FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 15
Patents for plants
35 U.S.C. § 161
Title35 — Patents
Chapter15 — PLANT PATENTS
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 161 (Patents for plants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
35 U.S.C. § 161.
Text
Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
447 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
133 S. Ct. 2107 (Supreme Court, 2013)
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
534 U.S. 124 (Supreme Court, 2001)
In Re Wilhelm Elsner. In Re Keith W. Zary
381 F.3d 1125 (Federal Circuit, 2004)
Yoder Bros. v. California-Florida Plant Corp.
537 F.2d 1347 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Application of Edward Burton Legrice
301 F.2d 929 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, and Coastal Nursery, Jess Rodrigues, and Donna Rodrigues
69 F.3d 1560 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
State Ex Rel. Mix v. Newland
560 P.2d 255 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)
Yoder Brothers, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. California-Florida Plant Corporation, Defendants-Appellees-Crossappellants. California-Florida Plant Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Crossappellants v. Yoder Brothers, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross
537 F.2d 1347 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Messerschmidt v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 1 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
786 F.3d 899 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Bourne v. Jones
114 F. Supp. 413 (S.D. Florida, 1951)
In re Bergy
563 F.2d 1031 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1977)
Monsanto Co. v. Trantham
156 F. Supp. 2d 855 (W.D. Tennessee, 2001)
In Re Beineke
690 F.3d 1344 (Federal Circuit, 2012)
Kim Bros. v. Hagler
167 F. Supp. 665 (S.D. California, 1958)
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission
940 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. California, 2013)
Biochron, Inc. v. Blue Roots, LLC
529 P.3d 464 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023)
Monsanto Co. v. Swann
308 F. Supp. 2d 937 (E.D. Missouri, 2003)
In Re WINGEN LLC
(Federal Circuit, 2023)
Source Credit
History
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 804; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1259, 68 Stat. 1190.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §31, part (R.S. 4886, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §1, 29 Stat. 692, (2) May 23, 1930, ch. 312, §1, 46 Stat. 376, (3) Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 450, §1, 53 Stat. 1212).
The provision relating to plants in the corresponding section of existing statute is made a separate section.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, provided that plant seedlings, discovered, propagated asexually, and proved to have new characteristics distinct from other known plants are patentable.
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §31, part (R.S. 4886, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §1, 29 Stat. 692, (2) May 23, 1930, ch. 312, §1, 46 Stat. 376, (3) Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 450, §1, 53 Stat. 1212).
The provision relating to plants in the corresponding section of existing statute is made a separate section.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, provided that plant seedlings, discovered, propagated asexually, and proved to have new characteristics distinct from other known plants are patentable.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/161.