Agrobacterium-Mediated Gene Transfer: A Lawyer’s Perspective

  • Carol Nottenburg
  • Carolina Roa Rodríguez

Whether or not you agree with patent protection for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation technology or for other basic platform technologies, “the times, they are a-changing”. In the United States, patents are awarded for many types of biotechnology inventions, including nucleic acid sequences, bacterium containing a vector construct, transgenic plants and methods of making transgenic plants. Both companies and non-profit institutes are affected by such patents. Here, some of the impacts of patents are discussed followed by a mini-primer on key points about patents and patent documents. In the final section, we present a patent landscape of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plants and discuss a number of key patents impacting research and development.


Patent Application European Patent United States Patent Patent Document Patent Office 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6 References

  1. AUTM, Association of University Technology Managers (2005) AUTM U.S. licensing survey: FY 2004.
  2. Broothaerts W, Mitchell HJ, Weir B, Kalnes S, Smith, LMA, Yang W, Mayer J, Roa-Rodríguez C, Jefferson RA (2005) Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria. Nature 433: 629-633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. CIPR, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002) Implementation of the TRIPS agreement by developing countries. Study paper 7 of the report of the commission on intellectual property rights.
  4. Dam K (1999) “Intellectual Property and the Academic Enterprise”, Chicago Eco-nomics Working Paper No. 68 (, abstract id=1665420)
  5. Epstein RA, Kuhlik B (2004) Is there a Biomedical Anticommons? Regulation 27: 54-58, Available at SSRN:
  6. EPO, European Patent Office (2003) Usage profiles of patent information among current and potential users. survey2003/index.php
  7. Farrand SK, vanBerkum PB, Oger P (2003) Agrobacterium is a definable genus of the family Rhizobiaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 53: 1681-1687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman M, Colaianni A, Liu K (2005) Commercializing Cohen-Boyer 1980-1997. DRUID Working Paper No. 05-21, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank et al. 119 S.Ct. 2199 (1999)
  9. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticom-mons in Biomedical Research. Science 280 (5364): 698-701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill-Rom Co., Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) H.R. Rep. No., 960, 101st Cong., 2d Sess, 1990Google Scholar
  11. Jones PBC (2005) Patent challenges to agbiotech technologies in 2004. ISB News Report February 2005Google Scholar
  12. Lichtman DG (2006) Patent Holdouts and the Standard-Setting Process. U Chi-cago Law and Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 292 Available at SSRN:
  13. Lichtman D, Baker S, Kraus K (2000) “Strategic disclosure in the patent system”, U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 107, (http://www., abstract id=243414) Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, (Fed. Cir. 2002)
  14. Meeks RL (2005) President’s FY 2006 budget requests level R&D funding. NSF 05-322 October 2005Google Scholar
  15. Mireles MS (2004) An examination of patents, licensing, research tools, and the tragedy of the anticommons in biotechnology innovation. U of Mich J of Law Reform 38: 141-235Google Scholar
  16. Monsanto (2005) Bayer CropScience, Max-Planck Society, Monsanto Company resolve Agrobacterium patent dispute. Press release4 February2005,
  17. National Institutes of Health, Office of Budget,
  18. NSF (2005) National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statis-tics
  19. NSF SRS (2004) National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 2003-05, NSF 05-303, Project Officer, Ronald L. Meeks (Arlington, VA 2004).Google Scholar
  20. Nottenburg C, Pardey PG, Wright BD (2002) Accessing other peoples’ technology for non-profit research. Aust J of Agric and Res Econ 48: 389-416Google Scholar
  21. Pitcairn v. United States, 547 F.2d 1106 (Ct. Cl. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1051 (1978)Google Scholar
  22. Plant Genetic Systems N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. 315 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Press E, Washburn J (2000) The kept university. The Atl Monthly 285: 39-54Google Scholar
  23. Roa-Rodríguez C, Nottenburg C (2003) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plants, CAMBIA Patent Lens (
  24. Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 (1984)Google Scholar
  25. Stern S, Murray FE (2005) Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis. NBER Working Paper No. W11465. Available at SSRN:
  26. Wolf S, Zilberman D (2001) Institutional Innovation in Agriculture. Natural Res Mgmt and Policy 19: 1-394 Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  27. Young JM, Keykendall LD, Martinez-Romero E, Kerr A, Sawada H (2001) A re-vision of Rhizobium Frank 1889, with an amended description of the genus, and the inclusion of all species of Agrobacterium Conn 1942 and Allorhizo-bium undicola de Lajudie et al. 1998 as new combinations: Rhizobium radio-bacter, R. rhizogenes, R. rubi, R. undicola and R. vitis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51: 89-103PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Nottenburg
    • 1
  • Carolina Roa Rodríguez
    • 2
  1. 1.Cougar Patent LawSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations