What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Patented Cannabis

acespicoli

Well-known member
DEA published regulations to allow “Bulk Manufacturer”
registrants to cultivate marijuana for research purposes.


no request needed just click and read...

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:​

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in
21 CFR 1301.33(a),


many still in the trenches...
1707268875309.png

JurisdictionEffective dateLicensed sales sinceLegalization method
Washington (state)December 6, 2012July 8, 2014Initiated ballot measure
ColoradoDecember 10, 2012[246]January 1, 2014Initiated ballot measure
AlaskaFebruary 24, 2015October 29, 2016Initiated ballot measure
Washington, D.C.February 26, 2015Never authorizedInitiated ballot measure
OregonJuly 1, 2015October 1, 2015Initiated ballot measure
CaliforniaNovember 9, 2016January 1, 2018Initiated ballot measure
MassachusettsDecember 15, 2016November 20, 2018Initiated ballot measure
NevadaJanuary 1, 2017July 1, 2017Initiated ballot measure
MaineJanuary 30, 2017October 9, 2020Initiated ballot measure
VermontJuly 1, 2018October 1, 2022[247]Legislative bill
Northern Mariana IslandsSeptember 21, 2018July 16, 2021[248]Legislative bill
MichiganDecember 6, 2018December 1, 2019Initiated ballot measure
GuamApril 4, 2019Not yet startedLegislative bill
IllinoisJanuary 1, 2020January 1, 2020Legislative bill
ArizonaNovember 30, 2020January 22, 2021Initiated ballot measure
MontanaJanuary 1, 2021January 1, 2022[249]Initiated ballot measure
New JerseyFebruary 22, 2021April 21, 2022Legislatively referred ballot measure
New YorkMarch 31, 2021December 29, 2022[250]Legislative bill
New MexicoJune 29, 2021[251]April 1, 2022[252][253]Legislative bill
ConnecticutJuly 1, 2021January 10, 2023[254]Legislative bill
VirginiaJuly 1, 2021Never authorizedLegislative bill
Rhode IslandMay 25, 2022December 1, 2022Legislative bill
MissouriDecember 8, 2022February 3, 2023[255]Initiated ballot measure
United States Virgin IslandsJanuary 18, 2023Not yet startedLegislative bill
DelawareApril 23, 2023Not yet startedLegislative bill
MarylandJuly 1, 2023July 1, 2023Legislatively referred ballot measure
MinnesotaAugust 1, 2023[102]Not yet startedLegislative bill
OhioDecember 7, 2023Not yet startedInitiated ballot measure
certainly wise to stay current on shifting trends in policies
makes me wonder what the future holds for legalization :thinking:
will the rest of the country ever be as free to grow as states like cali ?
A New York Times article noted on the cannabis amendment:

The inclusion of Cannabis indica among the drugs to be sold only on prescription is common sense. Devotees of hashish are now hardly numerous here enough to count, but they are likely to increase as other narcotics become harder to obtain.[18]
In the West, the first state to include cannabis as a poison was California. The Poison Act was passed in 1907 and amended in 1909 and 1911, and in 1913 an amendatory act was made to make possession of "extracts, tinctures, or other narcotic preparations of hemp, or loco-weed,... :smoker:
 
Last edited:

Brother Nature

Well-known member
In 1930, the United States began granting patents for plants. By 1931, the very first plant patent was issued to Henry Bosenberg for his climbing, ever-blooming rose. Under patent law, the inventor of a plant is the person who first appreciates its distinctive qualities and reproduces it asexually. In other words, a plant can be created (such as by breeding or grafting) or it can be "discovered."

Plants discovered in "the wild" or uncultivated state cannot be patented, because they occur freely in nature. But a plant discovered in a cultivated area can be patented, even if it is discovered in a cultivated area owned by someone else. In addition, a tuber plant such as a potato cannot be patented.

In order to acquire a plant patent, the inventor must have actually asexually reproduced the plant. Asexual reproduction means that the plant is reproduced by means other than seeds, usually accomplished by cutting or grafting of the plant. Asexual reproduction is the cornerstone of plant patents because that is what proves that the inventor (or discoverer) can duplicate the plant. The patented plant also must be novel and distinctive.
There's a thread on this site, think it might be related to Phylos, but in it Sam and Tom were amongst those discussing plant patents and it was 'revealed' that it is very possible to patent a single clone, e.g. something with a Sour diesel genotype of consisting of AaBb x CCdD, but not the strain itself given you could produce a Sour Diesel plant consisting of aaBB x cCDd. PVR's are slightly more concerning but, again, not as easy to regulate as they could be. Below is a cool article regarding that...
A plant variety is protected if it is new, distinct, uniform and stable. Another mechanism is patent protection. Article 27(3)(b) of TRIPS provides for a choice for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by sui generis protection system, or a combination thereof.
PVR and patent protection in plant breeding sector
The plant variety rights (PVR) legislation in European Union is based on the 1991 version of the UPOV Convention and has created a level playing field for European farmers and breeders.
Under this system, there is a compulsory exception to breeder’s right – “breeder’s exemption”. This feature is similar to an “open source” model by safeguarding free access to biological material for further breeding. According to Szonja’s speech, by allowing for using protected varieties for further breeding and marketing of those new varieties without any obligations towards the right holder, it has greatly enhanced the innovation of the plant breeding industry in Europe and has proved to be a cornerstone of the system. The breeders have always relied on this exemption for further improvement on each other’s varieties.
As for plant varieties as such, they are excluded from patent protection according to Article 53(b) EPC and are protected by plant breeder’s rights. However, the techniques used when obtaining the biological material or developing new varieties could seek for patent protection. Indeed, there is no such concept of breeder’s exemption in patent system under EPC but still breeders also take into account patent protection because of the innovations involving technical solution to develop new varieties. Under the current European patent protection, which is a stronger and more absolute protection than PVR in respect of the strict substantial requirements examination and its scope of exclusive rights, any use of the patented products (e.g. genetic material) and processes covered by the patent must obtain permission from the patent owner. This blocks access to biological materials for further breeding.
Significance of breeders’ exemption and potential concerns
To guarantee plants that can endure natural changes (for example diseases, climate, etc) and to ensure production yields, varieties have to be continuously improved and therefore access to all these materials is required. Furthermore, the PVR system is subject to a considerable number of very time consuming field trials, de facto giving the right holder a lead time advantage, as a third party breeder would have to go through a similar time consuming exercise before he could ever bring his new variety on the market. To acquire the interesting traits of genetics to achieve breeding goals, access to all possible biological materials is key element for plant breeders for a successful breeding program as it allows for speedy innovation. If lack of such a basic principle for free access, it puts too much strain on plant breeders since it is not affordable for them not to have access to various biological materials for further breeding.
However, the enforcement of PVR may not be so satisfactory and could become an obstacle to plant breeding, which is a weak point of the system. The potential problem is that it is possible to make small changes to the genetic structure of an existing variety and then get a new variety to be granted since it demonstrates distinctive feature. It seems be easy to circumvent previous protection as the fellow plant breeders may obtain new protection by the benefit of breeder’s exemption.
Further thinking
The PVR system and the patent system interact and overlap in the protection of plant breeding. Breeder’s exemption is a special feature in PVR system while protection is stronger by patents. To protect plant breeders’ interest for certain important subject matters by patent, it is possible to discuss whether a limited breeder’s exemption can be provided in the European patent system under EPC, in order to guarantee access to genetic material. However this would raise another issue that is it justified introducing the special exemption only in plant breeding sector, and if so, whether the door to similar exceptions would open in other sectors. Too many exceptions would undermine patent protection and limit innovation as well. The approaches should be designed to achieve a balance solution among the competing interests and sustainable development to ensure continuous innovation. There are still lots of discussions and rooms to find a better solution.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top