plant patents/ IP is there a future in the "strain game"?

Help me understand this

Help me understand this

https://patents.google.com/patent/USPP27475P2/en

I ain’t no lawyer Man (or woman), and the phrase that keeps appearing in all the United States plant patent info that I’ve read is that the unique plant can only be reproduced “asexually”, which in regards to cannibis strains seems to be like the “what came first chicken or the egg” conundrum. So once I come up with a strain I like, I have to say I cloned it to be able to patent it.

I found this patent, but I don’t understand what the Hell it means. At one point in the patent it makes reference to the inventor Steven Wynn Kubby and says “in the inventor's garden in Lake Tahoe Calif. that he discovered one female plant that could only be reproduced assexually, by taking cuttings and that plant is the origin of this remarkable new strain.”

Just for fun, does anyone have any ideas or just want to help be wrap my brain around what I’m reading?

I may have Jumped the gun, I’m now back tracking through this entire thread and it’s many links and I may be finding all the answers to my question.

Listened to the last episode of ShapingFire and found it really interesting. What do you think?

https://blubrry.com/shapingfire/416...-public-patents-with-guest-alan-from-strainly

utility patents

utility patents

Biotech Institute's Growing Patent Portfolio -- U.S. Patent No. 9,095,554 and the Path Forward

https://www.patentdocs.org/2017/11/...s-patent-no-9095554-and-the-path-forward.html

One family of utility patents, in particular, entitled "Breeding, Production, Processing, and Use of Specialty Cannabis" (collectively, the "Biotech cannabis patents"), has many in the cannabis industry concerned. This patent family is owned by Biotech Institute LLC

Indeed, perhaps unsurprisingly, none of the patents in this family have yet been subjected to an IPR proceeding. (Inter Partes Review)

"Inter Partes Review, or IPR, is a mini-trial held before the USPTO’s Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) to cancel specific claims of a patent on the grounds of invalidity – i.e., that the patent claims nothing new in view of the prior art. The timeframe, scope of discovery and costs of an IPR are significantly lesser than those of a patent infringement lawsuit in federal court, due to a combination of strict regulations and a sole focus on the (in)validity of the patent. Think of IPR as USPTO litigation to strike down some or all of a patent’s claims based on prior art.

If an accused infringer succeeds in canceling patent claims through an IPR, there may be little to nothing left to litigate in federal court. Even a partial IPR victory can significantly impact the corresponding federal court litigation as a result of fewer claims and/or legal positions taken during the IPR which may prevent a subsequent flip-flop by the patent owner in the federal case. In the vast majority of patent cases in district court, federal judges have willingly granted stays of the patent lawsuit pending the outcome of the IPR. It makes sense – why force the parties to expend significant resources to litigate in federal court a patent that may ultimately be invalidated?

A IPR petition may be filed by any person who is not the patent owner and who has not filed a civil lawsuit challenging the validity of the patent. As we’ll discuss separately, the key to a successful IPR petition lies in good prior art which results from an early and significant investment in thorough prior art searching.

IPR proceedings are available 9 months after the grant date for patents issued under the AIA first-to-file rules, and for all patents filed before the first-to-file rule took effect. A petition for IPR must be filed within one year from the date of service of a patent infringement complaint. The USPTO will take up to 6 months to decide whether or not to grant the IPR petition. If granted, the IPR proceeding will conclude in one year from the institution decision.

The final decision is rendered by three administrative PTAB judges with technical expertise."
https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/ipr-inter-partes-review-defend-patent-infringement-lawsuit/


Regardless of this lack of post-grant challenges or proceedings for the Biotech cannabis patents, however, these concerns have become apparent by other market reactions in the industry.

For now, it is uncertain whether Biotech Institute's patents are enforceable given the current federal climate. However, as this family of patents is not set to expire until March 2034, the cannabis industry will have to remain careful, diligent, and concerned over Biotech Institute's growing patent family.


[1] Importantly, the USPTO recently issued the first plant patent on December 20, 2016, PP27,475, entitled "Cannabis plant named 'Ecuadorian Sativa.'"

United States Patent PP27,475
Kubby December 20, 2016
Cannabis plant named `Ecuadorian Sativa`

https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...s1=PP27,475.PN.&OS=PN/PP27,475&RS=PN/PP27,475

.