Wednesday Whimsies

There's never a dull moment in the world of intellectual property law, so the IPKat has an exciting time keeping readers up-to-date. This Kat is pleased to bring you this week's news, events, and opportunities.

UK Designs Reform

 A Kat that seems exhausted - and
it's only Wednesday!
Photo by Kathryn Archibald

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is gearing up for its consultation on reforms to the UK designs system. The UKIPO already undertook a "Call for Views" in 2022 (see response published here). It is now conducting a pre-consultation survey, which invites comments from stakeholders on five core principles: cost, validity, speed, choice, and simplicity. The survey closes on 1 April 2025. Details and link to complete the survey here.

Question the Trade Mark Judges

The UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law and MARQUES are hosting their annual "Question the Trade Mark Judges" event on 25 March 2025, 6:00-7:30 pm, in hybrid format. The discussion is being chaired by the Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, with four panellists: Nina Korjus (Chairperson of the 4th Board of Appeal, EUIPO), the Honourable Mrs Justice Joanna Smith (High Court), Al Skilton (Senior Hearing Officer, UKIPO) and Andrej Stec (Référendaire, EU General Court). Registration and details here.

Reminder: Evaluation of the EU Plant Variety Regulation

The European Commission has begun an evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights. There's still a little time left to contribute to the call for evidence, which is currently open for feedback until 14 March 2025 (midnight Brussels time). See details and the portal for feedback here. 

Launch of "Cali Fund" for DSI benefit sharing

Alongside the resumed COP16 meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the end of February, the Cali Fund for the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources (DSI) was finally launched. Companies making commercial use of DSI in a range of lucrative industries are now expected to contribute a portion of their revenue to the Cali Fund (see details in Decision 16/2). Academic and public research institutions are exempt from this multilateral mechanism. About half of the funds will be allocated to support the self-identified needs of indigenous peoples and local communities.

The CBD Secretariat has also launched a series of consultations on the operationalisation of the Cali Fund, with deadlines over the coming weeks. Input is sought from CBD parties, other governments, indigenous people and local communities, and relevant organisations. See details here.

Rules for NGT plants growing closer in the UK and EU

The regulation of new genomic technologies (NGT) has been a controversial issue. Nevertheless, there have been concrete steps in the UK: the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 was laid before parliament on 25 February. This much-anticipated secondary instrument would implement legislation that aims to reduce the hurdles for the marketing authorisation of precision bred plants. The law will apply in England only.

Meanwhile in the EU, an informal vote amongst the delegates last month showed some progress towards agreement on the regulation of NGT plants. There have been changes to the draft text since the EU Parliament inserted its proposed "patent ban" (see discussion from the IPKat here), which seem to have slightly relaxed some of the restrictions on patents. For example, a plant would still be excluded from the NGT1 category if there are patents for products or processes resulting in particular traits. But, if there are patents which protect basic technologies, it seems this would no longer affect NGT1 status. This Kat isn't too optimistic about the debate resolving quickly, but at least things are moving towards a resolution.

Strawberry plant patent dispute continues

US Plant Patent No. 46
for a strawberry variety named 'Jupiter'

Finally, in other news, the long-running litigation about the alleged infringement of at least four of Driscoll's strawberry patents has not been going well for the major berry company. Driscoll's sought leave to allege additional facts to support its intentional interference with contract and unfair competition claims... over a year after the court had given them 30 days to amend their complaint.

At the end of February, the court denied the latest motion for leave to amend. Driscoll's sought to include facts about how the defendant (California Berry Cultivars, LLC) allegedly obtained the strawberry varieties for their breeding programme through an employee of one of Driscoll's contract nurseries near Seville, Spain. However, the "new" information appeared to have been available to Driscoll's for years. Indeed, the defendant pointed out that some of the information was available to Driscoll's following the 2017 trial in Regents of the University of California v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC.

As an aside, throughout the proceedings, the court keeps regurgitating the line that "Driscoll’s began as the Strawberry Institute of California and received the first patent on a strawberry variety in 1958." This line might give the mistaken impression that no one else received a strawberry plant patent before 1958. In fact, plant patents for strawberry varieties have been granted ever since the Plant Patent Act of 1930 entered into force (see above example of a patent for the variety 'Jupiter' granted in 1932). The Strawberry Institute of California was far from the first to the strawberry plant patent party. [Merpel: Apparently this Kat can't let even the most minor misrepresentation of plants patents slide!]