>ETC Group >News Release >3 May 2007 >www.etcgroup.org > >REVOKED!! Monsanto Monopoly Nixed in Munich >but little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date > >Munich - The European Patent Office today put the brakes on >Monsanto's over-the-top corporate greed by revoking its species-wide >patent on all genetically modified soybeans (EP0301749) - a patent >unprecedented in its broad scope. ETC Group, an international civil >society organization based in Canada, won its 13-year legal challenge >against Monsanto's species-wide soybean patent when an EPO appeal >board ruled that the patent was not new or sufficient (i.e., the >invention claimed was not sufficiently described for a skilled person >to repeat it). The patent challenge was supported by Greenpeace and >"No Patents on Life!" Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of UK-based EcoNexus >also joined the opposition team in Munich as a scientific expert. > >The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself >until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) >in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been >used, along with other patents in the company's portfolio, to corner >90% of the world's GM soybean market. [For more information, see ETC >Group News Release, "Monsanto's Soybean Monopoly Challenged in >Munich," April 30, 2007 >http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=616 ] > >"It's shameful that it took the European Patent office 13 years to >kill Monsanto's immoral patent, which was ultimately revoked on >technical grounds. Though we're relieved that the species-wide patent >on all genetically modified soybeans - both seeds and plants - was >not allowed to stand, the delay of more than a decade demonstrates >just how broken the patent system is. The patent had barely a year to >go before expiring!" said Hope Shand, who represented ETC Group in >Munich today. > >"It was particularly satisfying," said Shand, "that Monsanto's own >blistering 1994 arguments against the patent were ultimately key in >defeating it." One of Monsanto's top scientists testified in 1994 >that the genetic engineering process described in the patent was >insufficient to allow a skilled scientist to replicate the procedure >- a necessary criterion for patentability. > >ETC Group, which first challenged the patent in 1994 (as RAFI), was >represented in Munich by UK barrister Daniel Alexander and patent >attorney Tim Roberts of Brookes Batchellor, LLP. > >According to patent attorney Tim Roberts, "It is very satisfying that >the European Appeal Board has completely revoked this patent. This >decision sends a message to greedy patentees - don't claim more than >you are entitled to." > >Patent expert Dr. Christoph Then of Greenpeace commented on the >outcome of today's hearing, "The EPO's decision to throw out the >patent will have implications for Monsanto and the EPO. It is now >shown that the Patent Office is granting patents covering broad >sectors of agricultural diversity with no real invention to back them >up," said Then. > >Ruth Tippe from the European-wide initiative, "No Patents on Life!" >asserts, "This is an important step against patents on seeds because >it shows that civil society will keep on fighting and can ultimately >succeed against powerful multinationals." > >According to Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of EcoNexus, "Monsanto's patent >couldn't even survive on its scientific merits. It was a thoroughly >bad patent - from both a technical and moral perspective." > >Multinational firm Syngenta also made oral arguments today opposing >the patent. While their technical expertise may have contributed to >the patent's ultimate downfall, their opposition is viewed by civil >society as cynical. In January 2005, ETC Group reported on three >Syngenta patent applications that also make breathtakingly broad >claims - multi-genome patents with claims on gene sequences that >extend to 40 plant species. Despite assurances from Syngenta that the >company would let the patents lapse, all three applications appear to >be active still at the World Intellectual Property Organization >(WIPO). [See ETC Group Communique, "Syngenta - The Genome Giant?" >January/February 2005 >http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=73 ] > >This isn't ETC Group's first successful battle against species-wide >patents. Most notably, another Agracetus patent - this one granted by >the US Patent and Trademark Office in 1992 and claiming all >genetically engineered cotton varieties - was eventually revoked in >India and the US in 1994. > >Other overly broad, unjust patents have yet to be revoked, however. >The formal challenge to the notorious "Enola Bean" patent, US Patent >No. 5,894,079, granted on a yellow bean genetically identical to a >pre-existing Mexican bean variety, has entered its seventh year. [See >ETC Group Genotype, "Whatever Happened to the Enola Bean Patent >Challenge?" 21 December 2005 >http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/41/01/genotypeenola05.pdf ] > >Note to editors: The final wording of today's ruling by the EPO >appeals board will not be released for several more weeks. > >For further information: > >ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA) >Hope Shand (back from Munich on 7 May) or >Kathy Jo Wetter >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: +1 919 960-5223 > >ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada) >Pat Mooney >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: +1 613 2412267 > >ETC Group (Montreal, Canada) >Jim Thomas >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Tel: +1 514 516-5759 >_______________________________________________ >ETC Group mailing list >http://lists.etcgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/etcgroup
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
