The Future of Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) Status: Predominantly More Explanations or Essential Change
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The UPOV Approach to PVP
- Distinctness (distinct from all other publicly known varieties),
- Uniformity (with respect to and in accordance with biology), and
- Stability (maintain its distinct characteristics during reproduction from generation to generation); collectively known as the DUS criteria.
3. The Concept of Essential Derivation
3.1. The Need and Rationale for the Introduction of Essential Derivation and the Category of an Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) in the UPOV 1991 Convention
3.2. Challenges That Have Arisen in the Determination of a Variety Categorized as Being Essentially Derived
- it is predominantly derived from the initial variety, or from a variety that is itself predominantly derived from the initial variety, while retaining the expression of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the initial variety,
- it is clearly distinguishable from the initial variety, and
- except for the differences which result from the act of derivation, it conforms to the initial variety in the expression of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the initial variety.”
- Predominantly derived: “a variety can only be essentially derived from one initial variety”, i.e., a direct parent–progeny relationship by pedigree and “a variety should only be essentially derived from another variety when it retains virtually the whole genotype of the other variety.”
- Essential characteristics: “includes all heritable traits that contribute to the principal features, performance or value of the variety; from the perspective of the producer, seller, supplier, buyer, recipient, or user; and essential characteristics may be different in different crops/species.”
- Degree of difference to be within the EDV boundary of an initial variety: “be different from that variety by a very limited number of characteristics.”
- a limitation imposed by retaining virtually the whole genotype of the other variety and so reinforcing the enabling advantage to those using molecular tools compared to those who solely used essentially biological, i.e., crossing and selection.
- the examples given in Article 14(5)(c), which comprise a non-exhaustive list: “the selection of a natural or induced mutant, or of a somaclonal variant, the selection of a variant individual from plants of the initial variety, backcrossing, or transformation by genetic engineering”…which “make clear that the differences which result from the act of derivation should be one or very few.”
3.3. Experiences during the Implementation of UPOV 1991 to Date and Lessons Accrued
3.4. Technical Practices Involved in the Implementation of Essential Derivation According to the PPVFRA of India
4. Recent Questions and Concerns That Have Arisen Leading toward the Development of a Third Set of UPOV Explanatory Notes on EDVs
4.1. Who Decides?
4.2. Use of Partial UPOV Text Leading to Determinations Inconsistent with the Language and Intent of UPOV 1991
4.3. Persistent Questions and Additional Recent Concerns Regarding Determination of Essential Derivation
5. Major Proposals That Have Been Made for the Revision or Elimination of the Concept of Essential Derivation
5.1. White Paper on “Essentially Derived Varieties”
5.2. A 4 Pillar Approach
- Characteristics can be categorized according to whether they exhibit essential characteristics or not;
- The addition or change of a characteristic that represents added value automatically results in the derived variety being outside the realm of an EDV;
- Change that is non-essential or insubstantial is plagiaristic and therefore an EDV.
- UPOV does not differentiate among characteristics according to a qualitative interpretation of “essential” or “value-added”, and one can foresee prospects of endless arguments with poor to no legal precedent being set on the categorization of traits and their relative expression levels as being essential or adding value.
- According to this approach, being value-added results in being outside the scope of EDV, thereby reverting to the UPOV 1978 Convention, which promotes free riding by the second developer.
- While plagiarism can be further enforced against, it was never the motivating force that led to the introduction of essential derivation. Indeed, plagiarism or cosmetic breeding can be dealt with during the determination of distinctness, e.g., as practiced by the use of GAIA, an approach that differentially weights the relative importance of characteristics in their contribution to the determination of distinctness [57]. Equally problematic is the proposed basis for determining EDV status for varieties that are said to result from incremental breeding steps and thus according to [54] do not express essential characteristics. With regard to these crops, and according to the premises previously stated, the addition of a value-added characteristic would allow the developer of the derived variety to free ride as per the UPOV 1978 Convention.
5.3. Utilize the Doctrine of Equivalence
5.4. Free Access but Obligation to Pay Compensation for Use
5.5. Categorization of Characteristics in Relation to Varietal Performance
5.6. A Special Research Exemption
5.7. Revision of the Breeder Exception
5.8. Compensation Liability Regime
6. Concluding Comments and Proposed Path Forward
6.1. The Current and Evolving Technology Environment That Informs the Conduct and Effectiveness of Plant Breeding
6.2. A Proposal
- Breeding methods modify or change “a few” genes that result in differences that are readily observable and/or measurable;
- Metric thresholds have a high degree of consensus on a crop specific basis;
- The definition of “essential” is at least agreed on a crop specific basis;
- Accurate and sufficiently detailed pedigree data are a prerequisite and the absence of which demonstrates culpability;
- That attempts are not made to evade essential derivation through use of “reverse breeding” or other technologies with equivalent outcomes;
- That molecular marker comparisons help determine predominant derivation provided that the technical basis of usage has been established on a crop specific basis;
- Demonstration of predominant derivation causes the reversal of burden of proof to be upon the developer of the putative EDV who is best placed to provide pertinent evidential responses.
- Deletion of the concept of essential derivation;
- A revision of the breeder exception on a crop specific basis so that open access for further breeding is delayed on a crop specific basis;
- Allow breeders to provide access under mutually agreed terms before open access is provided, and
- Ensuring access to varieties and parental inbred lines once their period of protection has expired.
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Smith, S. The Foundations, Continuing Evolution, and Outcomes from the Application of Intellectual Property Protection in Plant Breeding and Agriculture. In Plant Breeding Reviews; Irwin Goldman, Ed.; John Wiley Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 121–213. ISBN 978-1-119-61680-1. [Google Scholar]
- International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as Revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, and on October 23, 1978; UPOV: Geneva, Switzerland, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Mission Statement. Available online: https://www.upov.int/about/en/mission.html (accessed on 14 May 2021).
- Janis, M.D.; Smith, S. Obsolescence in Intellectual Property Regimes. Univ. Iowa Leg. Stud. Res. Pap. 2006, 05. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as Revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, and on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991; UPOV: Geneva, Switzerland, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Tonapi, V.; Elangovan, M.; Kulkarni, G.; Kulkarni, R.; Rao, K.; Seetharama, N. Plant Variety Protection Made Easy; Directorate of Sorghum Research: Hyderabad, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bostyn, S.J.R. Plant breeding and the EDV concept: Challenges of the past, opportunities for the future? In Proceedings of the Seminar on the Impact of Policy on Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) on Breeding Strategy, Geneva, Switzerland, 30 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Duesing, J. Seeking Clarity on EDV System Roles, Accountabilities and Conditions. EuropeanSeed, February 2021; 15. [Google Scholar]
- International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Preliminary Draft text for the revision of the explanatory notes on essentially derived varieties under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. In Proceedings of the Working Group on Essentially Derived Varieties (WG-EDV) UPOV/WG-EDV/3/2, Geneva, Switzerland, 27 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Llewelyn, M.; Adcock, M. European Plant Intellectual Property; Hart Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-1-84731-272-3. [Google Scholar]
- Dutfield, G. Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Sciences Industries: A Twentieth Century History; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sanderson, J. Plants, People and Practices: The Nature and History of the UPOV Convention; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-107-12649-7. [Google Scholar]
- Button, P. The UPOV Convention: An International Standard. EU Plant Variety Rights in the 21st Century; Conference on the outcome of the evaluation of the Conference on the outcome of the evaluation of the Community Plant Variety Rights Regime, Brussels; 11 October 2011; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2019-12/plant_variety_conf_20111011_upov.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- UPOV. Members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants Status on February 22, 2021. Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/upov_pub_423.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Helfer, L.R. Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Varieties: An Overview with Options for National Governments. FAO Legal Papers online No. 31. 2002. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/bb064e/bb064e.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Vasil, I.K. A Short History of Plant Biotechnology. Phytochem. Rev. 2008, 7, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sussex, I.M. The Scientific Roots of Modern Plant Biotechnology. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bruening, G.; Lyons, J.M. The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato. Calif. Agric. 2000, 54, 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- LeBuanec, B. Protection of the Plant-Related Innovations: Evolution and Current Discussion. IP Strategy Today 2004, 9, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeBuanec, B. The Development of Plant Breeding and Plant Variety Protection. In Proceedings of the UPOV Symposium on plant breeding for the future, Geneva, Switzerland, 21 October 2011; pp. 12–21. [Google Scholar]
- LeBuanec, B. The Genotype/Phenotype Dilemma. CIOPORA Chronicle, 18 March 2021; 51–52. [Google Scholar]
- Went, J.; Izquierdo, J. Biotechnology and Development: A balance between IPR protection and benefit-sharing. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2001, 4. Available online: http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/index.php/ejbiotechnology/article/view/v4n3-8/910 (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Bostyn, S.J.R. Plant Variety Rights Protection and Essentially Derived Varieties: A Fresh Proposal to Untie the Gordian Knot. GRUR Int. 2020, 69, 785–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson, J. Essential Derivation, Law, and the Limits of Science. Law Context 2006, 24, 34–53. [Google Scholar]
- Lesser, W. Modifications in Intellectual Property Rights Law and Effects on Agricultural Research. Cornell Agric. Econ. Staff Pap. 1992, 92-16. Available online: http://publications.dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/sp/1992/Cornell_Dyson_sp9216.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Introduction to Plant Variety Protection under the UPOV Convention 2003. Available online: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_ip_bis_ge_03/wipo_ip_bis_ge_03_11-main1.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Lawson, C. Essentially derived varieties. In Intellectual Property Law and Plant Protection Challenges and Developments in Asia; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 37–61. [Google Scholar]
- Kiewiet, B. Essentially Derived Varieties. European Union Community Plant Variety Office. 2006. Available online: https://cpvo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/articles/EDV_presentation_PlantumNL_March_2006_BK.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Robinson, D. Sui Generis Systems for Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Knowledge in Asia. In Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agendas in a Changing World; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2009; pp. 235–272. [Google Scholar]
- Guiard, J. The Development of the Provisions of Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs). Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/upov_sem_ge_13/upov_sem_ge_13_ppt_1.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Krieger, E.; De Keyser, E.; De Riek, J. Do new breeding techniques in Ornamentals and Fruits lead to Essentially Derived Varieties? Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10, 1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seminar on Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) (UPOV/SEM/GE/13), UPOV Publication No. 358. Geneva, Switzerland. 22 October 2013. Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/upov_pub_358.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Prasanna, B.M. Concept of EDVs under PPV FR Act, 2001—Issues implications. In Plant Variety Protection Made Easy; Directorate of Sorghum Research: Hyderabad, India, 2009; pp. 131–138. [Google Scholar]
- Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. 2009. Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/caj_ag_10_5/upov_exn_edv_1.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. 2017. Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/expndocs/en/upov_exn_edv.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Astee Flowers, B.V. v. Danziger “Dan” Flower Farm, Case 198763; Court of The Hague: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005.
- Van Zanten Plants BV v Hofland B.V., 310918/KG ZA 08-594; District Court of The Hague: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2008.
- Danziger “Dan” Flower Farm v. Astee Flowers B.V., 105.003-932/01; Court of Appeal: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009.
- Danziger v. Azolay Astee Flowers, 001228/03; District Court: Tel-Avi-Jaffa, Israel, 2009.
- Probstdoder Saatzucht GmbH Co. KG vs. Pflanzzucht Oberlimpurg (7 0 442t04); Court of First Instance of Mannheim, Civil Chamber: Mannheim, Germany, 10 December 2010.
- Overdijk, T.F.W. Court Decisions on Essentially Derived Varieties in The Netherlands. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) (UPOV/SEM/GE/13), Geneva, Switzerland, 22 October 2013; pp. 59–66. [Google Scholar]
- Gabrieli, A. Court Decision on Essentially Derived Varieties in Israel. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) (UPOV/SEM/GE/13), Geneva, Switzerland, 22 October 2013; pp. 67–69. [Google Scholar]
- Noli, E.; Teriaca, M.S.; Conti, S. Identification of a Threshold Level to Assess Essential Derivation in Durum Wheat. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29, 687–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borchert, T.; Krueger, J.; Hohe, A. Implementation of a Model for Identifying Essentially Derived Varieties in Vegetatively Propagated Calluna vulgaris Varieties. BMC Genet. 2008, 9, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kahler, A.L.; Kahler, J.L.; Thompson, S.A.; Ferriss, R.S.; Jones, E.S.; Nelson, B.K.; Mikel, M.A.; Smith, S. North American Study on Essential Derivation in Maize: II. Selection and Evaluation of a Panel of Simple Sequence Repeat Loci. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 486–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousselle, Y.; Jones, E.; Charcosset, A.; Moreau, P.; Robbins, K.; Stich, B.; Knaak, C.; Flament, P.; Karaman, Z.; Martinant, J.-P.; et al. Study on Essential Derivation in Maize: III. Selection and Evaluation of a Panel of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Loci for Use in European and North American Germplasm. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 1170–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidelines for Handling a Dispute on Essential Derivation in Oilseed Rape 2007. Available online: https://www.worldseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Guidelines_EDV_Oilseed_Rape_2007.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Guidelines for Handling a Dispute on Essential Derivation of Maize Lines 2014. Available online: https://www.worldseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ISF_Guidelines_Disputes_EDV_Maize_2014.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Guidelines for Handling a Dispute on Essential Derivation in Ryegrass 2009. Available online: https://www.worldseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Guidelines_EDV_Ryegrass_Nov_2009.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Smith, J.S.C.; Jones, E.S.; Nelson, B.K. The Use of Molecular Marker Data to Assist in the Determination of Essentially Derived Varieties. In Genomics of Plant Genetic Resources; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 27–47. [Google Scholar]
- Würtenberger, G. Legal Perspectives on Essentially Derived Varieties. In Proceedings of the UPOV Seminar on EDV, Geneva, Switzerland, 22 October 2013; pp. 23–218. [Google Scholar]
- CPVO. Report of the Ad-Hoc Legal Working Group to the Administrative Council. Summary of Discussions June 2012–January 2015; DOC-AC-2015-1-16-Annex 1-EN; Community Plant Variety Office: Angers, France, 2016; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
- ISF. View on Intellectual Property. Adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 28 June 2012. Available online: https://www.worldseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/View_on_Intellectual_Property_2012.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Kock, M.A. Essentially Derived Varieties in View of New Breeding Technologies—Plant Breeders’ Rights at a Crossroads. GRUR Int. 2021, 70, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greengrass, B. The 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. In The UPOV Seminar on the Nature and Rationale for the Protection of Plant Varieties under the UPOV Convention; UPOV: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996; pp. 46–57. ISBN 92-805-0650-1. [Google Scholar]
- Manno, R. White Paper on “Essentially Derived Varieties.” WebLegal 2019. Available online: https://www.weblegal.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WL-white-paper-on-EDV.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- GAIA Software. Technical Working Party on Automation and Computer Programs. 2007. Available online: https://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/twc/25/twc_25_13.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Lesser, W.; Mutschler, M.A. Balancing Investment Incentives and Social Benefits When Protecting Plant Varieties: Implementing Initial Variety Systems. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 1113–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trommetter, M. Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural and Agro-food Biotechnologies to 2030. In OECD International Futures Project on “The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda”; Multi-Disciplinary Issues International Futures Programme; OECD International Futures Programme: Paris, France, 2008; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
- Leskien, D.; Flitner, M. Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System; Issues in Genetic Research; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 1997; ISBN 978-92-9043-329-3. [Google Scholar]
- McConnell, R. Developing Genetic Resources for the Future—The Long Look. In Proceedings of the Bioscience Law Review; Lawtext Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2004; Volume 7, pp. 57–60. [Google Scholar]
- Le Buanec, B. Protection of Plant-Related Innovations: Evolution and Current Discussions. World Pat. Inf. 2006, 28, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnenwirth, J.; Grace, J.; Smith, S. Intellectual Property Rights, Patents, Plant Variety Protection and Contracts: A Perspective from the Private Sector. IP Strategy Today 2004, 9, 19–34. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, J.S.C.; Hussain, T.; Jones, E.S.; Graham, G.; Podlich, D.; Wall, S. Use of Doubled Haploids in Maize Breeding: Implications for Intellectual Property Protection and Genetic Diversity in Hybrid Crops. Mol. Breed. 2008, 22, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingston, W. Repairing Incentives to Invest in Plant Breeding. Plant Breed. Intellect. Prop. Q. 2007, 10, 294–311. [Google Scholar]
- International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Available online: http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en/ (accessed on 11 June 2021).
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Available online: https://www.cbd.int (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Crop Trust—Securing Our Food, Forever. Available online: https://www.croptrust.org/ (accessed on 11 June 2021).
- Lawlor, D.W. Genetic Engineering to Improve Plant Performance under Drought: Physiological Evaluation of Achievements, Limitations, and Possibilities. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 83–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Blum, A. Genomics for Drought Resistance—Getting down to Earth. Funct. Plant Biol. 2014, 41, 1191–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basso, M.F.; Arraes, F.B.M.; Grossi-de-Sa, M.; Moreira, V.J.V.; Alves-Ferreira, M.; Grossi-de-Sa, M.F. Insights Into Genetic and Molecular Elements for Transgenic Crop Development. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, M.; Xu, J.; Gao, Z.; Tian, H.; Gao, Y.; Kariman, K. Genetically Modified Crops Are Superior in Their Nitrogen Use Efficiency-A Meta-Analysis of Three Major Cereals. Nat. Res. 2020, 10, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simmons, C.R.; Lafitte, H.R.; Reimann, K.S.; Brugière, N.; Roesler, K.; Albertsen, M.C.; Greene, T.W.; Habben, J.E. Successes and Insights of an Industry Biotech Program to Enhance Maize Agronomic Traits. Plant Sci. 2021, 307, 110899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Yu, S.; Zeng, D.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Xie, X.; Shen, R.; Tan, J.; Li, H.; et al. Development of “Purple Endosperm Rice” by Engineering Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in the Endosperm with a High-Efficiency Transgene Stacking System. Mol. Plant 2017, 10, 918–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hathwaik, L.T.; Horstman, J.; Thomson, J.G.; Thilmony, R. Efficient Gene Stacking in Rice Using the GAANTRY System. Rice 2021, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hou, L.; Yau, Y.-Y.; Wei, J.; Han, Z.; Dong, Z.; Ow, D.W. An Open-Source System for In Planta Gene Stacking by Bxb1 and Cre Recombinases. Mol. Plant 2014, 7, 1756–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Que, Q.; Chilton, M.-D.M.; de Fontes, C.M.; He, C.; Nuccio, M.; Zhu, T.; Wu, Y.; Chen, J.S.; Shi, L. Trait Stacking in Transgenic Crops: Challenges and Opportunities. GM Crops 2010, 1, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dormatey, R.; Sun, C.; Ali, K.; Coulter, J.A.; Bi, Z.; Bai, J. Gene Pyramiding for Sustainable Crop Improvement against Biotic and Abiotic Stresses. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mack, T.C.; Blackburn, D. Inbred Corn Line 1AA01. U.S. Patent 8,581,061, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.M. An Agricultural Law Jeremiad: The Harvest Is Past, the Summer Is Ended, and Seed Is Not Saved. Wis. Law Rev. 2014, 235–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dirks, R.H.G.; Van Dun, C.M.P.; Reinink, K.; De Wit, J.P.C. Reverse Breeding. U.S. Patent 8,242,327, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dirks, R.; Dun, K.V.; Snoo, C.B.D.; Berg, M.V.D.; Lelivelt, C.L.C.; Voermans, W.; Woudenberg, L.; Wit, J.P.C.D.; Reinink, K.; Schut, J.W.; et al. Reverse Breeding: A Novel Breeding Approach Based on Engineered Meiosis. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2009, 7, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Smith, J.S.C. The Future of Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) Status: Predominantly More Explanations or Essential Change. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1261. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061261
Smith JSC. The Future of Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) Status: Predominantly More Explanations or Essential Change. Agronomy. 2021; 11(6):1261. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061261
Chicago/Turabian StyleSmith, John Stephen C. 2021. "The Future of Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) Status: Predominantly More Explanations or Essential Change" Agronomy 11, no. 6: 1261. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061261