Plant Breeding from a Patent Perspective

Plant Breeding from a Patent Perspective Focus on sustainability, innovation and international

Plant Breeding from a Patent Perspective

Credits

Version

English translation of the report ‘Plantenveredeling – De sector vanuit octrooiperspectief’, March 2012, publication number 4OCNL1201

Contact person

J.J. (Jos) Winnink Senior Policy Adviser T (+31) 88 602 63 31 F (+31) 88 602 90 24 [email protected] NL Patent Office | K&V/cluster OOK Patentlaan 2 | 2288 EE Rijswijk | The Netherlands PO Box 5820 | 2280 HV Rijswijk | The Netherlands

Author

Page 2 of 105

J.J. (Jos) Winnink

Abstract

This report1 outlines the plant breeding sector from the point of view of patent applications. It looks at the position of the Dutch companies and organisations active in the international field and describes the role of Dutch inventors and the profiles of the main international and Dutch companies and organisations. There are a few major companies active in the area of plant breeding, some of them American. None of the applicants appears to have a monopoly in terms of patents, though there is concentration in the sector. Pioneer Hi Bred International2, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer are the companies with the most patent applications to their credit. The number of applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) or the European Patent Office (EPO) by these companies is four or five times greater than that of the largest Dutch applicants (Wageningen University and Research Centre, Unilever and Mogen). The relatively large number of applications by the University of California is noteworthy. Of the Dutch applicants for patents in the area of plant breeding, Wageningen URC (WURC) is the one with the largest number. It is one of the twenty largest applicants internationally in the area of recombinant DNA techniques for plant breeding. Of the three sub-areas of plant breeding differentiated in this report, most applications are in that of DNA techniques. In patenting a distinction is made between inventors and applicants. Inventors are those who have actually invented the invention described in a patent application. Applicants are generally companies and organisations that bear the cost of patent procedures, and often the cost of R&D as well. Inventors can therefore be regarded as the sources of technical knowledge, and applicants as the sources of funding. The proportion of Dutch inventors in the activities of all inventors in the entire sector remains more or less constant. The activities of Dutch applicants, on the other hand, have declined somewhat in recent years. This decline is readily explained by takeovers of Dutch companies by foreign corporations, which means that some Dutch inventors’ inventions are being produced for foreign companies and organisations. The respective patent applications are therefore quite likely to be listed against those foreign companies and not regarded as ‘Dutch’. Some Dutch companies’ patents relate solely to plant breeding and they are therefore particularly vulnerable to changes in patent legislation in that area, which could affect their entire patent position. The study shows that companies that have traditionally been active in the area of plant breeding are relatively little involved in the development of DNA techniques. As a country where patent applications are filed directly, under the Dutch Patents Act (ROW95), the Netherlands is not of any great significance internationally. It may

1

With thanks to my colleagues Dr A. (Annemieke) Breukink, Dr G.A.A.M. (Guus) Broesterhuizen, Dr P. (Piet) Donselaar, P.G.M. (Philip) Oomen, Dr N.O.M. (Nikki) Rethmeier, M. (Marcel) Seip, T.J. (Tom) Stoop, Dr J.H.A.A. (Jos) Uitzetter and M. (Myra) Verkuijl for commenting on this report at various stages of its development.

2

Since 1999 Pioneer Hi Bred International has been part of the Du Pont de Nemours corporation, but it has been treated as an independent entity because of its large patent position and the fact that the takeover took place in the middle of the survey period.

Page 3 of 105

be assumed, however, that all relevant inventions in the area of plant breeding will eventually be patented in the Netherlands as well, so as to protect the intellectual property in the Netherlands, which has long had companies and organisations active in this area. In order to shed light on the entire debate on plant breeders’ rights and patents and the tensions between these two intellectual property rights, it would be advisable to carry out a study of plant breeders’ rights on the same lines as this study of patents. Patent documents contain information on technological developments. The economic value of such developments depends on many factors, which cannot be deduced from the patent literature. This report does not therefore draw any conclusions on individual patents and their potential economic value.

Page 4 of 105

Contents

Abstract 3 1

Introduction 7

2

Methodology 10

2.1

Source of information 10

2.2

Terminology 10

2.3

Collecting documents for the analyses 11

2.4

Patent activity worldwide: overall picture 11

2.5 3

Survey period 12 Development of the Plant Improvement Area 13

3.1

Trends in numbers of inventions 13

3.2

Numbers of patent applications 14

3.3

Origin of patent applications 15

3.4

The role of the Netherlands and Dutch applicants 17

3.5

The role of UPOV member countries 17

3.6

Patent applications involving Dutch inventors 19

3.7

Total plant breeding and the three sub-areas 21

3.8

Summary 23

4

Patent Applicants 24

4.1

Applicants: the international picture 24

4.2

Dutch applicants 24

4.3

Profile of applicants 26

4.4

Summary 29

5

Market Concentration in Patents 31

5.1

Comments 31

5.2

Patent applications per applicant 31

5.3

The twenty largest applicants 32

5.4

Herfindahl index 33

5.5 6

Summary 34 Sub-area: Plant Breeding Processes 36

6.1

Trend 36

6.2


6.3

Patent applicants 39

6.4

Summary 40

7

Sub-area: Plant Breeding Products 41

7.1

Trend 41

7.2


7.3


7.4

Summary 45

8 8.1

Sub-area: DNA techniques for Plant Breeding 46 Trend 46

Page 5 of 105

8.2


8.3


8.4

Summary 50

9 10

The Role of Dutch Inventors in International Corporations 52 The Nature Of The Dutch Applicants 53

10.1

Characteristics of Dutch applicants 53

10.2

Proportion of plant breeding in total IP positions 56

10.3

Summary 60

11

UPOV and PCT 61

12

Conclusions 66

Appendix I Description of Patent Categories Used 68 Plant breeding processes and products 68 Recombinant DNA technology 68 Appendix II Acronyms for Organisations in the Area of Intellectual Property 69 Appendix III Country Codes Used 70 Appendix IV Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Contracting States 71 Appendix V UPOV Convention Member Countries 73 Appendix VI Intellectual Property Rights related to Agricultural Crops and UPOV Membership 75 Appendix VII The Role of Dutch Applicants and Inventors 81 Appendix VIII Plant Breeding Processes 85 Definition 85 Trend 85 Patent applicants 88 Appendix IX Plant Breeding Products 92 Definition 92 Trend 92 Patent applicants 94 Appendix X DNA Techniques for Plant Breeding 99 Definition 99 Trend 99 Patent applicants 101

Page 6 of 105

1

Introduction The constant progress of biotechnology in particular has caused tensions to develop between patent law and plant breeders’ rights. In 2009, as a result of debates in the Dutch Senate and House of Representatives instigated by the Ministry3 of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) carried out a study into this subject. The report4 of this study was published in December 2009 as CGN Report 14, Veredelde zaken: de toekomst van de plantenveredeling in het licht van de ontwikkelingen in het octrooirecht en het kwekersrecht (Breeding Business: the future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeders’ rights). On 6 May 2009 Plantum NL, the industry association for companies in the plant source material sector, adopted the following position on the relationship between patent law and plant breeders’ rights: 1. Patent-protected biological material should be freely available for the development of new varieties. 2. The use and exploitation of these new varieties should be free, in accordance with the ‘breeders’ exemption’ in the UPOV5 Convention. 3. The aforementioned free availability, use and exploitation should not be hampered in any way, directly or indirectly, by patent law. The report Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and Its Consequences for Innovation6, commissioned by the Committee on Genetic Modification (COGEM), was published in January 2011. The key question it addresses is formulated as follows (p. 4): whether the plant breeding sector worldwide is monopolized by large multinationals due to the application of genetic modification, and if so, what might be the possible consequences for innovation in this sector? The Dutch summary of this report notes inter alia the following (pp. 11-12): According to the economic analysis the high concentrations in the American cotton, maize and soya seed markets have not had any negative effects on innovation during the past seventeen years, a period that coincided with the substantial adoption by these American markets of genetic modification technology. It goes on to mention a number of concerns regarding patenting in relation to research and development (R&D) in the seed sector.

3 4

5

6

The names of the Ministries are shown as they were in spring 2009, at the time of the parliamentary debate. The digital version of the report Veredelde zaken: de toekomst van de plantenveredeling in het licht van de ontwikkelingen in het octrooirecht en het kwekersrecht (CGN Report 14) can be found via the link (dated 31 August 2012) http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2010/06/03/veredelde-zaken/veredelde-zaken-20100603.pdf The English version of this report ‘Breeding Business, The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeder’s rights can be found via the link (dated 31 August 2012) http://edepot.wur.nl/141258 UPOV (L’Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales/International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) is an intergovernmental organisation concerned with the international protection of plant breeders’ rights. Its headquarters are in Geneva (Switzerland). (Source: http://www.upov.int/). The digital version of the report _Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and its Consequences for Innovation (CGM 2011-01) can be found via the link (dated 26 May 2011) http://cogem.ip93.allcommunication.nl/index.cfm/nl/publicaties/publicatie/drivers-of-consolidation-in-the-seedindustry-and-its-consequences-for-innovation-1

Page 7 of 105

An understanding of, inter alia, the patent positions of Dutch companies and research organisations and their competitors in the area of plant breeding is needed for the parliamentary debate. The definition of ‘plant breeding’ used can be found in §2.2 (p. 10). This report by the NL Patent Office describes the Netherlands’ position and how it is developing in relation to the positions of other countries as regards inventions in the area of plant breeding. Inventions are ‘measured’ on the basis of patent applications. This report shows the positions of companies active in patenting. As well as looking at companies and organisations, it considers the role of Dutch inventors working for international corporations with operations in the Netherlands. This report also considers the role of the ‘UPOV countries’7 in the area of plant breeding. UPOV was set up by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The UPOV Convention was signed in 1961 in Paris and has since been amended three times. Its aim is to protect new plant varieties by means of intellectual property rights. This study focuses on patent applications for processes, products and DNA techniques for plant breeding. This classification is based on the technical characteristics of the inventions. The study analyses inventions described in patent applications filed during the 1980-2008 period. The majority of the analyses involved looking at patent applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) or the European Patent Office (EPO), with no restrictions on the country of domicile of the applicants or the inventors. At the time of the study there was no consistent data at the required level of detail (suitable for statistical analysis) available on patents granted in the United States over a substantial period, hence these patents8 are not included in the study. The study only looked at numbers of inventions based on patent applications; it did not draw any qualitative conclusions on individual inventions. The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 sets out the methodology used to select the patent documents used for the study. Chapter 3 describes the trend in inventions in the area of plant breeding, giving an overall picture of the trend and an analysis of the countries where the applications originated. This chapter also considers the companies and organisations actively involved in patenting and the role of Dutch inventors. The patent applicants are the subject of Chapter 4, and market concentration (if any) is that of Chapter 5. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 describe the developments in the three sub-areas of processes, products and DNA techniques in greater detail. Chapter 9 discusses the role of Dutch inventors in international corporations. The sectors in which the Dutch applicants are active is the subject of Chapter 10. Chapter 11 briefly discusses the UPOV Convention and the PCT and shows which countries have ratified these treaties respectively. Chapter 12 sets out the conclusions of the study. Appendix I explains the classification used. Appendix II gives a list of the acronyms used in this document for organisations in the area of intellectual property. The country codes used in this document are listed in Appendix III. The countries that have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) are shown in Appendix IV. A list of the UPOV member countries can be found in Appendix V.

7

UPOV countries = countries that have signed the UPOV Convention (see also footnote 5, p. 7; for a list of the countries see Appendix V, p. 73).

8

For details see §2.3 (p. 11).

Page 8 of 105

Appendix VI gives an overview of all countries, indicating whether they have legislation in the area of intellectual property rights relating to agricultural crops. The role of Dutch applicants and Dutch inventors is discussed in Appendix VII. Appendices VIII-X contain details on the subjects of Chapters 6-8.

Page 9 of 105

2

2.1

Methodology

Source of information

The source of information used was the EPO’s EPODOC database, which contains bibliographical information on patent publications that are useful as a source of information on the patenting process. It therefore provides information on all relevant patent documents throughout the world. Inventions in the area of plant breeding can be divided into three groups based on their technological characteristics, namely (1) plant improvement processes, (2) plant improvement products and (3) DNA-related techniques for plant improvement. This threefold classification is based on the differentiation made when classifying the patent publications describing the inventions. The International Patent Classification (IPC) was used for this purpose. For details of the classification codes used see Appendix I. As inventions can often have several characteristic properties, a particular patent application may be classified in more than one of the three groups, so they overlap to some extent.

2.2

Terminology

Products and methods Patent laws distinguish between ‘products’ and ‘methods’ for the purpose of patent protection. The classification into three groups in the previous section (§2.1) is based on the terminology used in the International Patent Classification (IPC), the purpose of which is to enable technologically related patent documents to be traced quickly for patent applications. Each of the three groups contains patent documents for the protection of ‘products’ and ‘methods’. Patent families, inventions, and applications In order to determine the number of unique inventions as accurately as possible, ‘patent families’ are counted. These are groups of patent documents related to one and the same invention. The terms ‘patent family’ and ‘invention’ are used as equivalents in the text. The meaning of the term ‘application’ is in the context of this report ‘an application for an unique invention’ and equivalent to a ‘patent family’. Plant improvement ‘Plant improvement’ is defined as: The totality of efforts to influence the genetic predisposition of crops. The aim of improvement is to adapt crops to the requirements set by links in the production and processing chain right down to the final consumer. New varieties should always have a unique phenotype based on a genetic combination not previously employed in a variety.

Page 10 of 105

2.3

Collecting documents for the analyses

The analyses described in this report are based on information on patent applications. Another option would have been to use information on patents granted, but a major drawback here is that several years (five to seven) elapse between the filing of a patent application and the possible granting of the patent. There are a number of reasons for a patent application not to be granted, and the innovative work that has been done as shown in the patent applications is not fully reflected in the patents granted. The long time frame and incomplete coverage mean that publications of patents granted do not provide a good basis for analysing the innovative work. Generally speaking, it would also be desirable to analyse the situation regarding patent applications filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the patents granted there. A complicating factor is that until 2001 patent applications were only published in the United States if they resulted in a patent being granted. Since 2001 all patent applications in the United States have been published, including those that have been unsuccessful. In order to obtain a data set that is consistent over a lengthy period, information on patents granted is generally used in the case of the United States. There are two problems with this method: (a) it takes a long time (five to seven years) for patent applications to be granted (if at all), and (b) since 2001 the publications of patents granted in the database used for this study (EPODOC) have increasingly lagged behind the official figures for patents granted. A consistent document set for the analyses was obtained by looking solely at patent applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) plus those filed with the European Patent Office (EPO). The procedures and requirements for such applications are largely comparable. These ‘international’ procedures are generally more expensive than purely ‘national’ procedures, and this cost aspect makes them more selective, with fewer ‘weaker’ applications being filed internationally. Together these patenting requirements and the cost-based selectivity ensure that the patent publications in the selection are more comparable and therefore give a more reliable idea of the trend in this area of technology. All the patent publications in the database were included to obtain this ‘World’ total. The overall picture thus constructed comprises the patent publications in all three groups referred to in §2.1. Equivalent patent publications were counted as a single publication here in order to avoid overestimation. Thus the overall picture is not the simple sum of the sub-areas, since inventions as described in patent applications can have various aspects and therefore be classified in more than one sub-area. In all the analyses the patent publications were grouped in such a way that all the publications actually describing one and the same invention, thus forming a ‘patent family’, were only counted once. For the reasons mentioned (the time lapse between filing and granting and the information lacking in the case of the United States), this report does not include an analysis based on patents granted.

2.4

Patent activity worldwide: overall picture

The aim of this overall picture is to show the worldwide trend in inventions in the area of plant improvement based on patent publications. This data set is referred to as ‘World’ in the remainder of this report. A complicating factor when it comes to Page 11 of 105

obtaining an overall picture is that there is no such thing as a ‘world patent’, so any picture of patent activity worldwide is going to be a more or less precise approximation of reality. The patent applications included in this overall picture are not all equal, in that some ‘only’ lead to a potential patent in one country, whereas others are used as a basis for establishing patent rights in a number of countries. No distinction was made here in terms of the country in which the application was filed and the patent legislation in force there, for the following reasons: 1. the details of patent laws can differ from one country to another; 2. patent laws are regularly amended; 3. patents are only one type of intellectual property right; and 4. the cost of obtaining a patent differs from one country to another. This makes it virtually impossible to take all the various factors into account in an analysis, with their proper weighting. The picture of patent activity worldwide obtained in this way can at most be regarded as a rough frame of reference, which should be used with due caution.

2.5

Survey period

There is a confidentiality period for patent applications, and data on those that are still at the confidential stage is not available for analysis. The confidentiality period is generally 18 months from the filing of the application, but it can be as much as 30 months in the case of applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which require international research into the state of the art. Our analyses have therefore had to be confined to the 1980-2008 period, and the data for 2008 is incomplete as it was collected in spring 2011. Some patent applications are withdrawn before they are published, i.e. during the confidentiality period, so these are not available for analysis.

Page 12 of 105

3

Development of the Plant Improvement Area

This chapter analyses the overall picture of patenting related to plant improvement, looking at trends, active companies and organisations, the role of Dutch inventors, the profile of applicants, market concentration (if any) and applicants’ dependence on patents in the area of plant breeding. The role of Dutch inventors listed on patent publications of the major international corporations is the subject of Chapter 9. The unit used for counting is the ‘patent family’: this is a set of patent documents related to one and the same unique invention.

3.1

Trends in numbers of inventions

The trend in inventions can be described based (a) on the domicile of the patent applicants and (b) on the domicile of the inventors. There are a number of major companies with a host of operations worldwide that are active in the area of plant breeding. These companies usually have specialist and local departments responsible for applying for and managing intellectual property rights. In such cases the applicant’s domicile does not always provide reliable information on where the actual invention took place. In order to ascertain where the innovative work actually took place, the picture obtained using the inventors’ domicile was also examined, but even this approach cannot provide certainty as to where inventions took place in every case. The picture based on the applicants’ domicile is discussed in §3.3. The picture that emerges from looking at inventors’ domicile is shown in §3.6. Fig. 1 (top of next page) outlines the numbers of inventions in the area of plant breeding over time. The number of patent applications per year has stabilized in recent years, following sharp growth during the 1995-2000 period. ‘World’ indicates the constructed world total (see also §2.4).

Page 13 of 105

Patent families per year

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year "World"A pplications

A pplications with WIP O o r E P O 9

Fig. 1 Numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding

3.2

Numbers of patent applications

To enable the number of patent applications in the ‘World’ and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO to be compared, Fig. 2 shows the numbers in relation to the respective numbers for 2005, which are taken as the baseline (100%). The year 2005 was selected because the data for 1999 and 2000 in particular include relatively large numbers of patent applications in the area of biotechnology. There was growth in applications from the start of the analysis period until 1999. Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO peaked around the year 2000, as Fig. 2 clearly shows. There is no such clear peak in ‘World’ applications because of the different distribution of applications among the various sub-areas. Since 2000 the number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO has been structurally lower (30% vis-à-vis applications in 2000). The peak around 2000 coincided with the rise and subsequent decline in applications in the area of biotechnology. Since 2000 ‘World’ applications has also ceased to grow and the number of applications has stabilized at a level of 3,000 patent families per year. The number of biotechnology applications has fallen since 2000 as a result of changes in the legislation10 laying down more rigorous requirements for patenting: in the case of patent applications for DNA sequences the function of the DNA sequence to be patented now has to be stated, which was not necessary before the legislation changed.

9

For the definition of ‘World’ used see §2.4.

10

See also Lawrence, S (2004). Patent drop reveals pressure on industry. Nature Biotechnology, 22(8), pp. 930-1.

Page 14 of 105

Both the constructed ‘World’ total and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO are shown.

200

%

2005 100

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year "World" applications

A pplications with WIP O o r E P O

Fig. 2 Numbers of patent families for plant breeding (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)9

There is a discrepancy between the ‘World’ total and patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. This discrepancy, in terms of both numbers and the path of applications, is explained by ‘local’ inventions: these ‘local’ applications are made in only one country or a few countries. The applicants concerned have not deemed it necessary to file their applications with the WIPO or EPO as well. There can be various reasons for keeping a patent application ‘local’.

3.3

Origin of patent applications

Figs. 3 and 4 show the origin of all patent applications in the area of plant breeding during the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile. Fig. 3 breaks the applications down into those from applicants in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), the United States, Japan and other countries. Fig. 4 shows the origin by country in more detail. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 40%. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 5%.

Page 15 of 105

JP 7% Not EU, US, or JP 21%

EU 32%

US 40%

Fig. 3 Origin of patent applications by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008

NL 5% GB 6% JP 7%

FR 4%

CH 4%

BE 4%

KR 2% AU 3% CA 3%

IL 2% DK 1% CN 1%

DE 10%

Other 13%

IN 1% Rest 7%

US 40%

Fig. 4 Origin of patent applications by country of applicant, 1980-2008

Page 16 of 105

3.4

The role of the Netherlands and Dutch applicants

A total of 50,047 inventions11 in the area of plant breeding were made in the ‘World’ during the 1980-2008 period (Table 1). In this table the percentages in the columns with no background colour represent the proportions of patent applications in relation to the ‘All applicants’ column. The percentages in the columns with a background colour show the proportions of Dutch applicants in relation to the numbers in the respective column with no background colour. At least one Dutch applicant was involved in the application in the case of 5.1% of inventions. 18.9% of the applications were filed with the WIPO or EPO, 12.2% of these with the EPO. A very small proportion (approximately 2.1%) of these applications were filed with the NL Patent Office (NLOC). Dutch applicants were involved in an average of 5.3% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The number is comparable as regards applications filed solely with the EPO, but the percentage fluctuates widely from one year to another, from less than 1.0% to 9.3% in 2005 worldwide and 8.8% of the applications filed with the EPO in 1992. For a full overview with the data broken down by year see Table 25 (p. 81).

Table 1 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants9 Patent families Worldwide12 All of which applicants from Dutch applicants 15

Total 1980 2008

3.5

50047

2571 (5.1%)

of which via WIPO or EPO All of which applicants from Dutch applicant s16 9456 497 (18.9%) (5.3%)

of which via EPO13 All applicants

of which from Dutch applicants

via NLOC14 All applican ts

17

6106 (12.2%)

324 (5.3%)

of which from Dutch applicants

18

128 (2.1%)

82 (64.1%)

The role of UPOV member countries

To gain an impression of the role of the Netherlands and the UPOV4 member countries the figures were broken down into the total number of inventions, the number of inventions from UPOV countries and the number of inventions from the Netherlands. This was done in the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 5). As the data in this chart clearly shows, virtually all the inventions and patents granted originated with applicants in UPOV member countries. Chapter 11

11

Measured as the number of patent families. See also the comment on this subject in §2.2 (p. 10).

12

The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain a picture as accurate as possible. Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.

13

14

Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands). This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 16 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the WIPO or EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 17 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 18 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 15

Page 17 of 105

gives an overview of the countries and whether they are members of the UPOV Convention and the PCT. The fact that applicants from UPOV countries also apply for patent protection in the area of plant breeding in UPOV member countries is an indication that they regard both plant breeders’ rights and patents as important ways of protecting their intellectual property. Looking at the numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 5), we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques. A step change of this kind is apparent in all the sub-areas (Figs. 14, 18 and 22).


800

600

400

200

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total

Applicants from UPOV-countries

Fig. 5 Numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

Dutch Applicants 19

(total)

Applications involving Dutch applicants comprise a small percentage of the total. Over the period as a whole the proportion of Dutch applicants is just over 5% of the total, peaking at 8.8% in 2005. No attempt has been made to gauge the ‘value’ of individual inventions, neither economically nor as a basis for further technological developments. Fig. 6 shows the trend in the above data, comparing the numbers with the number in 2005, taking the latter as the baseline (100%). As this figure shows, the proportion of Dutch applicants lags behind substantially and fluctuates sharply. There is a noticeable dip in 2003, which is not explained by reduced activity on the part of Dutch inventors (see Fig. 8, p. 21); the cause therefore has to be sought in changes in the nationalities of the patent applicants. After 2003 the number of

19

Duplicate applications relating to the same invention have been removed from this set of patent publications relating to applications filed with the EPO and WIPO. The way these documents were selected is explained in the third paragraph of §2.3.

.

Page 18 of 105

applications regains the pre-2003 level (Fig. 6). As the numbers of applications from Dutch applicants are small, however, even small changes have a relatively large effect.

200

%

2005

100

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total

Applicatants from UPOV-countries

Dutch appicants

Fig. 6 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

3.6

Patent applications involving Dutch inventors

To gain an impression of the sector from the point of view of the nationalities of the inventors, inventions were broken down by their domicile. This was done in the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (see also Fig. 7). As the chart shows, virtually all the inventions originated with applicants in UPOV member countries. Table 2 gives an overview of inventions during the 1980-2008 period and the role of Dutch inventors. It shows applications worldwide, the proportion handled by the EPO and the applications dealt with by the NL Patent Office, indicating how many inventions are listed with at least one Dutch inventor. For a full overview with the data broken down by year see Table 26 (p. 83). Looking at all applications (‘World’) during the survey period, we see that Dutch inventors were involved in 6.4% of inventions. The proportion of Dutch inventors fluctuates sharply from one year to another, ranging from less than 1.0% to 10.2% in 2007. As regards applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, the proportion of Dutch inventors peaked at 9.8%, in both 1992 and 1993. The proportion of patent applications to which Dutch inventors contributed averages out at 5.2% over the entire period. It fluctuates sharply, however, ranging from 1.2% in 1987 to 9.8% in 1992 and 1993. There is an exceptional figure of 11.1% in 1982, but this relates to only one patent application. Looking at applications filed with the EPO, we see that Dutch inventors were involved in an average of 5.7% of them. The minimum was 1.1% in 1986, and the peak of 10.0% was reached in 1993. In the case of applications filed with the EPO the average proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.4% higher than that based on applicants’ domicile. In the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO the Page 19 of 105

proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.1% lower than that of Dutch applicants. In the case of applications filed with the EPO the proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.4% higher. In the ‘worldwide’ set the proportion of Dutch inventors was substantially higher, at 6.4%, than that of Dutch applicants (5.1%). The higher proportion of EPO applications is an indication that some of the Dutch inventors are employed by foreign companies that prefer to file patent applications with the EPO rather than the WIPO. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these figures, however, also given the long period covered and the fact that the sector has developed during this time.

Table 2 Inventions and the role of Dutch inventors Patent families Worldwide20 All From inventors Dutch inventors 23

Total 1980 2008

50047

3221 (6.4%)

of which via WIPO or EPO All From inventors Dutch inventors

of which via EPO21 All inventors

24

9456 (18.9%)

490 (5.2%)

via NLOC22

From Dutch inventors

All inventors

From Dutch inventors

349 (5.7%)

?

?

25

6106 (12.2%)

Patentfamilies per year

800

600

400

200

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Filing year Total

Inventors from UPOV-countries

Dutch inventors

Fig. 7 Numbers of patent applications, based on inventors’ domicile, filed with the WIPO or EPO (total)

20

The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible. Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated. 22 Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands). Data on the breakdown by domicile of patent applications filed with the NL Patent Office is missing from the database for the 1980-1990 period. 23 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 24 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the WIPO or EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 25 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 21

Page 20 of 105

200

%

2005 100

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total

Inventors from UPOV-countries

Dutch inventors

Fig. 8 Numbers of patent families, based on inventors’ domicile, filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

3.7

Total plant breeding and the three sub-areas

The table below gives an overview of the absolute numbers of patent applications and the distribution of ‘interest’ among the three sub-areas over the 1980-2008 period. As Table 3 shows, the three sub-areas (processes, products and DNA techniques) overlap substantially, so the ‘Total’ is not the simple sum of the subareas, as a patent can be classified in several sub-areas at the same time, based on its characteristics. The two figures below (Figs. 9 and 10) show the trend in total numbers of patent applications, and applications in the three sub-areas, filed with the WIPO or EPO. The number of applications for DNA techniques clearly predominates here. The number of applications for processes is much lower than for the other two subareas. As Table 3 and Fig. 9 show, the ‘Total’ is not the simple sum of the sub-areas, as this would produce percentages in excess of 100. In the ‘World’ figures the ratio between the three sub-areas differs from the pattern of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO: in particular the proportion of DNA-related applications is lower.

Page 21 of 105

Table 3 Absolute numbers of patent applications and relative ‘interest’ in the three sub-areas over the 1980-2008 period for ‘World’ and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO Total

Processes

Products

DNA techniques

‘World’ Number in the 1980-2008 period

50047

‘Interest’ = (Number in

19155

36867

16625

38.3%

73.7%

33.2%

2936

5881

7874

31.0%

62.2%

83.3%

category)/Total

Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO Number in the 1980-2008 period

9456

‘Interest’ = (Number in category)/Total

In terms of numbers, the fewest patent applications are for processes. One reason for this could be that a process is not visible in the end-product, hence keeping the process secret (trade secrecy) is sufficient to protect it. The three sub-areas are described separately in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. Fig. 10 clearly shows the ‘biotech bubble’ (see also §3.2 and note 10) around the year 2000.


1000

800

600

400

200

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Filing year Total

Processes

Products

DNA techniques

Fig. 9 Numbers of patent families per year (filed with the WIPO or EPO)

Page 22 of 105

2010

%

200

100

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total

Processes

Products

DNA techniques

Fig. 10 Numbers of patent families filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

3.8

Summary

This chapter looked at the trend in the numbers of patent applications. A ‘World’ total was constructed and used solely to give an impression of the total numbers of patent applications worldwide. Because of its non-homogeneous composition this data set was not suitable for analysis, hence the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO were used for this purpose. The number of applications per year rises over the period as a whole. There is a peak in the data around the year 2000, caused by the ‘biotech bubble’. Looking at the proportion of patent applications in the area of plant breeding from countries that were not UPOV members showed that virtually all the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO came from UPOV countries. Applicants in the United States predominated, with a total of 40% of patent applications filed with the EPO or WIPO over the entire period. Applications from Dutch applicants during the 1980-2008 period made up 5.3% of total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. As regards Dutch inventors the proportion was 5.2%. Dutch inventors were involved in approximately 5.7% of applications filed with the EPO: thus the proportion is approximately 0.4% higher than when looking at applicants’ domicile in the case of applications filed with the EPO. The higher proportion of EPO applications is an indication that some of the Dutch inventors are employed by foreign companies that prefer to file patent applications with the EPO rather than the WIPO. Of the three sub-areas, DNA techniques is the largest.

Page 23 of 105

4

Patent Applicants

This chapter discusses the main applicants for patents and Dutch applicants. The patent profile of each applicant is described, thus indicating the importance of the three sub-areas to that applicant.

4.1 Applicants: the international picture Based on the numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period, companies and organisations were ranked in a league table. Pioneer Hi Bred International, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, and Syngenta were found to be the five companies with the most inventions to their credit during the 1980-2008 period. In terms of numbers of applications, the University of California (Uni California) is in seventh position, making it the research organisation with the largest number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO to its credit. Of the total of 2972 applicants, 41 accounted for approximately half (49.7%) of the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The numbers for these 41 applicants range from 44 to 522 during the 1980-2008 period. The top 20 applicants in descending order are shown in Table 4 (p. 25). Together these applicants accounted for 37.4% of applications during the survey period. This overview shows that no companies or organisations have a monopoly or virtual monopoly of patents for plant breeding. The data relates to numbers of applications and does not enable us to ascertain whether one or more companies or organisations have a predominant economic position in the plant breeding sector as a whole or sub-areas thereof. A company’s R&D position is reflected in numbers of patent applications and the resulting patents; it does not indicate whether one or more of the patents are ‘key patents’ that make it more or less obligatory for others to take out licences if they also wish to be economically active in the market.

4.2

Dutch applicants

The twenty largest Dutch applicants are shown in Table 5 (p. 26). Each of them made six or more applications during the 1980-2008 period. In terms of numbers, the Dutch applicants are not in the top rank of largest applicants worldwide. Wageningen URC (WURC) is the largest Dutch applicant, in sixteenth position in the international league table of applicants (Table 4). Another research organisation that comes to the fore as an applicant is Leiden University (in fourth position in Table 5). Position in the league table is no indication of the ‘value’ or quality of the inventions being patented.

Page 24 of 105

Table 4 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company

Origin of inventions

Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

Proportion of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

1

Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l26

US

522

5.4%

2

Monsanto Co

DE, FR, GB, NL,

375

3.9%

3

Du Pont de Nemours

GB, US

360

3.8%

4

BASF

DE, NL, US

356

3.7%

5

Syngenta

AU, CH, GB, NL,

303

3.2%

238

2.5%

US

US 6

Bayer

BE, CA, DE, FR, US

7

Uni California

US

173

1.8%

8

Cropdesign NV (spin-off of

BE

135

1.4%

Flanders Inter-University Institute of Biotechnology) 9

Astrazeneca

GB, SE

124

1.3%

10

Calgene Inc. (owned by

AU, US

112

1.2%

AU

109

1.1%

Monsanto since 1997) 11

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

12

Canada Nat Res Council

CA

105

1.1%

13

Max Planck Gesellschaft27

CH, DE, FR

102

1.1%

14

Dow Chemical

CA, US

90

0.9%

15

Cornell University

US

89

0.9%

16

Wageningen URC (WURC)

NL

87

0.9%

17

Ceres Tech Inc

US

86

0.9%

18

Agronomique Inst Nat

FR

76

0.8%

Rech 19

Ciba Geigy

CH, GB, JP

75

0.8%

20

US Dept of Agriculture

US

72

0.8%

26

Pioneer Hi Bred International has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999. It has been listed as an independent company in the tables because of its large patent position and the fact that it was an independent company for part of the survey period.

27

Full name: Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften Eingetragener Verein

Page 25 of 105

Table 5 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 19802008 period Company/Organisation

Number of applications

Proportion of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

1

Wageningen URC28 (WURC)

87

0.90%

2

Unilever

56

0.58%

3

Mogen Int (part of Syngenta AG)

54

0.56%

4

Leiden University

29

0.30%

5

Keygene NV (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.)

27

0.28%

6

Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel

27

0.28%

7

AVEBE NV

18

0.19%

8

De Ruiter Seeds (part of Monsanto)

16

0.17%

9

Syngenta

15

0.16%

10

Royal Dutch Shell Group

14

0.15%

11

Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel

12

0.13%

12

Expressive Res BV

11

0.11%

13

Nunhems BV

10

0.10%

14

Advanta Seeds

9

0.09%

15

BASF

9

0.09%

16

Gist Brocades

8

0.08%

17

STW

8

0.08%

18

Bejo Zaden BV

7

0.07%

19

DSM NV

6

0.06%

20

Stichting Binair Vector Systeem

6

0.06%

4.3

Profile of applicants

‘Profile’ in this report refers to the interest (based on patent applications) displayed by applicants in the three sub-areas of plant breeding. The two tables below (Tables 6 and 8) show the distribution of patent publications among the sub-areas for the main international and main Dutch applicants in terms of numbers of applications. The tables are based on applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The applicants are listed here as shown on the patent applications, not corrected for any subsequent takeovers or mergers. The percentages show the ratio of each applicant’s applications in each sub-area to its total number of applications in the area of plant breeding. As patent documents

28

It should be noted that all the institutes known to be part of Wageningen University and Research Centre (WURC) have been listed under it.

Page 26 of 105

can have several classification codes, they can fall into more than one sub-area, so the percentages do not always add up to 100%. The figures should be regarded as an indication of the relative distribution of ‘interest’ among the three sub-areas. On average, 31.0% of applications relate to processes, 62.2% to products and 83.3% to DNA-related techniques.

Profile of the largest international companies DNA-related techniques are clearly in the spotlight. Processes is the sub-area where the fewest patent applications are made by these applicants.

Table 6 Profile of top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO Company



Average

Processes

Products

DNArelated techniques

31.0%

62.2%

83.3%

(WIPO or EPO) 1

Pioneer Hi Bred

US

522

21.1%

65.9%

93.1%

DE, FR, GB,

375

33.3%

70.7%

89.3%

GB, US

360

17.2%

54.4%

92.2%

Int’l (whollyowned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999) 2

Monsanto Co

NL, US 3

Du Pont de Nemours

4

BASF

DE, NL, US

356

9.0%

63.8%

96.1%

5

Syngenta

AU, CH, GB,

303

24.1%

76.9%

89.8%

238

15.1%

68.5%

94.5%

NL, US 6

Bayer

BE, CA, DE,

7

Uni California

US

173

37.6%

64.7%

90.2%

8

Cropdesign NV

BE

135

8.9%

63.7%

97.8%

FR, US

(spin-off of Flanders InterUniversity Institute of Biotechnology) 9

Astrazeneca

GB, SE

124

22.6%

81.5%

88.7%

10

Calgene Inc.

AU, US

112

29.5%

68.8%

99.1%

(owned by

Page 27 of 105

Company



Processes

Products

DNArelated techniques

AU

109

33.9%

74.3%

87.2%

CA

105

29.5%

67.6%

85.7%

CH, DE, FR

102

22.5%

76.5%

90.2%

Monsanto since 1997) 11

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

12


13

Max Planck Gesellschaft

14

Dow Chemical

CA, US

91

22.0%

56.0%

90.1%

15

Cornell

US

89

38.2%

61.8%

91.0%

University 16

Ceres Tech Inc

US

86

20.9%

31.4%

98.8%

17

Agronomique

FR

76

28.9%

69.7%

75.0%

Inst Nat Rech 18

Ciba Geigy

CH, GB, JP

75

40.0%

76.0%

92.0%

19

US Dept Of

US

72

48.6%

66.7%

83.3%

GB

71

0.0%

69.0%

97.2%

Agriculture 20

Plant Biosciences Ltd

Profile of the Dutch companies The Dutch applicants that came to the fore in this study, totalling 79, were classified into four types. The table below shows the results of this classification.

Table 7 Distribution of the 79 Dutch applicants by type Intermediary organisation

4 (4%)

Chemical corporation

7 (9%)

Research organisation

12 (15%)

Company active in the area of seed breeding or biotechnology company

56 (71%)

The profile of the Dutch applicants (Table 8, p. 29), especially that of companies active in the area of seed breeding, differs substantially from that of the major international applicants as described in the previous section. ‘Traditional seed improvers’ such as Rijk Zwaan, De Ruiter, Enza and Bejo Zaden are clearly particularly interested in patents in the sub-area of processes. The major interest of Shell for processes sub-area is also remarkable.. Page 28 of 105

Table 8 Profile of top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company/Organisation

Type of company29

Number of applications

Average (WIPO or EPO)

Processes

Products

DNA-related techniques

31.0%

62.2%

83.3%

1


R

86

10.5%

75.6%

93.0%

2

Unilever

C

56

17.9%

64.3%

87.5%

3

Mogen Int

S/B

54

27.8%

88.9%

100.0%

4

Leiden University

R

29

37.9%

51.7%

96.6%

5

Keygene NV

S/B

27

18.5%

44.4%

85.2%

6

Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en

S/B

27

66.7%

70.4%

25.9%

Zaadhandel 7

AVEBE NV

S/B

18

16.7%

83.3%

83.3%

8

De Ruiter Seeds

S/B

16

56.3%

93.8%

43.8%

9

Syngenta

S/B

15

13.3%

86.7%

93.3%

10


C

14

85.7%

21.4%

21.4%

11

Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer

S/B

12

50.0%

75.0%

41.7%

63.6%

100.0%

Zaadhandel 12

Expressive Res BV

S/B

11

18.2%

13

Nunhems BV

S/B

10

50.0%

90.0%

60.0%

14

Advanta Seeds

S/B

9

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

15

BASF

C

9

11.1%

100.0%

100.0%

16

Gist Brocades

S/B

8

50.0%

62.5%

100.0%

17

STW

I

8

12.5%

75.0%

75.0%

18

Bejo Zaden BV

S/B

7

71.4%

85.7%

28.6%

19

DSM NV

C

6

16.7%

66.7%

66.7%

20

Stichting Binair Vector

I

6

0.0%

33.3%

100.0%

Systeem

4.4

Summary

The applicant with the most patent applications accounted for 5.4% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period. Six applicants (Pioneer Hi Bred, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer) each accounted for 2.5%-5.4% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, making them markedly larger than the other applicants, of which the University of California was the largest, with 1.8%. Together these six companies accounted for approximately

29

B=Biotechnology company, C=Chemical corporation, I=Intermediary organisation, R=Research organisation, S=company active in the area of seed breeding

Page 29 of 105

22.5% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. There cannot therefore be said to be any real monopoly in terms of numbers of patent applications. Dutch applicants play a relatively modest role. Among them Wageningen URC is the largest, with 0.9% of total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, placing it in sixteenth position in the league table. Looking at the companies’ profiles, we note that interest in DNA-related techniques among the top 20 largest international applicants is substantial, at over 83.3%. Dutch companies that have traditionally concerned themselves with seed breeding have more than average interest in processes in their profiles.

Page 30 of 105

5

Market Concentration in Patents

There is concentration in the plant breeding sector due to takeovers and mergers. The question is whether this ‘economic’ concentration is also reflected in R&D in the sector, hence in patent applications. The question this chapter sets out to answer is: “Are inventions increasingly being made by a relatively limited group of companies and organisations, with the result that intellectual property rights (IP rights) are increasingly falling into the hands of an ever smaller group of companies and organisations, enabling them to dominate the market?” The question of the concentration of IP rights is separate from that of where R&D is carried out. This study is only able to provide information on the legal entities in whose names IP rights (i.e. patents) are being applied for. There are a number of ways of ascertaining whether there is any concentration of e.g. intellectual property rights. Three angles have been selected in this chapter: (1) in the case of applicants with ten or more applications during the 1980-2008 period, the average number of patent applications per year and the maximum number of applications in any given year; (2) the proportion of the total accounted for by the 20 largest applicants; and (3) the Herfindahl index

5.1

Comments

Throughout this study, especially when looking at concentration of activities (if any), the question is to what extent changes in the ownership of companies can and should be taken into account. The situation is constantly changing as a result of takeovers, mergers, splits and liquidations. As this study is based on patent applications, an applicant is the company or organisation listed as such on the application. The name of an applicant as shown on the patent application has been treated as a unit for counting purposes. Any corrections to names have only been made to correct obvious errors.

g

In other words, mergers, liquidations, takeovers and splits are not reflected in the figures presented here, nor have any transfers of IP rights been taken into account.

5.2

Patent applications per applicant

There were 215 patent applicants to the WIPO or EPO with ten or more applications in the area of plant breeding during the 1980-2008 period. For these 215 applicants both the average number of applications in each year and the maximum number of applications by these applicants in that year were calculated. The results are shown as a graph in Fig. 11. These applicants accounted for 63.2% of total patent applications during the survey period. As Table 4 (p. 25) shows, together the six companies Pioneer Hi Bred, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer accounted for approximately 22.5% of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO: thus while they leave a substantial mark on the sector, there cannot be said to be any ‘real’ monopoly on the basis of numbers of applications.

Page 31 of 105

Average number of patent applications/applicant

90

5

75

4

60

3

45

2

30

1

15

0

Maximum number of patent applications/applicant

6

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Filing year Average number of patent applications per applicant Maximum number of patent applications per year

Fig. 11 Number of patent applications per applicant and maximum number of applications in any given year for applicants with ten or more applications in the 1980-2008 period

The peak in the maximum number of applications in 1998 and 1999 was accounted for by the company Pioneer Hi Bred. This peak also affects the average number of applications per applicant. Market concentration would mean fewer and fewer applicants accounting for an increasing proportion of applications. To prevent a structural decline in the absolute number of applications, the average number of applications per applicant would therefore have to increase. During the pre-2000 period we see an increase in average applications per applicant, which coincides with the sharp growth in the number of applications (Figs. 5 and 7). Since 2000 the average number of applications for these 215 applicants has ranged between 3.5 and 4.5 applications per applicant per year.

5.3

The twenty largest applicants

The top 20 patent applicants to the WIPO or EPO each made 71 or more applications over the entire 1980-2008 period. The maximum was 524 in the case of Pioneer Hi Bred Int. The proportion accounted for by these applicants, shown as ‘Coverage’ in the figure, has gradually increased from approximately 30% in the 1990s to just under 50% at present. The data is shown as a graph in Fig. 12. The proportion accounted for by the 20 applicants with the largest numbers of applications rose from 1980 to 2000. Since 2004 the level appears to have stabilized at around 47%.

Page 32 of 105

300

60% 50%

200

40% 30%

100

Coverage

Number of patent applications per year

70%

20% 10%

0

0% 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Filing year Patent applications from top 20 largest applicants C overage of top 20 largest applicants

Fig. 12 Top 20 largest patent applicants as regards total applications in the area of plant breeding filed with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period

5.4

Herfindahl index

To gain a better understanding of the concentration process, the Herfindahl index30 was calculated for the ‘Total’. This is used e.g. by the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to gauge market distortion due to mergers and takeovers. “The Herfindahl index (also known as Herfindahl–Hirschman Index), a term used in macroeconomics – in particular in the area of competition – is a measure of concentration (market share) in an industry. It can therefore be used to determine whether there is a monopoly or virtual monopoly, an oligopoly or a well distributed range of providers in an industry. The term ‘concentration ratio’ refers to the number of providers of goods or services in a particular industry.” The Herfindahl index (H) is the sum of the squares of the market shares. Where M1, M2, ... Mn are the relative market shares of all n providers in an industry, the index for that industry is: n

2

H = ∑M i i =1

(Source: Dutch Wikipedia)

30

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index or William A. Kelly Jr., A Generalized Interpretation of the Herfindahl Index, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Jul. 1981), pp. 50-57.

Page 33 of 105

The Herfindahl index (H) ranges from 0 to 1. It was decided when calculating the Herfindahl index only to include patent applicants with five or more applications during the 1980-2008 period, so as to ensure that it would not be affected by ‘occasional applicants’ (i.e. private persons, companies or organisations with very few applications). Over the entire period the selection (coverage) covers roughly 70% of total patent applications, from a total of 407 different applicants. The applications not included in this selection were made by a total of 2572 different applicants. The market shares of the 407 applicants were squared and then totalled.

0,5

100%

0,4

80%

0,3

60%

0,2

40%

0,1

20%

0,0

Coverage

Herfindahl-index

Fig. 13 shows both the Herfindahl index and the coverage of the selection. The figures for 1980-1982 are shown shaded, as the numbers of patent applications in those years were very small (less than five).

0% 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Filing year Limif for market disturbance Herfindahl-index C overage of the selected 407 applicants

Fig. 13 Herfindahl index and coverage of the selection of 407 applicants with five or more applications to the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period

The rule applied in the literature is that as long as H is less than 0.15 the ‘market’ is regarded is one without any major concentration. The value of H for the total area under consideration is less than 0.05. The Herfindahl index has been on the rise in recent years (since 2000), but whether this will continue in coming years is unclear, as since 1990 it has shown rising periods alternating with falling periods. It has not gone above 0.04 since 1986. Concentration has not reached a level such that the market can be said to be ‘distorted’. Based on the values found, there is no major concentration at present.

5.5

Summary

The average number of patent applications for the 215 applicants with ten or more applications to the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period has increased from Page 34 of 105

1.0 to 4.5. The twenty largest applicants have seen their market share rise from 30% in 1990 to just under 50% in 2008. The Herfindahl index calculated remains within a range such that there is no market distortion. Based on the analyses in this chapter it cannot therefore be concluded that there is a single company or organisation that dominates the market in terms of numbers of patent applications. It is the case, however, that the twenty largest applicants have increased their joint share over time from approximately 30% to just under 50% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. Since 2004 this joint share appears to have stabilized at a level around 47%. This chapter does not provide any information on market positions or any concentrations in specific sectors such as cotton, soya or maize, as discussed in the 2011 report Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and its Consequences for Innovation,6 the Executive Summary of which notes the following (p. 7): According to the economic analysis, the high levels of concentration in the US seed markets for cotton, maize and soybean have not had negative impacts on innovation over the last seventeen years; a period that coincided with the substantial adoption of GM technology by these US seed markets.

Page 35 of 105

6

Sub-area: Plant Breeding Processes

(for detailed information see Appendix VIII, p. 85)

‘Plant breeding processes’ refers to: • Processes for modifying genotypes31 The following are differentiated here: o Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination o Processes of selection o Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemical mutagens32 or with radiation • Processes for modifying phenotypes33 : o by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination o by treatment with chemicals • Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques

6.1 6.1.1

Trend Absolute numbers

Looking at the numbers of patent applications (Fig. 14) filed with the WIPO or EPO for processes in the area of plant breeding, we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. The precise cause of the step change cannot be ascertained from the data used. It may be due to the maturing of DNA techniques, causing an increase in activity in the entire area of plant breeding. A similar step change is also apparent in the other two sub-areas (Figs. 18 and 22). The vast majority of applications are from applicants in UPOV member countries. In the 2005-2008 period the proportion of applicants in the Netherlands was around 78%.

31

Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’ (the standard Dutch dictionary): genetic predisposition of human, animal or plant.

32

Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’: substances that cause mutations in the genetic DNA code. Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’: (heredity) the manifestation of living creatures that develops as a result of interaction between hereditary information (genotype) and the influencing environment.

33

Page 36 of 105

Patent applications per year

200

150

100

50

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 14 Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for processes

6.1.2

Trend

Until 2005 – with the exception of the 1990-1994 period – the numbers of applications to the WIPO or EPO from Dutch applicants lagged behind the general pattern (Fig. 15), but since then they seem to have recovered. Because of the small numbers for the Netherlands, a small change has relatively large effects. The clear peak around 2000 here too was due to biotechnology patents, as noted in §3.2 and note 10. 150 2005

%

100

50

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year

Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 15 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (processes), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

Page 37 of 105

6.2


Fig. 16 shows the origin of patent applications broken down by applicants’ domicile, namely into applications from one of the EU countries, the United States, Japan and other countries. JP 10%

Not EU, US, or JP 24%

EU 22%

US 44%

Fig. 16 Origin of patent applications for processes by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008

Fig. 17 shows the origin of all patent applications by individual country, thus refining the information shown in Fig. 16. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in third position, which it shares with the Federal Republic of Germany. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 44%. Japan is in second position, with 10% of applications.

NL 5%

DE 5%

GB 4%

CH 4%

AU 4%

BE 2%

CA 4% FR 3%

JP 10%

IL 2% CN 2% KR 2%

Other 16%

IN 2% Rest 7%

US 44%

Fig. 17 Origin of patent applications for plant breeding processes over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile Page 38 of 105

6.3

Patent applicants

6.3.1

Applicants: the international picture

The 20 applicants that submitted the most inventions in the area of processes related to plant breeding (applications filed with the WIPO or EPO) internationally over the entire period are shown in descending order in the table below. The University of California is in fourth position, after the three major companies of Monsanto, Pioneer Hi Bred Int and Syngenta. The list also includes other government-affiliated research organisations, such as the Australian Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis (6), the US Department of Agriculture (8), Cornell University (9) and the Canada Nat Res Council (13). No one applicant predominates. Table 9 Top 20 largest applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (processes) Company/Organisation


1

Monsanto Co

FR, GB, NL, US

125

4.2%

2

Pioneer Hi Bred Int

US

110

3.7%

3

Syngenta

AU, CH, GB, NL

73

2.5%

4

Uni California

US

65

2.2%

5

Du Pont de Nemours

US

62

2.1%

6

Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis

AU

37

1.2%

7

Bayer

BE, DE, FR

36

1.2%

8

US Dept Of Agriculture

US

35

1.2%

9

Cornell University

US

34

1.1%

10

Calgene Inc

AU, US

33

1.1%

11

BASF

DE, NL, US

32

1.1%

12

Japan Tobacco Inc

DE, JP

32

1.1%

13


CA

31

1.0%

14

Ciba Geigy

CH, GB, JP

30

1.0%

15

Weyerhaeuser Co

US

30

1.0%

16

Astrazeneca

GB, SE

28

0.9%

17

Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences

JP

26

0.9%

18

Seminis Vegetable Seeds

FR, US

26

0.9%

19


DE, FR

23

0.8%

20

Uni Rutgers

US

23

0.8%

6.3.2

Number of inventions (1980-2008)

Proportion of total

Dutch applicants

The top 20 Dutch applicants for processes in the area of plant breeding over the entire period are shown in Table 10. In terms of numbers these companies are much smaller than the major international companies and organisations (shown in Table 9), and the highest position they achieve in the international league table is 26th (Rijk Zwaan).

Page 39 of 105

Table 10 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants (processes) Company/Organisation

Number of inventions

1


18

2

Mogen Int (part of Syngenta AG)

15

3


12

4

Leiden University

11

5

Unilever

10

6

De Ruiter Seeds (part of Monsanto)

9

7


6

8


6

9

Bejo Zaden BV

5

10

Keygene NV (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.)

5

11

Nunhems BV

5

12

Gist Brocades

4

13

AVEBE NV

3

14

Florigene

3

15

Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis

3

16

Monsanto Co

3

17

Permx BV

3

18

Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A

3

19

Vereniging VU-Windesheim (board of trustees of VU University Amsterdam)

3

20

Bakker Joost Petrus Jacobus

2

6.4

Summary

The main difference from the overall picture described in Chapter 3 is that, looking at inventions in the sub-area of ‘Processes used in plant breeding’, we find different players coming to the fore in the case of the Netherlands. This is in line with the profiles as set out in §4.3. Internationally the pattern in this sub-area does not differ substantially from that of the total. The three main international players are Monsanto, Pioneer Hi Bred and Syngenta. Among the sixteen largest applicants are four research organisations, of which the University of California is the largest. The proportion of Dutch patent applicants in this sub-area does not differ markedly from that in the total. Rijk Zwaan is the largest Dutch applicant in this sub-area, in 26th position (see also Table 29, p. 88).

Page 40 of 105

7

Sub-area: Plant Breeding Products

(for detailed information see Appendix IX, p 92)

Plant breeding products are divided into: • Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms, subdivided into flowers, stems, roots, fruits, seeds and leaves • Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers • Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails • Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts • Algae • Fungi, Lichens, Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza

7.1 7.1.1

Trend Absolute numbers

Looking at the numbers of patent applications (Fig. 18) filed with the WIPO or EPO, we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques.


600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 18 Patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for plant breeding products

In addition to the step change there is a clear peak in the period around 2000. This was due to biotechnology patents, as noted in §3.2 and note 10. As patent applications often have several characteristic features there is some overlap

Page 41 of 105

between areas of technology, and biotechnology-related applications can therefore be found in the products sub-area.

7.1.2

Trend

Inventions originating with Dutch applicants display a more variable pattern than the total. This is due partly to the small numbers, as a result of which small changes can have large effects. There was a very sharp dip in Dutch inventions in 2003, the cause of which is not known. After 2003 the number of Dutch inventions returned to the original level.

200

150

%

2005 100

50

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 19 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (products), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

7.2


The two figures below (Figs. 20 and 21) show the origin of all patent applications in the area of plant breeding products during the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 5%. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 40%. Germany is in second position, with 10% of applications.

Page 42 of 105

JP 7% Not EU, US, or JP 20% EU 33%

US 40%

Fig. 20 Origin of patent applications for products by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008

GB 7%

NL 5%

JP 7%

CH 4%

FR 4%

CA 3%

BE 4% AU 4%

IL 2% DK 1% CN 1%

DE 10%

Other 15%

AT 1% ES 1% NZ 1% IN 1%

US 40%

KR 1% Rest 3%

Fig. 21 Origin of patent applications for plant breeding products over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile

7.3 7.3.1

Patent applicants Applicants: the international picture

Table 11 gives an overview of the top 20 international applicants that filed applications with the WIPO or EPO for products in the area of plant breeding. Among the companies are a number of research organisations, among which the University of California (Uni California) has the most applications to its credit, the number Page 43 of 105

amounting to about a third of that for the largest applicant, Pioneer Hi Bred Int. Wageningen URC is in 14th position internationally, with 65 applications.

Table 11 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (products)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Company/Organisation

Country where registered

Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l Monsanto Co Syngenta BASF Du Pont de Nemours Bayer Uni California Astrazeneca Cropdesign NV Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft Calgene Inc Canada Nat Res Council Wageningen URC (WURC) Ciba Geigy Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences Cornell University Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Dow Chemical Novartis

US DE, FR, GB, NL, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US DE, NL, US GB, US BE, DE, FR, US US GB, SE BE AU DE, FR AU, US CA NL CH, GB, JP JP US FR CA, US AT, CH, NL

7.3.2

Total applications 344 265 233 227 196 163 112 101 86 81 78 77 71 65 57 56 55 53 51 49

Proportion of total 5.8% 4.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.3% 2.7% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%

Dutch applicants

The table below gives an overview of the top 20 Dutch applicants that filed patent applications with the WIPO or EPO during the survey period. Each of them made five or more applications during that period. Table 12 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (products) Company/Organisation

Total applications

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wageningen URC (WURC) Mogen Int Unilever Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel AVEBE NV De Ruiter Seeds Leiden University

65 48 36 19 15 15 15

8

13

9

Syngenta (applications from the Netherlands) Keygene NV

10 11

Advanta Seeds BASF

Page 44 of 105

12 9 9


Total applications

12 13

Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Nunhems BV

9 9

14

Expressive Res BV

7

15

Bejo Zaden BV

6

16 17 18 19 20

STW Dun, Cornelis M P van Gist Brocades Haan, Petrus Theodorus de Heineken NV

6 5 5 5 5

7.4

Summary

The same Dutch companies come to the fore in this sub-area as in the overall picture described in Chapter 3. We do not see any striking differences from the overall picture internationally either. The inventions are accounted for mainly by a few large, mainly American, companies. The proportion of the total accounted for by Dutch patent applicants is small. Of the research organisations, the University of California is the largest applicant. In terms of numbers, Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant in this sub-area, in 14th position internationally.

Page 45 of 105

8

Sub-area: DNA techniques for Plant Breeding

(for detailed information see Appendix X, p 99)

Mutation or genetic engineering, DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification. Use of hosts for these processes. All the above geared to plant cells, including viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus and TI plasmids.

8.1

Trend

8.1.1

Absolute numbers

The numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 22) have been higher on average since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques. As in the other sub-areas, the number of applications peaks around the year 2000. This may be due to a change in the requirements for patenting biotechnology inventions that came into force in 2000. These more stringent requirements have resulted in a dip in the number of DNA-related patent applications (see also §3.2 and note 10). In terms of numbers, the Netherlands occupies a modest position, as can be seen from Fig. 22.


800

600

400

200

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 22 Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for DNA-related techniques

Page 46 of 105

8.1.2

Trend

The pattern of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO by Dutch companies and organisations is similar to that of other countries.

250

200

150

%

2005 100

50

0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Filing year Total


Dutch applicants

Fig. 23 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (DNA-related techniques), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)

8.2


The distribution by applicants’ domicile of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO in the sub-area of DNA techniques for plant breeding is shown in the two figures below. Fig. 24 breaks them down into applications from one of the EU countries, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. Fig. 25 shows their origin by applicants’ country of domicile. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 4%. In terms of percentages, the Netherlands performs less well in this sub-area than the other two sub-areas. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 41%. Applicants from Germany occupy second position, with 11% of applications.

Page 47 of 105

JP 6%

Not EU, US, or JP 23%

EU 30%

US 41%

Fig. 24 Origin of patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008

JP 6%

NL 4%

GB 7%

BE 4%

KR 2% CH 4%

FR 4%

IL 1% AU 3% CA 3%

DE 11%

Other 12%

DK 1% CN 1% NZ 1% AT 1% IN 1% ES 1% Rest 4%

US 41%

Fig. 25 Origin of patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile

Page 48 of 105

8.3

Patent applicants

8.3.1

Applicants: the international picture

The top 20 international applicants for applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for DNA techniques for plant breeding are shown in descending order in Table 13.

Table 13 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (DNA techniques) Company/Organisation


Total number of

Percentage of total

applications 1

Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l

US

486

6.1%

2

BASF

DE, NL, US

342

4.3%

3

Monsanto Co

DE, FR, GB,

335

4.2%

NL, US 4

Du Pont de Nemours

GB, US

332

4.2%

5

Syngenta

AU, CH, GB,

272

3.4%

6

Bayer

225

2.8%

NL, US BE, CA, DE, FR, US 7

Uni California

US

156

2.0%

8

Cropdesign NV

BE

132

1.7%

9

Calgene Inc

AU, US

111

1.4%

10

Astrazeneca

GB, SE

110

1.4%

11

Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis

AU

95

1.2%

12


CH, DE, FR

92

1.2%

13


CA

90

1.1%

14

Ceres Tech Inc

US

85

1.1%

15

Dow Chemical

CA, US

82

1.0%

16

Cornell University

US

81

1.0%

17


NL

80

1.0%

18

Ciba Geigy

CH, GB, JP

69

0.9%

19


GB

69

0.9%

20

Novartis

AT, CH, NL, US

63

0.8%

Page 49 of 105

8.3.2

Dutch applicants

The table below gives an overview of the top 20 Dutch applicants. These filed five or more patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding with the WIPO or EPO during the survey period. Apart from Wageningen URC, which comes first in the league table, Leiden University is notable in fourth position. In terms of number of applications, Wageningen URC is significantly larger than the other applicants.

Table 14 Major Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (DNA techniques) Company/Organisation

Total number of applications

1


80

2

Mogen Int

54

3

Unilever

49

4

Leiden University

28

5

Keygene NV

23

6

AVEBE NV

15

7

Syngenta

14

8

Expressive Res BV

11

9

Advanta Seeds

9

10

BASF

9

11

Gist Brocades

8

12

De Ruiter Seeds

7

13


7

14

Nunhems BV

6

15


6

16

STW

6

17

Dun, Cornelis M P van

5

18


5

19

Haan, Petrus Theodorus de

5

20

Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV

5

8.4

Summary

The main difference from the overall picture described in Chapter 3 is that, looking at inventions in the sub-area of DNA techniques for plant breeding, we find different players coming to the fore in the case of the Netherlands. The ‘seed improvers’ such as Rijk Zwaan and De Ruiter in particular occupy lower positions among the top 20 Dutch applicants in the sub-area of DNA techniques than in the overall picture. This is in line with the profiles as set out in §4.3, which show that these companies are lagging behind when it comes to developing inventions in the sub-area of DNA techniques compared with the other sub-areas. Internationally the pattern in this sub-area does not differ substantially from that of the total. The six main international players are Pioneer Hi Bred Intl, BASF Monsanto Page 50 of 105

Co, Du Pont de Nemours, Syngenta and Bayer. Among the top 20 largest applicants are seven research organisations, among which the University of California is the one with the most applications (156), making it twice as large as Wageningen URC. Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant, with a total of 80 applications during the survey period, placing it seventeenth in the international league table. Among the research organisations Leiden University also comes to the fore, with 28 applications.

Page 51 of 105

9

The Role of Dutch Inventors in International Corporations

In recent years there seems to have been concentration within the sector. Dutch companies too have been taken over and thus become part of large international corporations. The question is whether these takeovers have caused the innovatory influence of Dutch inventors to be lost from the sector.

This section attempts to outline the role of the Dutch operations of international corporations34 in the innovation process in the area of plant breeding by looking at inventors’ domicile. This involved looking at the number of inventions where at least one Dutch inventor is listed (the proportion of Dutch inventors) in patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO by Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF. These three are the only foreign companies in our selection that list Dutch inventors in their patent applications. The results for these three corporations are shown in Table 15. Syngenta has a significantly higher proportion of Dutch inventors listed in its applications than BASF or Monsanto. Syngenta, however, has made applications involving Dutch inventors since 1990, but stopped doing so from 2001. It is difficult to ascertain the cause, based on the information available. It may be that in Syngenta’s case Dutch inventors (in the sense of inventors domiciled in the Netherlands) have no longer been active since 2001; another possibility is that the inventors’ domicile has not been listed correctly. It has already been concluded in §3.1 that the pattern of activity of Dutch inventors not generally differ from that of all inventors in the sector. In view of the small number of patent applications concerned, they have not been broken down chronologically.

Table 15 The role of Dutch inventors in patent applications by BASF, Monsanto and Syngenta filed with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company

Total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

Number of patent applications involving Dutch inventors

BASF

356

9 (2,5%)

Monsanto Syngenta

375 303

7 (1,9%) 40 (13,2%)

34

Note

Since 1993. Maximum two per year, usually one or none. Since 2004. Since 1990.Ranges from none to nine per year. No applications crediting Dutch inventors since 2001.

See also §5.1 Comments (p. 35) for the names used and the fact that the effects of takeovers, liquidations, mergers etc. have not been included.

Page 52 of 105

10 The Nature Of The Dutch Applicants

This chapter sets out to answer two questions, giving a brief answer to the question ‘What are the characteristics of Dutch applicants?’ and making a start on answering the question ‘How dependent are Dutch applicants for patents in the area of plant breeding in terms of their IP positions?’. 10.1 Characteristics of Dutch applicants The table below gives an overview of the company descriptions of patent applicants listed as Dutch in the patent publications.

Table 16 Characteristics of Dutch companies and organisations with patent applications in the area of plant breeding to their credit 35


Description of company activities

Fa. A Verschoor

Floriculture; Cultivation of ornamental plants

ADP Internat BV

Research and development in the area of agriculture and fisheries

Advanta Seeds

(part of Limagrain) The name itself has been in existence since 1996, but the company developed from the wellestablished seed company of Van der Have, which has been active in such areas as cereals, grasses, onions and maize since 1879.

Akzo Nobel NV

Chemical corporation: in this context development and production of pharmaceutical products

AMC (Academic Medical Centre) Amsterdam

University-level higher education

Anglo Netherlands Grain BV

Wholesale trade in cereals

AVEBE NV

Manufacture of starch and starch products

BASF

(BASF Agrochemical Products B.V.) Manufacture and processing of and trade in colouring agents, chemical pharmaceutical and phytopharmaceutical products, plastics in the broadest sense, also activities connected with or conducive to these aims. Including agricultural chemicals

Bejo Zaden BV

Import/export, development, cultivation of and trade in vegetable seeds

Biogen

Wholesale trade in pharmaceutical products

Bromyc BV

Wholesale trade in seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes

Bruinsma Seeds BV

(part of Seminis Vegetable Seeds) Development and cultivation of and trade in vegetable seeds

Brunob II BV

Financial holding company

35

Based on the data in Bureau van Dijk’s Reach database and information on the companies’ websites.

Page 53 of 105

35



Chromagenics BV

Research and development in the area of health and nutrition

CNC – Coop. NL Champignonkwekers

Cooperative association of Dutch mushroom growers, part of C4C Holding B.V. C4C has a number of subsidiaries involved in (a) producing raw materials for the cultivation of mushrooms and (b) processing the cultivated mushrooms.

Crucell Holland BV

Biopharmaceutical company

Daco Invest NV

Investment company with headquarters in Wemmel (Belgium)

De Ruiter Seeds

(part of Monsanto) Cultivating garden and flower seeds

DSM NV

Relevant company unit: research into, production of, trade in and advice on biotechnology


Research and development of vegetable seed varieties; Processing and packaging of and wholesale trade in vegetable seeds

Expressive Res BV

Provision of services, scientific research, trade in know-how and knowledge, sale of products to companies, advice on and rental of equipment in the areas of biology and biotechnology Part of the Genetwister Group.

Florigene

(Dutch wing of Florigene Pty Ltd) biotechnology company specializing in the further development of flowers by means of genetic modification

Genetwister Technologies BV


Genoclipp Biotechnology BV


Gist Brocades

(subsidiary of DSM since 1998) Development and manufacture of and trade in food ingredients

Heineken NV

Manufacture of beer

Hom Consultancy BV

Management and finance consultancy

Incotec BV

Treatment of arable seeds for propagation and provision of biochemical services to the agro-food industry

Introgene BV

Biotechnology company

Jethar Deelnemingen BV

Venture capital company

Kemira

Chemical corporation active inter alia in the area of the production and distribution of fertilizers, chemicals and farming and horticultural products

Keygene NV

(wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.) Research and development in the area of molecular plant biotechnology and exploiting acquired knowledge


(subsidiary of Seminis, a division of Monsanto) Better known as Royal Sluis; engaged in the production and improvement of and trade in seeds


Petroleum extraction and refining/chemicals


Wholesale trade in potatoes, seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes

Leiden University Medical Center


Page 54 of 105



35

(LUMC) Mogen Int

(part of Syngenta AG) Research in the area of biological and industrial technology and genetics, production and marketing of health products, the acquisition, sale and issuing of patents, trademarks, industrial and intellectual property

Nickerson Zwaan

(part of the Limagrain group) Vegetable seed cultivation and selection

NSURE Holding BV

Testing and inspection of fresh agricultural and horticultural products (quality diagnosis) and development of the required tests

Nunhems BV

(wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG) Cultivating garden and flower seeds Wholesale trade in seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes

Permx BV

Research organisation affiliated with the WURC

Pharming BV

Phytovation BV

Research into, development of technologies for and feasibility studies into new products and technologies in the area of the development, production and marketing of health care products from the milk of transgenic animals Development and production of proteins by means of biotechnology processes and worldwide trade therein

Plant Production Systems BV (PPS-WU)

(part of WURC) PPS-WU’s main scientific research goal is the integration of knowledge to enable production systems to be analysed

Protanol BV

Scientific research into new applications for agricultural products

Quest Int

The Dutch wing of this company used to be called Chemische Fabriek Naarden, producer of aromas and flavourings. Now part of the Swiss corporation Givaudan

Radboud University Nijmegen


Recticel Holding Noord BV

Manufacturing plastic sheeting, foil, pipes and profiles


Commissioning, production, processing and packaging of seeds. Cultivating and developing agricultural and horticultural crops and research in that area

Royal Van der Have Group

Subsequently incorporated in Advanta Seeds (now part of Limagrain)

S & G Seeds BV

(part of Syngenta) Known as Zaadunie International until 1994. Production of high-grade seeds for professional growers

Seed Capital Invest - Sci 2 BV

Investment company

SON - Stichting Scheikundig

Other support funds nme

Page 55 of 105



35

Onderzoek Nederland Stichting Binair Vector Systeem

Other support funds nme36

Stichting Phytogenetics

Other scientific research and development

STW

Other support funds nme

Terra Nigra BV

Cultivation of ornamental plants (not trees or shrubs)

Tissue Culture Propagation Int

Not known

TNO

Research and development

Unilever

Biotechnology research and development in the area of medical products and pharmaceutical processes

Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC)


University Medical Centre Utrecht


Leiden University


Utrecht University


University of Amsterdam


UToC BV

Management of intellectual rights and intellectual property rights

Vereniging VU-Windesheim


Vitro Plus CV

Worldwide breeding, production, sale and marketing of source material from ferns

VU University Amsterdam




Western Seed

(part of Monsanto) Specializes in research into and development of tomato, paprika, melon, watermelon, cucumber, aubergine, squash and papaya varieties

Zaadunie BV

(part of Syngenta) See S & G Seeds

Zeneca Mogen BV

(part of Syngenta) Specializes in breeding of crops by means of genetic engineering, especially in the area of fungal control

10.2 Proportion of plant breeding in total IP37 positions The tables below show both the total patent positions of Dutch applicants and their positions in the area of plant breeding. In the case of international corporations, patent applications are only included if they are from the Netherlands, insofar as this is differentiated. The patent applicants are divided into four groups, each shown in a separate table. The column ‘Other’ shows the numbers of unique inventions that do not fall under

36

nme = not mentioned elsewhere

37

IP = Intellectual Property

Page 56 of 105

the heading of plant breeding. The numbers in this column are an approximation of reality, as no detailed check of errors in names etc. has been carried out. The four groups are: 1. Companies active in the area of seed improvement and biotechnology (Table 17) 2. Large (chemical) corporations (Table 18) 3. Intermediary organisations (Table 19) 4. Research organisations (Table 20)

Table 17 Numbers of inventions (1980-2008): seed improvement and biotechnology companies Proces ses

Produ cts

DNAtechni ques

Total plant breeding38

Other39

Proportion of plant breeding in Total

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)

(5)

(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}

Fa. A Verschoor

1

0

0

1

0

100%

ADP Internat BV

0

1

0

1

3

25%

Advanta Seeds

0

9

9

9

1

90%


0

1

1

1

0

AVEBE

3

15

15

18

99

15%

Bejo Zaden BV

5

6

2

7

1

88%

Biogen

1

1

1

1

51

Bromyc BV

0

1

0

1

0

100%

Bruinsma Seeds BV

0

1

1

1

0

100%

Brunob II BV

0

3

1

3

18

14%

Chromagenics BV

0

0

2

2

14

13%


0

1

0

1

2

Crucell Holland BV

1

2

1

4

140

Daco Invest NV

1

0

0

1

2

33%

De Ruiter Seeds

9

15

7

16

0

100%


6

9

5

12

0

Expressive Res BV

2

7

11

11

2

85%

Florigene

3

3

3

3

0

100%

Genetwister Technologies BV

1

1

1

1

0

Genoclipp Biotechnology BV

0

1

1

1

1

Gist Brocades

4

5

8

8

346

Hom Consultancy BV

0

1

0

1

0

100%

2%

33% 3%

100%

100% 50% 2% 100%

38

The number of unique inventions (patent families) in the area of plant breeding is not necessarily the simple sum of the various sub-areas.

39

The column ‘Other’ shows all inventions that do not fall under the heading of plant breeding. This is the best possible approximation of reality.

Page 57 of 105

Proces ses

Produ cts

DNAtechni ques


Other39


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)

(5)

(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}

Incotec BV

2

0

0

2

7

Introgene BV

0

1

0

1

55

Jethar Deelnemingen BV

2

0

0

2

1

Kemira

1

2

2

2

16

11%

Keygene NV

5

12

23

27

39

41%


3

0

0

3

2


2

3

5

5

2

Madaus AG

1

1

0

1

0

15

48

54

54

2

Monsanto Co

3

1

4

5

8

38%

Novartis

1

1

1

2

11

15%

NSURE Holding BV

0

0

1

1

1

50%

Nunhems BV

5

9

6

10

0

100%

Permx BV

3

0

0

3

1

75%

Pharming BV

1

0

1

2

28

Phytovation BV

0

0

1

1

4

Mogen Int/Zeneca Mogen

22% 2% 67%

60%

71%

100% 96%

7% 20%

Plant Production Systems BV

2

0

0

2

Protanol BV

0

0

1

1

0

Quest Int

0

2

0

2

287

Recticel Holding Noord BV

1

0

0

1

12

18

19

7

27

2

Royal Van der Have Group

0

3

3

3

1

S & G Seeds BV

2

2

0

2

0

Seed Capital Investments - SCI 2 BV

0

1

2

3

21

Syngenta

2

13

14

15

8

65%

Terra Nigra BV

0

2

0

2

0

100%

Tissue Culture Propagation Int

1

0

0

1

0

UToC BV

1

0

0

1

0

100%

Western Seed

1

1

1

2

1

67%

Zaadunie BV

1

1

0

1

0

100%

Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel/Nickerso n Zwaan

Page 58 of 105

0

100% 100% 1% 8% 93%

75% 100% 13%

100%

Table 18 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): Large (chemical) corporations Processes

Products

DNAtechniques


Other41

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)

(5)

Akzo Nobel NV

0

0

1

1

2850

0%

BASF

1

9

9

9

92

9%

DSM NV

1

4

4

6

3022

0%

Heineken

Proportion of plant breeding in Total (6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}

0

0

0

5

145

3%


12

3

3

14

4687

0%

Unilever

10

36

49

57

4702

1%

Table 19 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): intermediary organisations Processes

Products

DNA techniques


Other43


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)

(5)

(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}

SON Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland

0

2

2

2

8

20%


0

2

6

6

0

100%


0

1

1

1

0

100%

STW

1

6

6

8

212

4%

40


41


42


43


Page 59 of 105

Table 20 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): research organisations Processes

Products

DNA techniques


Other45


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)

(5)

(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}

AMC (Academic Medical Centre) Amsterdam

0

1

0

1

87

1%

Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)

0

0

2

2

72

3%

Radboud University Nijmegen

1

3

3

3

75

4%

TNO

2

3

3

5

1186

0%

UMC Utrecht

0

0

1

1

48

2%

Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC)

1

1

1

1

84

1%

Leiden University

11

15

28

29

170

15%

Utrecht University

0

3

4

4

103

4%

University of Amsterdam

1

1

1

1

80

1%

Vereniging VUWindesheim

3

3

3

3

49

6%


1

2

2

2

11

15%


2

18

21

23

92

20%

10.3 Summary There are a number of companies whose intellectual property position consists mainly or even entirely of patents in the area of plant breeding. These companies and organisations are vulnerable to changes in patent legislation, as they currently have no ways of diversifying into other sectors to establish intellectual property rights there.

44


45


Page 60 of 105

11 UPOV and PCT

Important international treaties in the area of plant breeders’ rights and patents are the UPOV Convention and the PCT. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) provides internationally harmonized legislation on plant breeders’ rights. In the 1990s a scheme was initiated in developing countries to provide protection for plant breeders that the initiators believed would be more in line with local interests and conditions. “Poor people live without fundamental freedoms of action and choice that the better-off take for granted.1 Within the IPR system of the WTO, this holds true in the case of developing countries’ farmers (poor people), and the developed countries’ breeders and commercial seed companies (better off).” 1

Sen, Amartya, 1999. Development as Freedom. New York, Knopf.

From SAWTEE46 Policy Brief, No. 10, Year 2004, IPRs and Alternative Models to Protect Farmers’ Rights47

This alternative to UPOV is also known as the Convention of Farmers and Breeders (CoFaB).48 Clearly, the countries that support the CoFaB initiative feel the need to protect plant breeders’ rights but consider that joining UPOV is not the right solution at present. India is regarded as the leader of this group of countries. On 9 August 2001 the Indian parliament passed the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, which other CoFaB countries are taking more or less as a model for legislation. Generally speaking, most countries, even those that are not members of UPOV, have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). For a list of the UPOV member countries see Appendix V. A list of the PCT member states can be found in Appendix IV. Based on these two lists, the following table of countries has been drawn up showing which of the two treaties they have signed (Table 21). This shows the situation at the time of writing. Among the larger countries it is noteworthy that Argentina has signed the UPOV Convention but not the PCT as yet. This is remarkable, as most countries with patent legislation have also signed the PCT. Table 22 gives an overview of the countries with national legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (PVP) and whether they are members of UPOV. It also shows in which countries the situation is unclear at present. Of the 31 countries in the table that have legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights, 19 are members of UPOV. The table is based on the information on the Farmers’ Rights website (April 2011)49 (see also Appendix VI, p. 75). No check was carried out on how comparable the various national plant breeders’ rights are or how they relate to the regulations under the UPOV Convention.

46

SAWTEE = South Asia Watch On Trade, Economics And Environment, (http://www.sawtee.org/)

47

http://www.sawtee.org/publications/Policy-Brief-12.pdf

48

See the Gene Campaign website (http://www.genecampaign.org/)

49

http://www.farmersrights.org/database/

Page 61 of 105

Table 21 Membership of UPOV and PCT (official English country names) Country Albania

UPOV member

PCT member

Country

UPOV member

PCT member

X

X

Country

UPOV member

PCT member

X

Germany

X

Peru

Algeria

X

Ghana

X

Philippines

Angola

X

Greece

X

Poland

X

X

Antigua and Barbuda

X

Grenada

X

Portugal

X

X

Guatemala

X

Qatar

X

Guinea

X

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

X

X

X

Republic of Moldova

X

X

Argentina

X

Armenia

X X

X

Australia

X

X

GuineaBissau

Austria

X

X

Honduras

X

Romania

X

X

Azerbaijan

X

X

Hungary

X

X

Russian Federation

X

X

Bahrain

X

Iceland

X

X

Rwanda

X

Barbados

X

India

X

Saint Kitts and Nevis

X

Belarus

X

X

Indonesia

X

Saint Lucia

X

Belgium

X

X

Ireland

X

X

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

X

Belize

X

Israel

X

X

San Marino

X

Benin

X

Italy

X

X

Sao Tome and Principe

X

X

Senegal

X

Serbia

X X

Bolivia

X

Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana

Japan

X

X

Jordan

X

X

Kazakhstan

X

Seychelles

Brazil

X

X

Kenya

X

X

Sierra Leone

Bulgaria

X

X

Kyrgyzstan

X

X

Singapore

X

X

Burkina Faso

X

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

X

Slovakia

X

X

Cameroon

X

Latvia

X

Slovenia

X

X

X

Lesotho

X

South Africa

X

X

Central African Republic

X

Liberia

X

Spain

X

X

Chad

X

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

X

Sri Lanka

X

X

Sudan

X

X

Swaziland

X

Canada

X

X

X

Chile

X

X

Liechtenstein

China

X

X

Lithuania

Colombia

X

X

Luxembourg

X

Sweden

X

X

Comoros

X

Madagascar

X

Switzerland

X

X

Congo

X

Malawi

X

Syrian Arab Republic

X

X

Malaysia

X

Tajikistan

X

X

Mali

X

Thailand

X

Costa Rica

X

Côte d’Ivoire

Page 62 of 105

X

UPOV member

PCT member

X

X

Malta

X

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

X

Cuba

X

Mauritania

X

Togo

X

Cyprus

X

Mexico

X

Trinidad and Tobago

X

X

X

Monaco

X

Tunisia

X

X

X

Mongolia

X

Turkey

X

X

X

Montenegro

X

Turkmenistan

X

X

Morocco

X

Uganda

X

Country Croatia

Czech Republic

X

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) Denmark

X

Dominica

Country

UPOV member

X

X

PCT member

Country

UPOV member

PCT member

Dominican Republic

X

X

Mozambique

X

Ukraine

Ecuador

X

X

Namibia

X

United Arab Emirates

Egypt

X

Netherlands

X

X

United Kingdom

El Salvador

X

New Zealand

X

X

United Republic of Tanzania

Equatorial Guinea

X

Nicaragua

X

X

United States of America

X

X

Niger

X

Uruguay

X

Nigeria

X

Uzbekistan

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Estonia

X

European Community (EU)

X

Finland

X

X

Norway

X

X

Vietnam

France

X

X

Oman

X

X

Zambia

X

Gabon

X

Panama

X

Zimbabwe

X

Gambia

X

Papua New Guinea

X

Paraguay

Georgia

X

X

X

Page 63 of 105

Table 22 Overview of countries with national legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights that differs from the UPOV Convention and whether they are members of UPOV Country

National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights and UPOV membership (as of 2011)

Argentina

UPOV member

X

Barbados

National plant breeders’ rights

X

National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (2011)

UPOV member (July 2011) X

not a UPOV member Belize


X

not a UPOV member Bolivia

UPOV member

X

X

Brazil

UPOV member

X

X

Chile

UPOV member

X

X

China

UPOV member

X

X

Colombia

UPOV member

X

X

Dom. Rep. Ecuador Hong Kong

?

X

UPOV member

X


X

X

not a UPOV member India


X

not a UPOV member Indonesia


X

not a UPOV member Jordan

?

Kenya

UPOV member

X

X

Korea, S

UPOV member

X

X

Mexico

UPOV member

X

X

Morocco

UPOV member

X

X

Nicaragua

UPOV member

X

X

Oman

UPOV member

X

X

Panama

UPOV member

X

X

Paraguay

UPOV member

X

X

Peru

UPOV member

X

X


X

Philippines

X

not a UPOV member South Africa Taiwan

UPOV member

X


X

not a UPOV member Tanzania


X

not a UPOV member Thailand

National plant breeders’ rights not a UPOV member

Page 64 of 105

X

X

Country

National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights and UPOV membership (as of 2011)

National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (2011)

UPOV member (July 2011)

Trinidad and Tobago

UPOV member

X

X

Tunisia

UPOV member

X

X

Uruguay

UPOV member

X

X


X

Venezuela

not a UPOV member Zimbabwe


X

not a UPOV member

Page 65 of 105

12 Conclusions

•

Most patents in the area of plant breeding are applied for by large companies with their headquarters in the United States.

•

There is no one applicant with a monopoly in terms of numbers of patent applications.

•

Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999) is the largest applicant, with 5.4% of total patent applications.

•

Although the number of applications from Dutch inventors or Dutch applicants is small, the Netherlands occupies a leading position.

•

Some Dutch companies’ patents relate solely to plant breeding, and they are therefore particularly vulnerable to changes in patent legislation in that area, which could affect their entire patent position.

•

The Netherlands generally comes fifth in the league table, but third in the case of patents for processes.

•

The Netherlands accounts for a relatively smaller proportion in the sub-area of DNA techniques than in the sub-areas of products and processes.

•

The proportion of patent applications to which inventors resident in the Netherlands contributed is similar to that of applications from applicants registered in the Netherlands.

•

Inventions credited to Dutch applicants have continued to lag behind those in the sector as a whole since the second half of the 1990s.

•

Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant for patents in the area of plant breeding.

•

The activity of Dutch inventors has remained nearly unchanged during the survey period. There is no apparent ‘knowledge drain’, which would be seen as a dip in the number of patent applications to which Dutch inventors have contributed. Some of the inventions by inventors domiciled in the Netherlands do however fall into foreign ownership.

•

Inventions for DNA techniques for plant breeding form the largest group, followed by those for plant breeding products.

•

The smallest number of patent applications is in the area of plant breeding processes.

•

Applicants from UPOV countries also apply for patent protection in the area of plant breeding.

Page 66 of 105

Appendices

In the tables in the Appendices showing international positions, data on Dutch applicants or Dutch inventors are highlighted with a background colour.

Page 67 of 105

Appendix I Description of Patent Categories Used

The following categories in the International Patent Classification (IPC) were used in the study to select the patent documents: Plant breeding processes and products Description of patent categories used: A01H New plants or processes for obtaining them, Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques Processes A01H 1/00 Processes for modifying genotypes A01H 1/02 . Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination A01H 1/04 . Processes of selection A01H 1/06 . Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemicals or with radiation (specific mutations prepared by genetic engineering on plant cell or plant tissues C12N 15/00) A01H 1/08 . Methods or apparatus for producing changes in chromosome number A01H 3/00 Processes for modifying phenotypes A01H 3/02 . by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination A01H 3/04 . by treatment with chemicals A01H 4/00 Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques Products A01H 5/00

Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms

A01H 5/02 . Flowers A01H 5/04 . Stems A01H 5/06 . Roots A01H 5/08 . Fruits A01H 5/10 . Seeds A01H 5/12 . Leaves A01H 7/00 Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers A01H 9/00 Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails of horse tail milk weeds??? A01H 11/00 Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts A01H 13/00 Algae (unicellular algae C12N 1/12) A01H 15/00 Fungi; Lichens (fungal micro-organisms C12N 1/14) A01H 17/00 Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza (lichens A01H 15/00)

Recombinant DNA technology The description of the patent categories used is as follows: C12N 15/00 Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts for these purposes. . Recombinant DNA technology . . Introduction of foreign genetic material using vectors; Vectors; Use of hosts for these purposes; Regulation of expression . . . Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts C12N 15/82 . . . . for plant cells C12N 15/83 . . . . . Viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus C12N 15/84 . . . . . Ti-plasmids

Page 68 of 105

Appendix II Acronyms for Organisations in the Area of Intellectual Property

Acronym

Description

EPO

European Patent Office, responsible for administering the European Patent Convention (EPC), known in Dutch as the Europees Octrooi Bureau (EOB).

EU

European Union. At the time of writing the following 27 countries were members: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom

NLOC

The NL Patent Office (NL Octrooicentrum) is a division of the NL Agency. As a Dutch government agency it is responsible for administering the Patents Act (Rijksoctrooiwet).

UPOV

Intergovernmental organisation responsible for administering the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which was signed in 1961 and amended in 1972, 1978 and 1991.

USPTO

United States Patent and Trademark Office, the unit of the American administration that grants patents, trademarks, etc.

WIPO

The World Intellectual Property Organisation is the United Nations body responsible for intellectual property rights, including patents. Responsible inter alia for administering the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Page 69 of 105

Appendix III Country Codes Used

The country codes used are in line with ISO50 standard 3166-1.51 The codes that occur in this report are listed in the table below.

Table 23 Country codes used Country

Country

code AT

Austria

AU

Australia

BE

Belgium

CA

Canada

CH

Switzerland

DE

Federal Republic of Germany

DK

Denmark

ES

Spain

FR

France

GB

United Kingdom

IL

Israel

IN

India

JP

Japan

NL

Netherlands

SE

Sweden

UA

Ukraine

US

United States

50

ISO: International Organisation for Standardization

51

See http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists.

Page 70 of 105

Appendix IV Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Contracting States

Page 71 of 105

Page 72 of 105

Appendix V UPOV Convention Member Countries

Page 73 of 105

Page 74 of 105

Appendix VI Intellectual Property Rights related to Agricultural Crops and UPOV Membership

The table below shows which countries have legislation on intellectual property related to agricultural crops and whether they are UPOV members. The table below is based on information in the Farmers’ Rights database (http://www.farmersrights.org/database) supplemented with information on UPOV membership as of 8 July 2011.

Key to terms and abbreviations used in Table 24 Farmers’ Rights

Legislation on farmers’ rights and community rights related to crop genetic resources

Cons. & sus. use

Legislation on conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources

Trad. knowl.

Traditional knowledge legislation

Access & benefits

Bioprospecting legislation with access and benefit-sharing provisions

Seed laws

Seed laws, including seed certification rules

PVP

Laws on plant variety protection, also called plant breeders’ rights legislation

Patent laws

Patent laws

O

Each symbol stands for one Act or regulation on the subject indicated in the country concerned.

Table 24 Intellectual property rights in the area of agricultural crops Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

Afghanistan African Union

Seed laws

PVP

O O

O

O

O

O

O O

O

No

O

No

Andorra

No O

No

Antigua/Barbuda Argentina

No YES

Algeria

Angola

UPOV member? (July 2011)

No

Albania Andean Community of Nations

Patent laws

No O

OO

O

YES

Page 75 of 105

Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

O

O

O

O

Seed laws

PVP

Armenia ASEAN

Patent laws


O

No

O

YES

No

Australia

OO

Austria

O

YES

Azerbaijan

O

YES

Bahamas

No

Bahrain

No

Bangladesh

OO

O

O

Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize

O

No

OO

No

O

No

O

YES

OO

No

Benin

No

Bhutan

O

Bolivia

O O

OO O

O

No

OO O

YES

Bosnia/Herzegovina

No

Botswana

O

Brazil

No O

O

O

OO

YES

O

YES

O

No

Brunei Darussalam

No

Bulgaria

O

Burkina Faso

O

Burundi

O

O

OO

O

No

Cambodia

No

Cameroon

O

Canada

O

No

OO

YES

Cape Verde

No

Central African Republic

No

Chile

OO

YES

China

O O

OO O

YES

Colombia

O

O

YES

O

O

YES

Comoros Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire

No O

O

OO

O

Croatia Cuba

O OO

O

O

Cyprus Czech Republic

No O

YES O

O

YES No No

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

No

Democratic Republic of the Congo

No

Page 76 of 105

Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

Seed laws

Denmark

PVP

Patent laws


OO O

O

YES

Djibouti

No

Dominica

O

No

Dominican Republic

O

YES

Ecuador

O

O

O

Egypt

O

El Salvador

YES O

No

O

No

Equatorial Guinea

No

Eritrea

No

Estonia Ethiopia

O

European Union

O

O

O

O

O

O

YES

O

O

No

OO

OO

YES

OO

OO

YES

OO

YES

Fiji Finland France Gabon

No

Gambia

No

Georgia

O

Germany

OO

O

YES

O

YES

Ghana

No

Greece

O

O

O

No

Grenada

No

Guatemala

O

No

Guinea

No

Guinea-Bissau

No

Guyana

O

No

Haiti

No

Honduras

O

Hungary

No O

O

YES

Iceland India

YES OO

O

OO

OO

Indonesia Iran

O

OO

OOO O

No

O

No

O

No

Iraq

O

O

No

Ireland

O

O

YES

Israel

O

YES

Italy

O

YES

Jamaica Japan

No OO

Jordan

OO

YES

O

YES

Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati

No O

OO

No No

Page 77 of 105

Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

Seed laws

PVP

Patent laws

Kosovo


No

Kuwait

No

Kyrgyzstan

O

YES

O

YES

Laos Latvia Lebanon

No

Lesotho

No

Liberia

No

Libya

No

Liechtenstein

O

Lithuania Luxembourg

O

O

YES

O

No

Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of

No

Madagascar

No

Malawi Malaysia

No

O

OO

O

O

No O

No

Maldives

No

Mali

No

Malta

OO

No

Marshall Islands

No

Mauritania

OO

Mauritius Mexico

OO

No O

No

OO

YES

Micronesia, Federated States of

No

Moldova

O

YES

Monaco

No

Mongolia

O

Montenegro

No No

Morocco

O

Mozambique

O

O

YES No

Myanmar (Burma)

No

Namibia

No

Nauru Nepal Netherlands

No O

OO

O

OO

OO O O

New Zealand

Nicaragua Niger Page 78 of 105

O

No O

YES

OO OO OO O

YES

O

YES No

Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

Seed laws

Nigeria

O

Norway

O

Oman Pakistan

O

O

O

O

PVP

Patent laws


No OO

YES

O

YES

O

No

Palau

No

Palestinian Territories

No

Panama

O

OO

YES

OO

YES

Papua New Guinea

No

Paraguay

OO

Peru

O

YES

OO

O

No

Poland

O

OO

YES

Portugal

O

OO

YES

Republic of China (Taiwan)

OO

OO

No

Republic of Korea (South Korea)

O

O

YES

Philippines

OOO

OO

O

O

OO

OO

Qatar

No

Republic of the Congo

No

Romania Russian Federation

OO

YES

O

YES

Rwanda

No

Saint Kitts/Nevis

No

Saint Lucia

O

No

Saint Vincent/the Grenadines

No

Samoa

No

San Marino

No

Sao Tome and Principe

No

Saudi Arabia

OO

Senegal

OO

O

O

No No

Serbia

No

Seychelles

No

Sierra Leone

No

Singapore

O

O

YES

Slovakia

O

YES

Slovenia

OO

YES

Solomon Islands

No

Somalia

No

South Africa

O

O

O

Spain Sri Lanka Sudan

O

OO O

YES

OO

YES

O

No No Page 79 of 105

Farmers’ Rights

Cons. & sus. use

Trad. knowl.

Access & benefits

Seed laws

PVP

Patent laws

Surinam


No

Swaziland

No

Sweden

O

Switzerland

OO OO

Syria

OOO

YES YES No

Tajikistan

O

O

No

Tanzania

O

O

No

Chad Thailand

No O

O

O

No

Timor-Leste

No

Togo

No

Tonga

No

Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia

O

Turkey Turkmenistan

OO

YES

OO

YES

O

YES

O

No

Tuvalu

No

Uganda

O

O

Ukraine

No O

United Arab Emirates

YES No

O O O O

O O O O

United Kingdom

O

Uruguay

O

O

YES

USA

O

OO OO

YES

O

YES

Uzbekistan Vanuatu

No

Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam

No O OO O

O

O O

No OO

Western Sahara

Zimbabwe

Page 80 of 105

YES No

Yemen Zambia

YES

No OO

O

No

O

O

No

Appendix VII The Role of Dutch Applicants and Inventors

Table 25 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) of which via EPO53 (EP publications)

Patent applications worldwide52 Year of application

All applic ants

of which from Dutch applicants55

(numb er)

(number)

1980

391

2

1981

318

1982

(%)

All applicants

via NLOC54 (NL publications)


All applicant s


(number)

(number)

(number)

(%)

(number)

(%)

0.5

9

2.3

2

22.2

1

0

0.0

5

1.6

6

1.9

0

0.0

2

0

0.0

360

4

1.1

8

2.2

1

12.5

4

1

25.0

1983

589

31

5.3

44

7.5

3

6.8

3

2

66.7

1984

586

10

1.7

45

7.7

3

6.7

5

3

60.0

1985

601

6

1.0

47

7.8

1

2.1

1

1

100.0

1986

796

35

4.4

88

11.1

3

3.4

2

1

50.0

1987

1031

11

1.1

80

7.8

0

0.0

8

1

12.5

1988

1224

7

0.6

103

8.4

6

5.8

5

3

60.0

1989

1172

24

2.0

111

9.5

7

6.3

8

6

75.0

1990

1276

37

2.9

151

11.8

13

8.6

7

6

85.7

1991

1233

32

2.6

135

10.9

10

7.4

6

4

66.7

1992

1153

44

3.8

136

11.8

12

8.8

3

2

66.7

1993

1048

55

5.2

160

15.3

10

6.3

5

1

20.0

1994

1184

60

5.1

175

14.8

6

3.4

4

3

75.0

1995

1486

86

5.8

216

14.5

8

3.7

4

3

75.0

1996

1819

103

5.7

296

16.3

25

8.4

8

5

62.5

1997

2066

123

6.0

380

18.4

15

3.9

4

3

75.0

1998

2593

121

4.7

466

18.0

17

3.6

8

6

75.0

1999

2696

86

3.2

512

19.0

26

5.1

3

2

66.7

52

The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible.

53

Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.

54

Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands).

55

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 56 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 57

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

Page 81 of 105

(%)

Table 25 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants (continuation) of which via EPO59 (EP publications)


All applicants


All applicants

via NLOC60 (NL publications)


All applicants


(number)

(number)

(%)

(number)

(%)

(number)

(%)

(number)

(number)

2000

2575

92

3.6

466

18.1

24

5.2

6

3

50.0

2001

2845

150

5.3

403

14.2

18

4.5

5

4

80.0

2002

2982

169

5.7

333

11.2

17

5.1

5

5

100.0

2003

2760

140

5.1

336

12.2

7

2.1

3

3

100.0

2004

3052

205

6.7

367

12.0

20

5.4

3

2

66.7

2005

3102

287

9.3

324

10.4

23

7.1

2

1

50.0

2006

3058

245

8.0

300

9.8

15

5.0

4

3

75.0

2007

3038

191

6.3

363

11.9

24

6.6

6

5

83.3

2008

3013

211

7.0

46

1.5

8

17.4

3

3

100.0

Total

50047

2572

5.1

6106

12.2

82

64.1

324

5.3

128

58


59


60


61

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

62

63

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

Page 82 of 105

(%)

Table 26 Inventions and the role of Dutch inventors (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications worldwide64 Year of application

All inventors

(number)

of which from Dutch inventors66 (number)

(%)

of which via EPO65 (EP publications) All inventors

(number)

of which from Dutch inventors67

(%)

(number)

(%)

1980

391

2

0.5

9

2.3

0

0.0

1981

318

5

1.6

6

1.9

0

0.0

1982

360

4

1.1

8

2.2

1

12.5

1983

589

31

5.3

44

7.5

3

6.8

1984

586

10

1.7

45

7.7

3

6.7

1985

601

6

1.0

47

7.8

1

2.1

1986

796

35

4.4

88

11.1

1

1.1

1987

1031

11

1.1

80

7.8

1

1.3

1988

1224

7

0.6

103

8.4

4

3.9

1989

1172

24

2.0

111

9.5

8

7.2

1990

1276

37

2.9

151

11.8

12

7.9

1991

1233

32

2.6

135

10.9

12

8.9

1992

1153

44

3.8

136

11.8

11

8.1

1993

1048

55

5.2

160

15.3

16

10.0

1994

1184

60

5.1

175

14.8

8

4.6

1995

1486

86

5.8

216

14.5

10

4.6

1996

1819

103

5.7

296

16.3

19

6.4

1997

2066

123

6.0

380

18.4

13

3.4

1998

2593

121

4.7

466

18.0

19

4.1

1999

2696

86

3.2

512

19.0

28

5.5

2000

2575

92

3.6

466

18.1

29

6.2

2001

2845

150

5.3

403

14.2

28

7.0

2002

2982

169

5.7

333

11.2

16

4.8

2003

2760

140

5.1

336

12.2

10

3.0

2004

3052

205

6.7

367

12.0

26

7.1

64


65


66

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch inventor in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

67

This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch inventor filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

Page 83 of 105


All inventors

(number)

of which from Dutch inventors66 (number)

(%)

of which via EPO65 (EP publications) All inventors

(number)

of which from Dutch inventors67

(%)

(number)

(%)

2005

3102

287

9.3

324

10.4

27

8.3

2006

3058

245

8.0

300

9.8

14

4.7

2007

3038

191

6.3

363

11.9

25

6.9

2008

3013

211

7.0

46

1.5

4

9.5

Total

50047

2572

5.1

6106

12.2

349

5.7

Page 84 of 105

Appendix VIII Plant Breeding Processes

Definition ‘Plant breeding processes’ refers to: •

•

•

Processes for modifying genotypes. The following are differentiated: o

Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination

o

Processes of selection

o

Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemical mutagens or with radiation

Processes for modifying phenotypes: o

by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination

o

by treatment with chemicals

Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques

Trend Table 27 Numbers of patent families (Total)

68

(data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent families worldwide [1] Year of applicati on

68

of which via EPO or WIPO [2] (EP or WO publications)

of which from Dutch applicants [4]

of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)


of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)



1980

121

2

9

2

9

2

1

0

1981

75

0

6

0

6

0

2

0

1982

76

2

8

1

7

1

4

1

1983

162

5

34

3

35

3

3

2

1984

199

4

38

3

38

3

5

3

1985

214

1

37

1

37

1

1

1

1986

340

2

76

1

72

1

2

1

1987

395

4

71

62

0

7

1

1988

521

7

90

6

72

6

4

3

1989

484

11

70

4

51

4

5

5

[1]


[2] Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO or WIPO (PCT applications). There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated. [3]


[4] This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. [5] This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.

Page 85 of 105

Patent families worldwide [1] Year of applicati on

of which via EPO or WIPO [2] (EP or WO publications)







1990

540

21

109

11

85

9

4

4

1991

420

11

75

6

51

5

3

2

1992

450

16

74

9

51

5

2

2

1993

344

8

78

8

50

4

4

0

1994

380

6

66

3

39

1

2

1

1995

475

10

94

6

67

3

3

2

1996

532

11

84

5

57

3

5

3

1997

686

17

150

5

90

1

3

3

1998

918

8

152

3

76

1

2

1

1999

982

9

190

4

117

3

2

1

2000

972

14

150

5

79

3

4

1

2001

1014

18

166

6

86

3

4

3

2002

1189

19

153

5

86

5

4

4

2003

1234

6

146

1

91

0

2

2

2004

1182

13

164

7

72

6

2

2

2005

1201

24

147

11

63

7

2

1

2006

1334

18

145

11

71

7

4

3

2007

1375

28

184

13

96

7

3

3

2008

1340

18

170

12

9

4

3

3

19155

313

2936

152

1725

98

92

58

Total

Table 28 Applications from UPOV countries69 (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent families worldwide [1]

of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications))

Year of application






1980

100

9

2

9

2

1

0

1981

53

6

0

6

0

2

0

1982

60

8

1

7

1

4

1

1983

133

34

3

34

3

3

2

1984

141

37

3

37

3

5

3

1985

149

37

1

37

1

1

1

1986

221

73

1

72

1

2

1

1987

250

67

0

62

0

7

1

1988

329

85

6

72

6

4

3

1989

308

69

4

50

4

5

5

1990

394

96

11

85

9

4

4

1991

273

70

6

51

5

3

2

1992

263

64

9

51

5

2

2

1993

234

64

8

50

4

4

0

1994

288

56

3

39

1

2

1

Page 86 of 105

Patent families worldwide [1]

of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications))

Year of application






1995

362

89

6

67

3

2

2

1996

397

79

5

57

3

5

3

1997

566

146

5

90

1

3

3

1998

734

140

3

76

1

2

1

1999

780

179

4

115

3

2

1

2000

744

142

5

74

3

3

1

2001

729

154

6

85

3

4

3

2002

926

146

5

84

5

4

4

2003

987

140

1

90

0

2

2

2004

936

162

7

71

6

2

2

2005

1021

142

11

61

7

1

1

2006

1157

140

11

67

7

3

3

2007

1223

170

13

93

7

3

3

2008 Total

1007

166

12

9

4

3

3

14765

2770

152

1701

98

88

58

Page 87 of 105

Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 63 applicants with ten or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period.

Table 29 Top 63 applicants with ten or more applications69 in the 1980-2008 period (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Orga Domicil Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 nisation e of applica – – – applica tions 1989 1999 2004 nt 1 Monsanto Co FR, GB, 125 15 17 42 7 14 20 9 NL, US 2 Pioneer Hi Bred US 110 8 45 31 6 4 3 12 Int’l 3 Syngenta AU, CH, 73 2 22 31 4 4 5 5 GB, NL 4 Uni California US 65 0 37 17 5 1 2 3 5 Du Pont de US 62 4 21 24 3 3 2 4 Nemours 6 Commw Scient & AU 37 3 16 11 4 2 0 1 Ind Res Organis 7 Bayer BE, DE, 36 2 20 10 2 1 1 0 FR 8 US Dept Of US 35 0 22 5 1 4 2 1 Agriculture 9 Cornell US 34 6 19 7 0 1 1 0 University 10 Calgene Inc AU, US 33 15 17 1 0 0 0 0 11 BASF DE, NL, 32 0 9 16 0 2 1 4 US 12 Japan Tobacco DE, JP 32 0 18 9 0 1 3 1 Inc 13 Canada Nat Res CA 31 1 8 8 5 4 3 2 Council 14 Ciba Geigy CH, GB, 30 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 JP 15 Weyerhaeuser US 30 4 13 8 0 0 5 0 Co 16 Astrazeneca GB, SE 28 9 19 0 0 0 0 0 17 Nat Inst of JP 26 0 4 13 0 1 4 3 Agrobiological Sciences 18 Seminis FR, US 26 1 6 10 2 1 3 3 Vegetable Seeds 19 Max Planck DE, FR 23 7 10 4 0 0 0 0 Gesellschaft 20 Uni Rutgers US 23 1 19 1 0 0 0 2 21 Agronomique FR 22 7 5 5 1 1 0 2 Inst Nat Rech 22 Dow Chemical US 20 1 5 10 1 1 0 2 23 Plant Genetic BE 20 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 Systems NV 24 DNA Plant Techn US 19 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 Corp 25 Ceres Tech Inc US 18 0 1 5 1 0 0 11 26 Rijk Zwaan NL 18 0 2 2 5 4 2 3

69

Patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO

Page 88 of 105

Company/Orga nisation

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53

54 55

56 57 58

Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel Novartis Gen Hospital Corp Lubrizol Genetics Inc Mitsui Chemicals Inc Rhône-Poulenc Uni Florida Kirin Holding Mogen Int Uni Washington Sungene Univ North Carolina State Israel State Riken Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Yeda Res and Dev Corp Ltd Agrigenetics Corp Cropdesign NV Hoechst Group ICI Ltd Royal Dutch Shell Group Sandoz Univ Michigan State Cargill Inc CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique Grains Res & Dev Corp Japan Science & Tech Agency Mendel Biotechnology Inc Purdue Res Found Salk Inst for Biological Studies Sapporo Breweries Temasek Life Sciences Lab Ltd Unilever

Domicil e of applica nt

Total applica tions

1980 – 1989

1990 – 1999

2000 – 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

AT, CH, NL US

17

1

15

1

0

0

0

0

16

5

8

3

0

0

0

0

US

16

15

1

0

0

0

0

0

JP

16

16

0

0

0

0

0

0

FR, GB US JP NL US DE, US US

16 16 15 15 15 14 14

5 2 2 2 1 12 0

11 5 8 13 10 0 11

0 6 1 0 1 2 2

0 0 2 0 0 0 1

0 1 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 1 0 1 0 0

IL JP US

13 13 13

0 0 1

6 0 7

4 4 5

2 0 0

0 2 0

1 4 0

0 2 0

IL

13

1

6

5

1

0

0

0

US

12

9

2

0

0

1

0

0

BE DE AU, GB NL

12 12 12 12

0 6 7 4

4 6 5 3

6 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

AT, CH, DE US

12

1

11

0

0

0

0

0

12

0

4

4

1

0

2

1

US FR

11 11

0 1

9 3

2 5

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 1

AU

11

0

2

3

2

4

0

0

JP

11

0

1

5

1

3

1

0

US

11

0

3

3

1

2

2

0

US

11

1

7

2

0

0

0

0

US

11

2

7

1

0

0

0

1

JP

11

0

7

3

0

1

0

0

SG

11

0

2

2

0

1

1

4

GB, IN, NL NL

11

1

7

0

0

0

3

0

11

9

1

0

0

1

0

0

59

Leiden University

60 61

Agrinomics Llc Council of Scient & Ind Res

US IN

10 10

0 0

0 0

6 9

0 1

4 0

0 0

0 0

62


GB

10

0

8

1

1

0

0

0

63

Yissum Res Dev Corp

IL

10

1

6

2

0

0

0

1

Page 89 of 105

Table 30 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel Mogen Int Royal Dutch Shell Group Leiden University Unilever De Ruiter Seeds Wageningen URC (WURC) Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Bejo Zaden BV Keygene NV Nunhems BV Gist Brocades AVEBE Florigene Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis Monsanto Co Permx BV Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A Vereniging VUWindesheim Expressive Res BV Incotec BV Jethar Deelnemingen BV Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV Nickerson Plant Production Systems BV S & G Seeds BV Syngenta TNO Fa. A Verschoor BASF Biogen Boer, Anne Douwe de Bongers, Henricus Chretien Mari Carree, Franciscus Hermanus Colijn-Hooymans, Caterina Maria Crucell Holland BV Daco Invest NV Den Bosch, Franciscus Gerardus Elzen, Peter J M van den Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter Dijk, Magdalana Maria Gerarda v Doorn, Johannes Elizabert van DSM NV Dun, Cornelis M P van Elsenga-Boersma, Annemarie Eveleens, Leo Anne Genetwister Technologies BV Grosveld, Frank Haan, Petrus Theodorus de Hilhorst, Hendrikus Wilhelmus M Holman, Edwin Henricus

Page 90 of 105

Total applications

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

18

0

2

2

5

4

2

3

15 12 11 10 9

2 4 9 0 0

13 3 1 7 0

0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 2

0 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 3 3

0 0 0 0 0

9

0

2

4

0

2

1

0

6

0

2

0

2

1

0

1

5 5 5 4 3 3

0 0 1 0 0 0

1 0 4 4 2 3

1 0 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0

1 3 0 0 0 0

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3 3

0 2

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 0

1 0

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

2 2 2

0 0 2

2 2 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2 2 2 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 1 0 0 1

0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1 1

0 0

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1 1

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1


52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Antonius Jong, Cornelis Jacob de Kemira Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd Krause, Klaus Peter Madaus AG Nijs, Johannes Jacobus Maria de Novartis Oosterwijk, Simone Adriana M. Pharming BV Radboud University Nijmegen Recticel Holding Noord BV Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes Schrijver, Albertus Johannes M. STW Tissue Culture Propagation Int Toorn, Peter v.d. Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam UToC BV Van den Enden, Johannes Henriku Van den Heuvel, Johannes Franciscus Johanna Maria Van der Vlugt, Rene Andries Antonius Van Paassen, Martinus Quirinus Visser S Gravendeel Holding Vitro Plus CV Voermans, Wilhelmus Petrus Adri VU University Amsterdam Western Seed Zaadunie BV Zeeuw, Eveline Johanna v.d.

Total applications

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1 1

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1 1

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1 1

0 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1 1 1

0 0 0

0 0 1

0 0 0

1 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Page 91 of 105

Appendix IX Plant Breeding Products

Definition Plant breeding products are divided into: • Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms, subdivided into flowers, stems, roots, fruits, seeds and leaves • Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers • Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails (of horse-tail milkweeds?) • Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts • Algae • Fungi, Lichens, Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza

Trend Table 31 Numbers of patent applications (Total)69 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications worldwide [1]

of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications)


Year of application






1980

274

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1981

245

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

1982

286

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1983

434

27

13

2

13

2

3

2

1984

417

5

17

0

16

0

2

0

1985

404

6

15

1

15

1

1

1

1986

491

32

45

2

45

2

1

0

1987

672

10

37

0

35

0

1

0

1988

739

7

52

3

49

3

2

1

1989

713

14

75

3

67

3

1

1

1990

842

27

108

10

95

8

3

2

1991

882

27

119

8

92

5

2

0

1992

794

34

125

18

96

11

3

2

1993

768

53

148

17

115

9

4

1

1994

920

55

157

10

133

5

1

1

1995

1178

78

197

12

157

5

1

1

1996

1447

94

271

25

217

20

4

3

1997

1612

110

352

19

260

11

2

1

1998

1963

118

485

29

342

15

4

2

1999

2076

81

539

35

358

23

0

0

2000

1951

87

478

29

300

16

2

1

2001

2178

134

411

16

261

8

4

4

2002

2242

156

349

16

213

11

1

1

2003

1991

134

319

4

175

3

1

1

2004

2303

197

340

18

212

16

0

0

Page 92 of 105

Patent applications worldwide [1]

of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications)


Year of application






2005

2278

276

305

19

178

14

2

1

2006

2223

240

258

14

136

11

3

3

2007

2251

175

340

16

194

12

4

4

2008

2293

195

324

18

24

7

2

2

Total

36867

2380

5881

345

3800

222

55

36

Table 32 Numbers of patent families from UPOV countries

69

(data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent of which via EPO or of which via EPO [2] applications WIPO [2] (EP or (EP publications) worldwide WO publications) [1] of which from of which from Year of Dutch Dutch application applicants applicants [4] [4]

of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications) of which from Dutch applicants [5]

1980

187

0

0

0

0

0

0

1981

174

0

0

0

0

0

0

1982

226

2

1

2

1

1

1

1983

337

12

2

12

2

3

2

1984

273

17

0

16

0

2

0

1985

278

15

1

15

1

1

1

1986

354

45

2

45

2

1

0

1987

190

37

0

35

0

1

0

1988

176

52

3

49

3

2

1

1989

221

75

3

67

3

1

1

1990

326

108

10

95

8

3

2

1991

425

119

8

92

5

2

0

1992

636

124

18

95

11

3

2

1993

676

148

17

115

9

4

1

1994

794

157

10

133

5

1

1

1995

1021

197

12

157

5

1

1

1996

1223

271

25

217

20

4

3

1997

1322

352

19

260

11

2

1

1998

1656

485

29

342

15

4

2

1999

1714

536

35

356

23

0

0

2000

1544

474

29

296

16

2

1

2001

1708

410

16

261

8

4

4

2002

1807

344

16

211

11

1

1

2003

1595

314

4

171

3

1

1

2004

1865

336

18

211

16

0

0

2005

1843

300

19

173

14

1

1

2006

1729

253

14

133

11

3

3

2007

1758

333

16

193

12

4

4

2008

1644

317

18

24

7

2

2

27702

5833

345

3776

222

54

36

Total

Page 93 of 105

Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 61 applicants with 21 or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period. Table 33 Top 61 applicants with 21 or more applications70 in the 1980–2008 period

1

(data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Organisation Domicile Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 of applications – – – applicant 1989 1999 2004 Pioneer Hi Bred Int US 344 8 182 90 11 12 20

2

Monsanto Co

3

Syngenta

4

BASF

5 6

Du Pont de Nemours Bayer

7 8 9 10

DE, FR, GB, NL, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US DE, NL, US GB, US BE, DE, FR, US US GB, SE BE AU

2008

17

265

13

65

95

16

23

24

24

233

5

95

87

14

5

13

11

227

0

40

81

26

16

34

26

196 163

9 5

82 67

58 57

7 16

7 5

17 6

13 6

112 101 86 81

1 8 0 3

60 93 22 35

31 0 40 25

5 0 10 3

5 0 3 5

1 0 11 2

4 0 0 8

DE, FR AU, US CA

78 77 71

5 11 0

54 61 33

16 5 17

1 0 7

1 0 2

0 0 8

1 0 3

11 12 13

Uni California Astrazeneca Cropdesign NV Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft Calgene Inc Canada Nat Res Council

14


NL

65

0

40

14

4

5

2

0

15

Ciba Geigy

57

20

37

0

0

0

0

0

16

56

0

12

28

3

1

4

6

US FR

55 53

5 3

30 25

15 19

4 0

1 2

0 1

0 3

19 20

Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences Cornell University Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Dow Chemical Novartis

CH, GB, JP JP

51 49

0 2

16 45

15 2

2 0

2 0

5 0

10 0

21


CA, US AT, CH, NL GB

49

0

29

12

2

2

3

1

22 23

Mogen Int US Dept Of Agriculture

NL US

48 48

2 0

46 25

0 11

0 3

0 5

0 2

0 1

24 25 26

Biogemma Agrinomics Llc Unilever

46 43 42

0 0 3

21 0 30

18 36 8

2 1 0

2 5 0

2 1 1

1 0 0

27 28

Hoechst Group Plant Genetic Systems NV

FR, GB US DK, GB, IN, NL DE BE

41 41

8 12

33 29

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

29

FR

40

1

16

17

0

3

1

2

AU, GB ES

40 39

12 0

28 9

0 14

0 2

0 3

0 4

0 3

32 33

CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique ICI Ltd Consejo Superior Investigacion Uni Florida Sanofi-Aventis

US DE, FR

38 37

0 0

22 25

14 12

0 0

0 0

1 0

1 0

34

Seminis Vegetable Seeds

US

36

1

13

10

4

2

2

4

35

Icon Genetics

DE, US

35

0

3

30

0

0

1

1

36

Rhône-Poulenc

FR, GB

34

7

27

0

0

0

0

0

37

Uni Washington

US

34

3

18

10

1

1

0

0

38

Univ Michigan State

US

32

0

9

12

2

6

3

0

39

Japan Science & Tech Agency Int Flower Development Ltd

JP

31

0

5

14

4

4

3

1

AU

29

0

11

6

1

2

6

2

17 18

30 31

40

Page 94 of 105


41

Japan Tobacco Inc

Domicile of applicant JP

42

Cargill Inc

US

28

0

21

7

43

US

28

0

6

12

4

3

2

1

44 45

Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Ceres Tech Inc Mendel Biotechnology Inc

US US

27 27

0 0

5 7

16 12

4 1

0 4

0 1

2 2

46

Riken

JP

27

0

2

11

0

5

4

4

47 48

Sungene Uni Rutgers

DE, US US

27 27

1 0

3 23

20 2

3 0

0 1

0 0

0 1

49

Univ North Carolina State

US

27

0

18

6

2

0

1

0

50

Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Suntory Ltd Yissum Res Dev Corp Purdue Res Found Cambridge Advanced Tech Mycogen Corp Flanders Interuni Inst Biotech Agriculture Victoria Serv Pty Danisco Sandoz

US

27

0

19

7

0

0

1

0

JP IL US GB

25 25 24 23

0 1 0 4

11 13 14 14

7 7 9 3

3 0 0 0

1 1 1 0

2 2 0 1

1 1 0 0

US BE

23 23

4 0

19 7

0 12

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

AU

22

0

0

17

2

0

2

1

DK AT, CH, DE, JP US DE

22 22

0 0

21 22

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

21 21

6 1

12 20

3 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

DNA Plant Techn Corp Inst Genbiologische Forschung

Total applications 29

1980 – 1989 0

1990 – 1999 19

2000 – 2004 7

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

1

2

0

Page 95 of 105

Table 34 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation

Total applications

1980 – 1989

1990 – 1999

2000 – 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1


65

0

40

14

4

5

2

0

2

Mogen Int

48

2

46

0

0

0

0

0

3

Unilever

36

0

27

8

0

0

1

0

4

19

0

3

2

4

3

2

5

5

Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel AVEBE NV

15

0

8

6

0

0

1

0

6

De Ruiter Seeds

15

0

0

7

4

2

2

0

7 8

Leiden University Syngenta

15 13

5 0

8 7

2 6

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

9

Keygene NV

12

0

9

1

1

1

0

0

10

Advanta Seeds

9

0

3

4

1

1

0

0

11 12

BASF Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel

9 9

0 0

0 2

2 1

1 2

2 0

1 2

2 2

13 14

Nunhems BV Expressive Res BV

9 7

0 0

5 2

1 4

1 0

0 0

1 0

1 1

15

Bejo Zaden BV

6

0

2

0

0

1

1

1

16

STW

6

0

2

4

0

0

0

0

17

Dun, Cornelis M P van

5

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

18 19

Gist Brocades Haan, Petrus Theodorus de

5 5

0 0

5 4

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

20 21

Den Elzen, Peter J M van DSM NV

4 4

0 0

4 2

0 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

22

Lee, Frederique Marianne vd Meer, Ingrid Maria vd

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

25

Sela-Buurlage, Marianne Beatrix Tunen, Arjen J van

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

26

Amerongen, Aart van

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

27

Brunob II BV

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

28

Florigene

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

29 30

Royal Dutch Shell Group Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV

3 3

2 0

1 0

0 3

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

31 32

Oort, Erica van Radboud University Nijmegen

3 3

0 0

0 2

3 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

33 34

Ree, Ronald van Royal Van der Have Group

3 3

0 0

0 3

3 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

35 36

TNO Utrecht University

3 3

0 0

1 0

2 1

0 1

0 0

0 1

0 0

37

Vereniging VUWindesheim Vetten, Nick de

3

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

Agrotechnology & Food Science Group (WURC) Bres-Vloemans, Alexandra Aleida

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

41 42

Crucell Holland BV Den Hombergh, Johannes Petrus

2 2

0 0

0 0

2 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

43

Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

23 24

38 39 40

Page 96 of 105


Total applications

1980 – 1989

1990 – 1999

2000 – 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

44

Ebskamp, Michael Johannes M

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

45 46

Heineken Kemira

2 2

0 0

0 2

3 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 0

47

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

48

Krieken, Wilhelmus Maria vd Laan, Jan Metske vd

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

49

Linthorst, Hubertus J M

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

50

Maagd, Rudolf A de

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

51

Nickerson

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

52 53

Quest Int S & G Seeds BV

2 2

0 1

2 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

54

SON - Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

55

Stichting Binair Vector Systeem Terra Nigra BV

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

58

Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Vincken, Jean Paul

2

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

59

Vries, Sape Cornelis de

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

60 61

VU University Amsterdam Zeneca Mogen BV

2 2

0 0

1 2

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

62

ADP Internat BV

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

63

AMC Amsterdam

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

64


1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

65

Biogen

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

66

Boer, Anne Douwe de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

67

Bongers, Henricus Chretien Mari

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

68

Bromyc BV

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

69 70

Bruinsma Seeds BV Carree, Franciscus Hermanus

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

71


1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

72

Connell, Ann Patricia O

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

73

Den Bosch, Franciscus Gerardus

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

74

Doorn, Johannes Elizabert van Eijsden, Ronald Roelof van Elsenga-Boersma, Annemarie Fierens-Onstenk, Bernarda Gerha

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

78

Fits, Cornelia Theodora Elisabe

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

79

Florack, Dionisius Elisabeth An Genetwister Technologies BV Genoclipp Biotechnology BV

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

82 83

Groot, Marion de Grosveld, Frank

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

84

Heldens, Jozef Wilhelmus Gerard Hoge-Meppelink, Anneke HF

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Holst, Gerrit Jan van

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

56 57

75 76 77

80 81

85 86

Page 97 of 105


Total applications

1980 – 1989

1990 – 1999

2000 – 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

87

Hom Consultancy BV

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

88

Introgene BV

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

89

Jong, Cornelis Jacob de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

90

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

91

Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd Kraker, Jan Willem de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

92

Krause, Klaus Peter

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

93 94

Kroon-Swart, Saskia Liu Chun Ming

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

95

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

96

Lookeren Campagne, Michiel van Madaus AG

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

97

Monsanto Co

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

98

Nap, Jan-Peter Hendrik

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

99

Nijs, Johannes Jacobus Maria de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

100

Novartis

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

101

Oosterwijk, Simone Adriana Mari

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

102

Pater, Bernadette Sylvia de Posthuma, Geertruide Afina Rhee, Miranda Debora van de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

105

Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

106

Schaaper, Wilhelmus Martinus Ma Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A Schrijver, Albertus Johannes Ma

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

109


1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

110


1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

111

Tegelen, Leonardus Johannes Pet

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

112

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

113

Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

114

Valk, Pieter vd

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

115

Van den Enden, Johannes Henriku

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

116

Van Paassen, Martinus Quirinus Voermans, Wilhelmus Petrus Adri Voort, Jeroen Nicolaas Albert M Vossen, Edwin Andries Gerard v

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

120 121

Wallaart, Thorvald Eelco Western Seed

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

122

Wiel, Dirk Franciscus Marinus v Wijbenga, Dirk Jan Wijnzen

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

124 125

Wit, Pierre J G M de Zaadunie BV

1 1

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

126

Zeeuw, Eveline Johanna v.d.

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

103 104

107 108

117 118 119

123

Page 98 of 105

Appendix X DNA Techniques for Plant Breeding

Definition Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering. Vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification. Use of hosts for these processes. All the above geared to plant cells, including viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus and Ti plasmids.

Trend Table 35 Numbers of patent families (Total)69 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications of which via EPO or of which via EPO worldwide [1] WIPO (EP or WO [2] (EP publications) publications) of which from Dutch applicants [4]

Year of application





1980

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1981

4

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

1982

8

1

5

1

4

1

2

1

1983

63

5

21

2

21

2

2

2

1984

57

3

24

2

24

2

2

2

1985

66

1

23

1

23

1

1

1

1986

131

4

47

3

45

2

2

1

1987

165

1

53

0

51

0

2

0

1988

208

3

69

3

63

3

3

2

1989

239

8

94

4

85

4

4

2

1990

319

22

114

8

102

7

3

2

1991

318

15

139

11

112

8

3

2

1992

316

20

150

18

110

9

1

1

1993

312

15

173

16

126

8

4

1

1994

349

11

186

9

155

5

2

2

1995

473

20

241

13

187

6

1

1

1996

664

43

327

29

262

23

3

1

1997

819

26

447

25

337

14

0

0

1998

1206

34

595

27

415

15

5

4

1999

1200

36

669

35

450

22

1

1

2000

1209

32

646

33

405

21

1

1

2001

1061

32

527

27

327

16

3

2

2002

1103

20

488

20

285

11

1

1

2003

1016

7

482

7

287

6

1

1

2004

1104

20

512

17

323

14

1

0

2005

1005

24

450

18

275

12

0

0

2006

1054

20

442

15

269

11

2

2

2007

1198

27

490

18

303

16

1

0

2008

958

13

458

12

34

1

0

0

Total

16625

463

7874

374

5082

240

51

33

Page 99 of 105

Table 36 Applications from UPOV countries35 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent of which via EPO or of which via EPO applications WIPO [2] (EP or [2] (EP worldwide[1] WO publications) publications) Year of application


1980

0

0

of which from Dutch applicants [4] 0

0


0


1981

4

2

0

2

0

0

0

1982

7

5

1

4

1

2

1

1983

61

21

2

21

2

2

2

1984

54

24

2

24

2

2

2

1985

58

23

1

23

1

1

1

1986

117

47

3

45

2

2

1

1987

144

53

0

51

0

2

0

1988

190

69

3

63

3

3

2

1989

218

94

4

85

4

4

2

1990

289

114

8

102

7

3

2

1991

288

139

11

112

8

3

2

1992

281

150

18

110

9

1

1

1993

288

173

16

126

8

4

1

1994

326

186

9

155

5

2

2

1995

441

241

13

187

6

1

1

1996

605

327

29

262

23

3

1

1997

732

447

25

337

14

0

0

1998

1070

592

27

412

15

5

4

1999

1078

668

35

449

22

1

1

2000

1005

642

33

401

21

1

1

2001

886

525

27

324

16

3

2

2002

892

477

20

279

11

1

1

2003

883

474

7

282

6

1

1

2004

1003

506

17

321

14

0

0

2005

920

442

18

268

12

0

0

2006

983

432

15

262

11

2

2

2007

1107

486

18

300

16

1

0

2008

846

447

12

34

1

0

0

14776

7806

374

5041

240

50

33

Total

Page 100 of 105

Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 62 applicants with 28 or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period. Table 37 Top 62 applicants with 28 or more applications70 in the 1980-2008 period (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Organisation Origin of Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 inventions – – – 1989 1999 2004 1 2 3

Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l BASF Monsanto Co

4 5

Du Pont de Nemours Syngenta

6

Bayer

7 8 9 10 11

US DE, NL, US DE, FR, GB, NL, US GB, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US BE, CA, DE, FR, US US BE AU, US GB, SE AU

486 342 335

9 0 17

228 46 79

123 125 124

23 43 23

25 28 28

26 55 29

45 38 31

332 272

9 5

155 112

86 106

16 12

18 4

23 15

20 14

225

7

73

69

29

11

17

14

156 132 111 110 95

2 0 21 10 4

79 23 85 100 41

47 69 5 0 30

8 16 0 0 3

6 6 0 0 8

3 18 0 0 3

7 0 0 0 6

CH, DE, FR

92

8

59

17

2

3

1

2

12

Uni California Cropdesign NV Calgene Inc Astrazeneca Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft

13


CA

90

1

38

24

5

7

9

5

14 15 16 17

Ceres Tech Inc Dow Chemical Cornell University Wageningen URC (WURC)

US CA, US US NL

85 82 81 80

0 0 5 0

5 20 47 37

31 30 15 26

11 6 11 7

26 7 2 6

1 6 1 4

11 10 0 0

18 19 20

Ciba Geigy Plant Biosciences Ltd Novartis

69 69 63

26 0 2

43 36 53

0 18 8

0 3 0

0 3 0

0 7 0

0 2 0

21 22

Biogemma Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences US Dept Of Agriculture

CH, GB, JP GB AT, CH, NL, US FR, GB JP

61 60

0 0

26 16

26 31

2 3

3 1

2 4

2 5

US

60

0

37

13

2

4

1

2

FR

57

5

22

17

2

5

1

4

US JP DK, GB, IN, NL NL BE

56 55 55

2 0 5

27 33 39

19 15 9

2 1 0

1 1 0

2 4 2

3 1 0

54 53

3 0

51 8

0 28

0 7

0 3

0 3

0 3

BE

51

17

34

0

0

0

0

0

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Uni Florida Japan Tobacco Inc Unilever Mogen Int Flanders Interuni Inst Biotech Plant Genetic Systems NV

31 32 33 34

Sungene Uni Washington Sanofi-Aventis Group CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique

DE, US US BE, DE, FR FR

51 50 49 48

1 3 2 0

4 34 35 18

43 12 12 18

3 1 0 0

0 0 0 6

0 0 0 2

0 0 0 4

35 36 37 38 39

DE, US US US AU, GB ES

45 45 44 42 40

0 0 0 15 0

3 32 0 27 5

35 8 37 0 16

3 1 1 0 4

2 2 5 0 4

1 0 1 0 3

1 2 0 0 5

US US

39 39

0 0

0 9

8 19

7 4

10 4

4 2

7 1

42

Icon Genetics Uni Rutgers Agrinomics Llc ICI Ltd Consejo Superior Investigacion Athenix Corp Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Univ North Carolina State

US

39

0

21

12

3

2

1

0

43 44 45 46

Mycogen Corp Hoechst Shering Agrevo Rhône-Poulenc Uni York

US DE FR, GB GB

38 37 37 37

6 3 7 0

32 34 30 3

0 0 0 23

0 0 0 4

0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 3

40 41

Page 101 of 105



Total

1980 – 1989

1990 – 1999

2000 – 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

47 48 49 50 51

Univ Michigan State Purdue Res Found Gen Hospital Corp Novozymes AS Salk Inst for Biological Studies

US US US DK, US US

37 36 35 35 33

0 2 9 0 4

8 21 19 5 19

16 11 7 15 8

2 0 0 2 0

7 2 0 1 1

3 0 0 7 0

1 0 0 3 1

52 53

Uni Queensland Yissum Res Dev Corp

AU IL

33 33

0 1

16 14

12 8

2 0

0 2

1 5

2 3

54

Mendel Biotechnology Inc

US

31

0

7

14

1

4

2

3

55

Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Japan Science & Tech Agency Cambridge Advanced Tech

US

31

0

20

8

0

0

2

0

JP

30

0

7

11

3

4

4

1

GB

29

4

17

5

0

0

1

1

58 59

Grains Res & Dev Corp Int Flower Development Ltd

AU AU

29 28

0 0

5 11

7 7

3 1

7 2

3 6

4 1

60 61

Large Scale Biology Corp Suntory Ltd

US JP

28 28

1 0

14 12

12 8

1 4

0 1

0 2

0 1

62

Leiden University

NL

28

8

10

9

0

1

0

0

56 57

Table 38 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation

Total

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1


80

0

37

26

7

6

4

0

2

Mogen Int

54

3

51

0

0

0

0

0

3

Unilever

49

2

36

9

0

0

2

0

4 5

Leiden University Keygene NV

28 23

8 0

10 8

9 5

0 4

1 1

0 3

0 2

6


21

0

12

3

0

4

2

0

7

AVEBE NV

15

0

9

4

0

0

2

0

8 9

Syngenta Expressive Res BV

14 11

0 0

9 2

5 7

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 1

10

Advanta Seeds

9

0

3

4

1

1

0

0

11

BASF

9

0

0

2

1

2

1

2

12

Gist Brocades

8

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

13 14

De Ruiter Seeds Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel

7 7

0 0

0 0

3 5

2 2

1 0

1 0

0 0

15 16

Nunhems BV Stichting Binair Vector Systeem

6 6

0 0

5 0

0 6

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

17 18

STW Dun, Cornelis M P van

6 5

0 0

2 4

4 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

19

Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Haan, Petrus Theodorus de

5

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

5

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

21


5

0

0

4

0

0

1

0

22

Den Elzen, Peter J M van

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

23 24

DSM NV Lee, Frederique Marianne vd

4 4

0 0

1 4

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 0

25 26

Meer, Ingrid Maria vd Monsanto Co

4 4

0 0

4 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 2

27

Sela-Buurlage, Marianne

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

20

Page 102 of 105


Total

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

28

Beatrix Tunen, Arjen J van

4

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

29

Utrecht University

4

0

0

2

1

0

1

0

30

Amerongen, Aart van

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

31

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

32

Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter Florigene

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

33

Heineken Tech Services

3

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

34 35

Royal Dutch Shell Group Radboud University Nijmegen

3 3

1 0

2 2

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

36 37

Royal Van der Have Group TNO

3 3

0 0

3 1

0 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

38

Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Vereniging VUWindesheim

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

40 41

Vetten, Nick de Bejo Zaden BV

3 2

0 0

2 1

0 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

42

Bres-Vloemans, Alexandra Aleida Chromagenics BV

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Ebskamp, Michael Johannes M Kemira

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

Krieken, Wilhelmus Maria vd Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

48 49

Linthorst, Hubertus J M Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A

2 2

0 2

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

50


2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

51

SON - Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

52 53

Vincken, Jean Paul Vries, Sape Cornelis de

2 2

0 0

1 2

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

54


2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

55

Zeneca Mogen

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

56 57

Akzo Nobel NV Anglo Netherlands Grain BV

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

58 59

Biogen Boer, Anne Douwe de

1 1

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

60

Bruinsma Seeds BV

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

61

Brunob II BV

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

62

Burg, Sjoerd Henricus vd

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

63 64

Connell, Ann Patricia O Crucell Holland BV

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

65

Den Hombergh, Johannes Petrus T Dijk, Magdalana Maria Gerarda v

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

67 68

Eijsden, Ronald Roelof van Enckevort, Leonora Johanna Gert

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

69

Fierens-Onstenk, Bernarda Gerha

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

70

Fits, Cornelia Theodora Elisabe Florack, Dionisius Elisabeth An

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

39

43 44 45 46 47

66

71

Page 103 of 105


Total

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

74

Genetwister Technologies BV Genoclipp Biotechnology BV Groot, Marion de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

75

Grosveld, Frank

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

76

Heineken Supply Chain BV

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

77

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

80

Heldens, Jozef Wilhelmus Gerard Hijden, Hendrikus Theodorus Wil Hoge-Meppelink, Anneke HF Holst, Gerrit Jan van

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

81

Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

82

Kraker, Jan Willem de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

83

Krause, Klaus Peter

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

84 85

Kroon-Swart, Saskia Laan, Jan Metske vd

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

86

Liu Chun Ming

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

87

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

88

Lookeren Campagne, Michiel van Maagd, Rudolf A de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

89

Nap, Jan-Peter Hendrik

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

90 91

Novartis NSURE Holding BV

1 1

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

92

Oort, Erica van

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

93

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

94

Pater, Bernadette Sylvia de Pharming BV

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

95

Phytovation BV

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

96

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

98

Pieterse, Cornelis Marinus Joze Posthuma, Geertruide Afina Protanol BV

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

99

Ree, Ronald van

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes Schaaper, Wilhelmus Martinus Ma Stichting Phytogenetics

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Tegelen, Leonardus Johannes Pet UMC Utrecht Holding BV

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

106

Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

107

Valk, Pieter vd

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

108

Van den Heuvel, Johannes Franciscus Johanna Maria Van der Vlugt, Rene Andries Antonius Van Kessel, Cornelis Petrus Mar

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

111

Van Strijp, Johannes Antonius G

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

112

Visser, Richard G F

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

113

Voort, Jeroen Nicolaas Albert M

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

114

Vos Cornelis Henricus de

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

115

Vossen, Edwin Andries

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

72 73

78 79

97

100 101 102 103 104 105

109 110

Page 104 of 105


Total

19801989

19901999

20002004

2005

2006

2007

2008

116

Gerard v Wallaart, Thorvald Eelco

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

117

Western Seed

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

118

Wiel, Dirk Franciscus Marinus v Wijbenga, Dirk Jan Wijnzen

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

119

Page 105 of 105

This is a publication of: Ministry of Economic Affairs NL Agency Prinses Beatrixlaan 2 | 2595 AL The Hague P.O.box 10366 | 2501 HJ The Hague T +31 (0) 88 602 60 00 F +31 (0) 88 602 90 24 E [email protected] I www.agentschapnl.nl/octrooicentrum © NL Agency | december 2012 A great degree of care has been taken in the preparation of this document. In an effort to improve legibility, certain passages containing legal terminology have been reproduced here in a simplified form. NL Agency is an agency of the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation responsible for the implementation of sustainability, innovation and economic development programmes for various governmental bodies. NL Agency is a department of the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation that implements government policy for sustainability, innovation, and international business and cooperation. It is the contact point for businesses, educational institutions and government bodies for information and advice, financing, networking and regulatory matters. The division NL Patent Office grants patents in the Netherlands, informs about the patent system and represents Dutch interests in European and international organisations.