to grow another crop…”

Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179 (1995). · cites it 2× “Their defense, at least to the §§ 2541(1) and *184 (3) charges, rested upon the contention that their sales fell within the statutory exemption from infringement liability found in 7 U. S. C. § 2543 . That section, entitled "Right to save seed; crop exemption," reads in relevant…”

Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 795 F. Supp. 915 (N.D. Iowa 1991). · cites it 5× “However, they argue that they are exempt from the operation of § 2541 by the “farmer exception” provided in 7 U.S.C. § 2543 . This section provides that no infringement occurs if: .”

Monsanto Co. v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “593 , as there is in the PVPA, see 7 U.S.C. § 2543 (2000), yet it held nonetheless that the two statutory schemes could “mutually coexist,” J.”

Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Peoples Gin Co. & Hollandale Seed & Delinting Co., Inc., 694 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “The question to be determined is whether Peoples and Hollandale are exempt from the operation of the Act pursuant to the “crop exemption,” 7 U.S.C. § 2543 . We hold that they are not, and affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Delta & Pine Land Co. & Mississippi Agric. & Forestry Experiment Station v. The Sinkers Corp., 177 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The Fifth Circuit held that 7 U.S.C. § 2543 “only exempts sales of the protected variety from one farmer directly to another farmer accomplished without the active intervention of a third party.”

Monsanto Co. v. Parr, 545 F. Supp. 2d 836 (N.D. Ind. 2008). “2d 682 (construing 7 U.S.C. § 2543 ). 18 .Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.”

Asgrow Seed Co. v. Denny Winterboer & Becky Winterboer, D/B/A Deebee's, 989 F.2d 478 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 2543 (1988). The exemption specifically excludes (and thus farmers may not engage in) sexually multiplying seed as a step in marketing.”

Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Peoples Gin Co., 546 F. Supp. 939 (N.D. Miss. 1982). “Conceding that they delivered, shipped and transferred possession of the variety of seed to farmers, defendants assert that they are merely agents of the farmers who produced the seed, and hence their activity is within the “crop exemption” granted to farmers by 7 U.S.C. § 2543…”

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.