7 U.S.C. § 2567

Limitation of damages; marking and notice

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

Owners may give notice to the public by physically associating with or affixing to the container of seed of a variety or by fixing to the variety, a label containing either the words “Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited” or the words “Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited” and after the certificate issues, such additional words as “U.S. Protected Variety”. In the event the variety is distributed by authorization of the owner and is received by the infringer without such marking, no damages shall be recovered against such infringer by the owner in any action for infringement, unless the infringer has actual notice or knowledge that propagation is prohibited or that the variety is a protected variety, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. As to both damages and injunction, a court shall have discretion to be lenient as to disposal of materials acquired in good faith by acts prior to such notice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Delta Cotton Co-Operative, Inc., 457 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Delta Cotton Co-Operative, Inc., 457 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “” 7 U.S.C. § 2567 . Delta Cotton argues that because it received the Coker 9663 seeds without notice of their protected status, it is protected against a damage award for infringement by § 2567.”

Edward Showmaker v. Advanta Usa, Inc. (Formally Known as Garst Seed Co. & Doing Bus. as Garst Seed Co.), 411 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “For instance, under 7 U.S.C. § 2567 , certificate owners receive damages only if "the infringer has actual notice or knowledge that propagation is prohibited or that the variety is a protected variety.”

Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 795 F. Supp. 915 (N.D. Iowa 1991). “Both parties shall file briefs addressing 7 U.S.C. § 2567 and its potential effect on the amount of damages that could be awarded in this action.”

Showmaker v. Advanta USA (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “For instance, under 7 U.S.C. § 2567 , certificate owners receive damages only if “the infringer has actual notice or knowledge that propagation is prohibited or that the variety is a protected variety.”

AGSouth Genetics, LLC v. Georgia Farm Servs., LLC, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (M.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “) Defendant’s Motion was based on its contention that (1) no evidence was introduced to demonstrate that it had the requisite notice under 7 U.S.C. § 2567 to give rise to PVPA liability; (2) no evidence was introduced to suggest that the variety had actually been propagated as…”

Arizona Grain Inc. v. Barkley Ag Enter. LLC (D. Ariz. 2019). “” 28 7 U.S.C.A. § 2567 . - 12 - 1 language was required on all its seed bags “at all relevant times,” (Doc.”

Mixon Seed Serv. Inc v. Hill (M.D. Ga. 2025). “]’” 7 U.S.C. § 2567 . “The PVPA is regularly discussed in terms of patent law and the Federal Circuit applies patent law to fill in the gaps in PVPA jurisprudence.”

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.