Plant Breeding from a Patent Perspective Focus on sustainability, innovation and international
Plant Breeding from a Patent Perspective
Credits
Version
English translation of the report ‘Plantenveredeling – De sector vanuit octrooiperspectief’, March 2012, publication number 4OCNL1201
Contact person
J.J. (Jos) Winnink Senior Policy Adviser T (+31) 88 602 63 31 F (+31) 88 602 90 24
[email protected] NL Patent Office | K&V/cluster OOK Patentlaan 2 | 2288 EE Rijswijk | The Netherlands PO Box 5820 | 2280 HV Rijswijk | The Netherlands
Author
Page 2 of 105
J.J. (Jos) Winnink
Abstract
This report1 outlines the plant breeding sector from the point of view of patent applications. It looks at the position of the Dutch companies and organisations active in the international field and describes the role of Dutch inventors and the profiles of the main international and Dutch companies and organisations. There are a few major companies active in the area of plant breeding, some of them American. None of the applicants appears to have a monopoly in terms of patents, though there is concentration in the sector. Pioneer Hi Bred International2, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer are the companies with the most patent applications to their credit. The number of applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) or the European Patent Office (EPO) by these companies is four or five times greater than that of the largest Dutch applicants (Wageningen University and Research Centre, Unilever and Mogen). The relatively large number of applications by the University of California is noteworthy. Of the Dutch applicants for patents in the area of plant breeding, Wageningen URC (WURC) is the one with the largest number. It is one of the twenty largest applicants internationally in the area of recombinant DNA techniques for plant breeding. Of the three sub-areas of plant breeding differentiated in this report, most applications are in that of DNA techniques. In patenting a distinction is made between inventors and applicants. Inventors are those who have actually invented the invention described in a patent application. Applicants are generally companies and organisations that bear the cost of patent procedures, and often the cost of R&D as well. Inventors can therefore be regarded as the sources of technical knowledge, and applicants as the sources of funding. The proportion of Dutch inventors in the activities of all inventors in the entire sector remains more or less constant. The activities of Dutch applicants, on the other hand, have declined somewhat in recent years. This decline is readily explained by takeovers of Dutch companies by foreign corporations, which means that some Dutch inventors’ inventions are being produced for foreign companies and organisations. The respective patent applications are therefore quite likely to be listed against those foreign companies and not regarded as ‘Dutch’. Some Dutch companies’ patents relate solely to plant breeding and they are therefore particularly vulnerable to changes in patent legislation in that area, which could affect their entire patent position. The study shows that companies that have traditionally been active in the area of plant breeding are relatively little involved in the development of DNA techniques. As a country where patent applications are filed directly, under the Dutch Patents Act (ROW95), the Netherlands is not of any great significance internationally. It may
1
With thanks to my colleagues Dr A. (Annemieke) Breukink, Dr G.A.A.M. (Guus) Broesterhuizen, Dr P. (Piet) Donselaar, P.G.M. (Philip) Oomen, Dr N.O.M. (Nikki) Rethmeier, M. (Marcel) Seip, T.J. (Tom) Stoop, Dr J.H.A.A. (Jos) Uitzetter and M. (Myra) Verkuijl for commenting on this report at various stages of its development.
2
Since 1999 Pioneer Hi Bred International has been part of the Du Pont de Nemours corporation, but it has been treated as an independent entity because of its large patent position and the fact that the takeover took place in the middle of the survey period.
Page 3 of 105
be assumed, however, that all relevant inventions in the area of plant breeding will eventually be patented in the Netherlands as well, so as to protect the intellectual property in the Netherlands, which has long had companies and organisations active in this area. In order to shed light on the entire debate on plant breeders’ rights and patents and the tensions between these two intellectual property rights, it would be advisable to carry out a study of plant breeders’ rights on the same lines as this study of patents. Patent documents contain information on technological developments. The economic value of such developments depends on many factors, which cannot be deduced from the patent literature. This report does not therefore draw any conclusions on individual patents and their potential economic value.
Page 4 of 105
Contents
Abstract 3 1
Introduction 7
2
Methodology 10
2.1
Source of information 10
2.2
Terminology 10
2.3
Collecting documents for the analyses 11
2.4
Patent activity worldwide: overall picture 11
2.5 3
Survey period 12 Development of the Plant Improvement Area 13
3.1
Trends in numbers of inventions 13
3.2
Numbers of patent applications 14
3.3
Origin of patent applications 15
3.4
The role of the Netherlands and Dutch applicants 17
3.5
The role of UPOV member countries 17
3.6
Patent applications involving Dutch inventors 19
3.7
Total plant breeding and the three sub-areas 21
3.8
Summary 23
4
Patent Applicants 24
4.1
Applicants: the international picture 24
4.2
Dutch applicants 24
4.3
Profile of applicants 26
4.4
Summary 29
5
Market Concentration in Patents 31
5.1
Comments 31
5.2
Patent applications per applicant 31
5.3
The twenty largest applicants 32
5.4
Herfindahl index 33
5.5 6
Summary 34 Sub-area: Plant Breeding Processes 36
6.1
Trend 36
6.2
Origin of patent applications 38
6.3
Patent applicants 39
6.4
Summary 40
7
Sub-area: Plant Breeding Products 41
7.1
Trend 41
7.2
Origin of patent applications 42
7.3
Patent applicants 43
7.4
Summary 45
8 8.1
Sub-area: DNA techniques for Plant Breeding 46 Trend 46
Page 5 of 105
8.2
Origin of patent applications 47
8.3
Patent applicants 49
8.4
Summary 50
9 10
The Role of Dutch Inventors in International Corporations 52 The Nature Of The Dutch Applicants 53
10.1
Characteristics of Dutch applicants 53
10.2
Proportion of plant breeding in total IP positions 56
10.3
Summary 60
11
UPOV and PCT 61
12
Conclusions 66
Appendix I Description of Patent Categories Used 68 Plant breeding processes and products 68 Recombinant DNA technology 68 Appendix II Acronyms for Organisations in the Area of Intellectual Property 69 Appendix III Country Codes Used 70 Appendix IV Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Contracting States 71 Appendix V UPOV Convention Member Countries 73 Appendix VI Intellectual Property Rights related to Agricultural Crops and UPOV Membership 75 Appendix VII The Role of Dutch Applicants and Inventors 81 Appendix VIII Plant Breeding Processes 85 Definition 85 Trend 85 Patent applicants 88 Appendix IX Plant Breeding Products 92 Definition 92 Trend 92 Patent applicants 94 Appendix X DNA Techniques for Plant Breeding 99 Definition 99 Trend 99 Patent applicants 101
Page 6 of 105
1
Introduction The constant progress of biotechnology in particular has caused tensions to develop between patent law and plant breeders’ rights. In 2009, as a result of debates in the Dutch Senate and House of Representatives instigated by the Ministry3 of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) carried out a study into this subject. The report4 of this study was published in December 2009 as CGN Report 14, Veredelde zaken: de toekomst van de plantenveredeling in het licht van de ontwikkelingen in het octrooirecht en het kwekersrecht (Breeding Business: the future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeders’ rights). On 6 May 2009 Plantum NL, the industry association for companies in the plant source material sector, adopted the following position on the relationship between patent law and plant breeders’ rights: 1. Patent-protected biological material should be freely available for the development of new varieties. 2. The use and exploitation of these new varieties should be free, in accordance with the ‘breeders’ exemption’ in the UPOV5 Convention. 3. The aforementioned free availability, use and exploitation should not be hampered in any way, directly or indirectly, by patent law. The report Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and Its Consequences for Innovation6, commissioned by the Committee on Genetic Modification (COGEM), was published in January 2011. The key question it addresses is formulated as follows (p. 4): whether the plant breeding sector worldwide is monopolized by large multinationals due to the application of genetic modification, and if so, what might be the possible consequences for innovation in this sector? The Dutch summary of this report notes inter alia the following (pp. 11-12): According to the economic analysis the high concentrations in the American cotton, maize and soya seed markets have not had any negative effects on innovation during the past seventeen years, a period that coincided with the substantial adoption by these American markets of genetic modification technology. It goes on to mention a number of concerns regarding patenting in relation to research and development (R&D) in the seed sector.
3 4
5
6
The names of the Ministries are shown as they were in spring 2009, at the time of the parliamentary debate. The digital version of the report Veredelde zaken: de toekomst van de plantenveredeling in het licht van de ontwikkelingen in het octrooirecht en het kwekersrecht (CGN Report 14) can be found via the link (dated 31 August 2012) http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2010/06/03/veredelde-zaken/veredelde-zaken-20100603.pdf The English version of this report ‘Breeding Business, The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeder’s rights can be found via the link (dated 31 August 2012) http://edepot.wur.nl/141258 UPOV (L’Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales/International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) is an intergovernmental organisation concerned with the international protection of plant breeders’ rights. Its headquarters are in Geneva (Switzerland). (Source: http://www.upov.int/). The digital version of the report _Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and its Consequences for Innovation (CGM 2011-01) can be found via the link (dated 26 May 2011) http://cogem.ip93.allcommunication.nl/index.cfm/nl/publicaties/publicatie/drivers-of-consolidation-in-the-seedindustry-and-its-consequences-for-innovation-1
Page 7 of 105
An understanding of, inter alia, the patent positions of Dutch companies and research organisations and their competitors in the area of plant breeding is needed for the parliamentary debate. The definition of ‘plant breeding’ used can be found in §2.2 (p. 10). This report by the NL Patent Office describes the Netherlands’ position and how it is developing in relation to the positions of other countries as regards inventions in the area of plant breeding. Inventions are ‘measured’ on the basis of patent applications. This report shows the positions of companies active in patenting. As well as looking at companies and organisations, it considers the role of Dutch inventors working for international corporations with operations in the Netherlands. This report also considers the role of the ‘UPOV countries’7 in the area of plant breeding. UPOV was set up by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The UPOV Convention was signed in 1961 in Paris and has since been amended three times. Its aim is to protect new plant varieties by means of intellectual property rights. This study focuses on patent applications for processes, products and DNA techniques for plant breeding. This classification is based on the technical characteristics of the inventions. The study analyses inventions described in patent applications filed during the 1980-2008 period. The majority of the analyses involved looking at patent applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) or the European Patent Office (EPO), with no restrictions on the country of domicile of the applicants or the inventors. At the time of the study there was no consistent data at the required level of detail (suitable for statistical analysis) available on patents granted in the United States over a substantial period, hence these patents8 are not included in the study. The study only looked at numbers of inventions based on patent applications; it did not draw any qualitative conclusions on individual inventions. The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 sets out the methodology used to select the patent documents used for the study. Chapter 3 describes the trend in inventions in the area of plant breeding, giving an overall picture of the trend and an analysis of the countries where the applications originated. This chapter also considers the companies and organisations actively involved in patenting and the role of Dutch inventors. The patent applicants are the subject of Chapter 4, and market concentration (if any) is that of Chapter 5. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 describe the developments in the three sub-areas of processes, products and DNA techniques in greater detail. Chapter 9 discusses the role of Dutch inventors in international corporations. The sectors in which the Dutch applicants are active is the subject of Chapter 10. Chapter 11 briefly discusses the UPOV Convention and the PCT and shows which countries have ratified these treaties respectively. Chapter 12 sets out the conclusions of the study. Appendix I explains the classification used. Appendix II gives a list of the acronyms used in this document for organisations in the area of intellectual property. The country codes used in this document are listed in Appendix III. The countries that have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) are shown in Appendix IV. A list of the UPOV member countries can be found in Appendix V.
7
UPOV countries = countries that have signed the UPOV Convention (see also footnote 5, p. 7; for a list of the countries see Appendix V, p. 73).
8
For details see §2.3 (p. 11).
Page 8 of 105
Appendix VI gives an overview of all countries, indicating whether they have legislation in the area of intellectual property rights relating to agricultural crops. The role of Dutch applicants and Dutch inventors is discussed in Appendix VII. Appendices VIII-X contain details on the subjects of Chapters 6-8.
Page 9 of 105
2
2.1
Methodology
Source of information
The source of information used was the EPO’s EPODOC database, which contains bibliographical information on patent publications that are useful as a source of information on the patenting process. It therefore provides information on all relevant patent documents throughout the world. Inventions in the area of plant breeding can be divided into three groups based on their technological characteristics, namely (1) plant improvement processes, (2) plant improvement products and (3) DNA-related techniques for plant improvement. This threefold classification is based on the differentiation made when classifying the patent publications describing the inventions. The International Patent Classification (IPC) was used for this purpose. For details of the classification codes used see Appendix I. As inventions can often have several characteristic properties, a particular patent application may be classified in more than one of the three groups, so they overlap to some extent.
2.2
Terminology
Products and methods Patent laws distinguish between ‘products’ and ‘methods’ for the purpose of patent protection. The classification into three groups in the previous section (§2.1) is based on the terminology used in the International Patent Classification (IPC), the purpose of which is to enable technologically related patent documents to be traced quickly for patent applications. Each of the three groups contains patent documents for the protection of ‘products’ and ‘methods’. Patent families, inventions, and applications In order to determine the number of unique inventions as accurately as possible, ‘patent families’ are counted. These are groups of patent documents related to one and the same invention. The terms ‘patent family’ and ‘invention’ are used as equivalents in the text. The meaning of the term ‘application’ is in the context of this report ‘an application for an unique invention’ and equivalent to a ‘patent family’. Plant improvement ‘Plant improvement’ is defined as: The totality of efforts to influence the genetic predisposition of crops. The aim of improvement is to adapt crops to the requirements set by links in the production and processing chain right down to the final consumer. New varieties should always have a unique phenotype based on a genetic combination not previously employed in a variety.
Page 10 of 105
2.3
Collecting documents for the analyses
The analyses described in this report are based on information on patent applications. Another option would have been to use information on patents granted, but a major drawback here is that several years (five to seven) elapse between the filing of a patent application and the possible granting of the patent. There are a number of reasons for a patent application not to be granted, and the innovative work that has been done as shown in the patent applications is not fully reflected in the patents granted. The long time frame and incomplete coverage mean that publications of patents granted do not provide a good basis for analysing the innovative work. Generally speaking, it would also be desirable to analyse the situation regarding patent applications filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the patents granted there. A complicating factor is that until 2001 patent applications were only published in the United States if they resulted in a patent being granted. Since 2001 all patent applications in the United States have been published, including those that have been unsuccessful. In order to obtain a data set that is consistent over a lengthy period, information on patents granted is generally used in the case of the United States. There are two problems with this method: (a) it takes a long time (five to seven years) for patent applications to be granted (if at all), and (b) since 2001 the publications of patents granted in the database used for this study (EPODOC) have increasingly lagged behind the official figures for patents granted. A consistent document set for the analyses was obtained by looking solely at patent applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) plus those filed with the European Patent Office (EPO). The procedures and requirements for such applications are largely comparable. These ‘international’ procedures are generally more expensive than purely ‘national’ procedures, and this cost aspect makes them more selective, with fewer ‘weaker’ applications being filed internationally. Together these patenting requirements and the cost-based selectivity ensure that the patent publications in the selection are more comparable and therefore give a more reliable idea of the trend in this area of technology. All the patent publications in the database were included to obtain this ‘World’ total. The overall picture thus constructed comprises the patent publications in all three groups referred to in §2.1. Equivalent patent publications were counted as a single publication here in order to avoid overestimation. Thus the overall picture is not the simple sum of the sub-areas, since inventions as described in patent applications can have various aspects and therefore be classified in more than one sub-area. In all the analyses the patent publications were grouped in such a way that all the publications actually describing one and the same invention, thus forming a ‘patent family’, were only counted once. For the reasons mentioned (the time lapse between filing and granting and the information lacking in the case of the United States), this report does not include an analysis based on patents granted.
2.4
Patent activity worldwide: overall picture
The aim of this overall picture is to show the worldwide trend in inventions in the area of plant improvement based on patent publications. This data set is referred to as ‘World’ in the remainder of this report. A complicating factor when it comes to Page 11 of 105
obtaining an overall picture is that there is no such thing as a ‘world patent’, so any picture of patent activity worldwide is going to be a more or less precise approximation of reality. The patent applications included in this overall picture are not all equal, in that some ‘only’ lead to a potential patent in one country, whereas others are used as a basis for establishing patent rights in a number of countries. No distinction was made here in terms of the country in which the application was filed and the patent legislation in force there, for the following reasons: 1. the details of patent laws can differ from one country to another; 2. patent laws are regularly amended; 3. patents are only one type of intellectual property right; and 4. the cost of obtaining a patent differs from one country to another. This makes it virtually impossible to take all the various factors into account in an analysis, with their proper weighting. The picture of patent activity worldwide obtained in this way can at most be regarded as a rough frame of reference, which should be used with due caution.
2.5
Survey period
There is a confidentiality period for patent applications, and data on those that are still at the confidential stage is not available for analysis. The confidentiality period is generally 18 months from the filing of the application, but it can be as much as 30 months in the case of applications filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation, which require international research into the state of the art. Our analyses have therefore had to be confined to the 1980-2008 period, and the data for 2008 is incomplete as it was collected in spring 2011. Some patent applications are withdrawn before they are published, i.e. during the confidentiality period, so these are not available for analysis.
Page 12 of 105
3
Development of the Plant Improvement Area
This chapter analyses the overall picture of patenting related to plant improvement, looking at trends, active companies and organisations, the role of Dutch inventors, the profile of applicants, market concentration (if any) and applicants’ dependence on patents in the area of plant breeding. The role of Dutch inventors listed on patent publications of the major international corporations is the subject of Chapter 9. The unit used for counting is the ‘patent family’: this is a set of patent documents related to one and the same unique invention.
3.1
Trends in numbers of inventions
The trend in inventions can be described based (a) on the domicile of the patent applicants and (b) on the domicile of the inventors. There are a number of major companies with a host of operations worldwide that are active in the area of plant breeding. These companies usually have specialist and local departments responsible for applying for and managing intellectual property rights. In such cases the applicant’s domicile does not always provide reliable information on where the actual invention took place. In order to ascertain where the innovative work actually took place, the picture obtained using the inventors’ domicile was also examined, but even this approach cannot provide certainty as to where inventions took place in every case. The picture based on the applicants’ domicile is discussed in §3.3. The picture that emerges from looking at inventors’ domicile is shown in §3.6. Fig. 1 (top of next page) outlines the numbers of inventions in the area of plant breeding over time. The number of patent applications per year has stabilized in recent years, following sharp growth during the 1995-2000 period. ‘World’ indicates the constructed world total (see also §2.4).
Page 13 of 105
Patent families per year
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year "World"A pplications
A pplications with WIP O o r E P O 9
Fig. 1 Numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding
3.2
Numbers of patent applications
To enable the number of patent applications in the ‘World’ and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO to be compared, Fig. 2 shows the numbers in relation to the respective numbers for 2005, which are taken as the baseline (100%). The year 2005 was selected because the data for 1999 and 2000 in particular include relatively large numbers of patent applications in the area of biotechnology. There was growth in applications from the start of the analysis period until 1999. Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO peaked around the year 2000, as Fig. 2 clearly shows. There is no such clear peak in ‘World’ applications because of the different distribution of applications among the various sub-areas. Since 2000 the number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO has been structurally lower (30% vis-à-vis applications in 2000). The peak around 2000 coincided with the rise and subsequent decline in applications in the area of biotechnology. Since 2000 ‘World’ applications has also ceased to grow and the number of applications has stabilized at a level of 3,000 patent families per year. The number of biotechnology applications has fallen since 2000 as a result of changes in the legislation10 laying down more rigorous requirements for patenting: in the case of patent applications for DNA sequences the function of the DNA sequence to be patented now has to be stated, which was not necessary before the legislation changed.
9
For the definition of ‘World’ used see §2.4.
10
See also Lawrence, S (2004). Patent drop reveals pressure on industry. Nature Biotechnology, 22(8), pp. 930-1.
Page 14 of 105
Both the constructed ‘World’ total and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO are shown.
200
%
2005 100
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year "World" applications
A pplications with WIP O o r E P O
Fig. 2 Numbers of patent families for plant breeding (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)9
There is a discrepancy between the ‘World’ total and patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. This discrepancy, in terms of both numbers and the path of applications, is explained by ‘local’ inventions: these ‘local’ applications are made in only one country or a few countries. The applicants concerned have not deemed it necessary to file their applications with the WIPO or EPO as well. There can be various reasons for keeping a patent application ‘local’.
3.3
Origin of patent applications
Figs. 3 and 4 show the origin of all patent applications in the area of plant breeding during the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile. Fig. 3 breaks the applications down into those from applicants in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), the United States, Japan and other countries. Fig. 4 shows the origin by country in more detail. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 40%. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 5%.
Page 15 of 105
JP 7% Not EU, US, or JP 21%
EU 32%
US 40%
Fig. 3 Origin of patent applications by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008
NL 5% GB 6% JP 7%
FR 4%
CH 4%
BE 4%
KR 2% AU 3% CA 3%
IL 2% DK 1% CN 1%
DE 10%
Other 13%
IN 1% Rest 7%
US 40%
Fig. 4 Origin of patent applications by country of applicant, 1980-2008
Page 16 of 105
3.4
The role of the Netherlands and Dutch applicants
A total of 50,047 inventions11 in the area of plant breeding were made in the ‘World’ during the 1980-2008 period (Table 1). In this table the percentages in the columns with no background colour represent the proportions of patent applications in relation to the ‘All applicants’ column. The percentages in the columns with a background colour show the proportions of Dutch applicants in relation to the numbers in the respective column with no background colour. At least one Dutch applicant was involved in the application in the case of 5.1% of inventions. 18.9% of the applications were filed with the WIPO or EPO, 12.2% of these with the EPO. A very small proportion (approximately 2.1%) of these applications were filed with the NL Patent Office (NLOC). Dutch applicants were involved in an average of 5.3% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The number is comparable as regards applications filed solely with the EPO, but the percentage fluctuates widely from one year to another, from less than 1.0% to 9.3% in 2005 worldwide and 8.8% of the applications filed with the EPO in 1992. For a full overview with the data broken down by year see Table 25 (p. 81).
Table 1 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants9 Patent families Worldwide12 All of which applicants from Dutch applicants 15
Total 1980 2008
3.5
50047
2571 (5.1%)
of which via WIPO or EPO All of which applicants from Dutch applicant s16 9456 497 (18.9%) (5.3%)
of which via EPO13 All applicants
of which from Dutch applicants
via NLOC14 All applican ts
17
6106 (12.2%)
324 (5.3%)
of which from Dutch applicants
18
128 (2.1%)
82 (64.1%)
The role of UPOV member countries
To gain an impression of the role of the Netherlands and the UPOV4 member countries the figures were broken down into the total number of inventions, the number of inventions from UPOV countries and the number of inventions from the Netherlands. This was done in the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 5). As the data in this chart clearly shows, virtually all the inventions and patents granted originated with applicants in UPOV member countries. Chapter 11
11
Measured as the number of patent families. See also the comment on this subject in §2.2 (p. 10).
12
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain a picture as accurate as possible. Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.
13
14
Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands). This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 16 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the WIPO or EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 17 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 18 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 15
Page 17 of 105
gives an overview of the countries and whether they are members of the UPOV Convention and the PCT. The fact that applicants from UPOV countries also apply for patent protection in the area of plant breeding in UPOV member countries is an indication that they regard both plant breeders’ rights and patents as important ways of protecting their intellectual property. Looking at the numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 5), we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques. A step change of this kind is apparent in all the sub-areas (Figs. 14, 18 and 22).
Patent families per year
800
600
400
200
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Fig. 5 Numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Dutch Applicants 19
(total)
Applications involving Dutch applicants comprise a small percentage of the total. Over the period as a whole the proportion of Dutch applicants is just over 5% of the total, peaking at 8.8% in 2005. No attempt has been made to gauge the ‘value’ of individual inventions, neither economically nor as a basis for further technological developments. Fig. 6 shows the trend in the above data, comparing the numbers with the number in 2005, taking the latter as the baseline (100%). As this figure shows, the proportion of Dutch applicants lags behind substantially and fluctuates sharply. There is a noticeable dip in 2003, which is not explained by reduced activity on the part of Dutch inventors (see Fig. 8, p. 21); the cause therefore has to be sought in changes in the nationalities of the patent applicants. After 2003 the number of
19
Duplicate applications relating to the same invention have been removed from this set of patent publications relating to applications filed with the EPO and WIPO. The way these documents were selected is explained in the third paragraph of §2.3.
.
Page 18 of 105
applications regains the pre-2003 level (Fig. 6). As the numbers of applications from Dutch applicants are small, however, even small changes have a relatively large effect.
200
%
2005
100
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicatants from UPOV-countries
Dutch appicants
Fig. 6 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
3.6
Patent applications involving Dutch inventors
To gain an impression of the sector from the point of view of the nationalities of the inventors, inventions were broken down by their domicile. This was done in the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (see also Fig. 7). As the chart shows, virtually all the inventions originated with applicants in UPOV member countries. Table 2 gives an overview of inventions during the 1980-2008 period and the role of Dutch inventors. It shows applications worldwide, the proportion handled by the EPO and the applications dealt with by the NL Patent Office, indicating how many inventions are listed with at least one Dutch inventor. For a full overview with the data broken down by year see Table 26 (p. 83). Looking at all applications (‘World’) during the survey period, we see that Dutch inventors were involved in 6.4% of inventions. The proportion of Dutch inventors fluctuates sharply from one year to another, ranging from less than 1.0% to 10.2% in 2007. As regards applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, the proportion of Dutch inventors peaked at 9.8%, in both 1992 and 1993. The proportion of patent applications to which Dutch inventors contributed averages out at 5.2% over the entire period. It fluctuates sharply, however, ranging from 1.2% in 1987 to 9.8% in 1992 and 1993. There is an exceptional figure of 11.1% in 1982, but this relates to only one patent application. Looking at applications filed with the EPO, we see that Dutch inventors were involved in an average of 5.7% of them. The minimum was 1.1% in 1986, and the peak of 10.0% was reached in 1993. In the case of applications filed with the EPO the average proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.4% higher than that based on applicants’ domicile. In the case of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO the Page 19 of 105
proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.1% lower than that of Dutch applicants. In the case of applications filed with the EPO the proportion of Dutch inventors was 0.4% higher. In the ‘worldwide’ set the proportion of Dutch inventors was substantially higher, at 6.4%, than that of Dutch applicants (5.1%). The higher proportion of EPO applications is an indication that some of the Dutch inventors are employed by foreign companies that prefer to file patent applications with the EPO rather than the WIPO. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from these figures, however, also given the long period covered and the fact that the sector has developed during this time.
Table 2 Inventions and the role of Dutch inventors Patent families Worldwide20 All From inventors Dutch inventors 23
Total 1980 2008
50047
3221 (6.4%)
of which via WIPO or EPO All From inventors Dutch inventors
of which via EPO21 All inventors
24
9456 (18.9%)
490 (5.2%)
via NLOC22
From Dutch inventors
All inventors
From Dutch inventors
349 (5.7%)
?
?
25
6106 (12.2%)
Patentfamilies per year
800
600
400
200
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Filing year Total
Inventors from UPOV-countries
Dutch inventors
Fig. 7 Numbers of patent applications, based on inventors’ domicile, filed with the WIPO or EPO (total)
20
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible. Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated. 22 Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands). Data on the breakdown by domicile of patent applications filed with the NL Patent Office is missing from the database for the 1980-1990 period. 23 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 24 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the WIPO or EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 25 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 21
Page 20 of 105
200
%
2005 100
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Inventors from UPOV-countries
Dutch inventors
Fig. 8 Numbers of patent families, based on inventors’ domicile, filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
3.7
Total plant breeding and the three sub-areas
The table below gives an overview of the absolute numbers of patent applications and the distribution of ‘interest’ among the three sub-areas over the 1980-2008 period. As Table 3 shows, the three sub-areas (processes, products and DNA techniques) overlap substantially, so the ‘Total’ is not the simple sum of the subareas, as a patent can be classified in several sub-areas at the same time, based on its characteristics. The two figures below (Figs. 9 and 10) show the trend in total numbers of patent applications, and applications in the three sub-areas, filed with the WIPO or EPO. The number of applications for DNA techniques clearly predominates here. The number of applications for processes is much lower than for the other two subareas. As Table 3 and Fig. 9 show, the ‘Total’ is not the simple sum of the sub-areas, as this would produce percentages in excess of 100. In the ‘World’ figures the ratio between the three sub-areas differs from the pattern of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO: in particular the proportion of DNA-related applications is lower.
Page 21 of 105
Table 3 Absolute numbers of patent applications and relative ‘interest’ in the three sub-areas over the 1980-2008 period for ‘World’ and applications filed with the WIPO or EPO Total
Processes
Products
DNA techniques
‘World’ Number in the 1980-2008 period
50047
‘Interest’ = (Number in
19155
36867
16625
38.3%
73.7%
33.2%
2936
5881
7874
31.0%
62.2%
83.3%
category)/Total
Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO Number in the 1980-2008 period
9456
‘Interest’ = (Number in category)/Total
In terms of numbers, the fewest patent applications are for processes. One reason for this could be that a process is not visible in the end-product, hence keeping the process secret (trade secrecy) is sufficient to protect it. The three sub-areas are described separately in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. Fig. 10 clearly shows the ‘biotech bubble’ (see also §3.2 and note 10) around the year 2000.
Patent families per year
1000
800
600
400
200
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Filing year Total
Processes
Products
DNA techniques
Fig. 9 Numbers of patent families per year (filed with the WIPO or EPO)
Page 22 of 105
2010
%
200
100
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Processes
Products
DNA techniques
Fig. 10 Numbers of patent families filed with the WIPO or EPO (total), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
3.8
Summary
This chapter looked at the trend in the numbers of patent applications. A ‘World’ total was constructed and used solely to give an impression of the total numbers of patent applications worldwide. Because of its non-homogeneous composition this data set was not suitable for analysis, hence the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO were used for this purpose. The number of applications per year rises over the period as a whole. There is a peak in the data around the year 2000, caused by the ‘biotech bubble’. Looking at the proportion of patent applications in the area of plant breeding from countries that were not UPOV members showed that virtually all the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO came from UPOV countries. Applicants in the United States predominated, with a total of 40% of patent applications filed with the EPO or WIPO over the entire period. Applications from Dutch applicants during the 1980-2008 period made up 5.3% of total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. As regards Dutch inventors the proportion was 5.2%. Dutch inventors were involved in approximately 5.7% of applications filed with the EPO: thus the proportion is approximately 0.4% higher than when looking at applicants’ domicile in the case of applications filed with the EPO. The higher proportion of EPO applications is an indication that some of the Dutch inventors are employed by foreign companies that prefer to file patent applications with the EPO rather than the WIPO. Of the three sub-areas, DNA techniques is the largest.
Page 23 of 105
4
Patent Applicants
This chapter discusses the main applicants for patents and Dutch applicants. The patent profile of each applicant is described, thus indicating the importance of the three sub-areas to that applicant.
4.1 Applicants: the international picture Based on the numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period, companies and organisations were ranked in a league table. Pioneer Hi Bred International, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, and Syngenta were found to be the five companies with the most inventions to their credit during the 1980-2008 period. In terms of numbers of applications, the University of California (Uni California) is in seventh position, making it the research organisation with the largest number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO to its credit. Of the total of 2972 applicants, 41 accounted for approximately half (49.7%) of the applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The numbers for these 41 applicants range from 44 to 522 during the 1980-2008 period. The top 20 applicants in descending order are shown in Table 4 (p. 25). Together these applicants accounted for 37.4% of applications during the survey period. This overview shows that no companies or organisations have a monopoly or virtual monopoly of patents for plant breeding. The data relates to numbers of applications and does not enable us to ascertain whether one or more companies or organisations have a predominant economic position in the plant breeding sector as a whole or sub-areas thereof. A company’s R&D position is reflected in numbers of patent applications and the resulting patents; it does not indicate whether one or more of the patents are ‘key patents’ that make it more or less obligatory for others to take out licences if they also wish to be economically active in the market.
4.2
Dutch applicants
The twenty largest Dutch applicants are shown in Table 5 (p. 26). Each of them made six or more applications during the 1980-2008 period. In terms of numbers, the Dutch applicants are not in the top rank of largest applicants worldwide. Wageningen URC (WURC) is the largest Dutch applicant, in sixteenth position in the international league table of applicants (Table 4). Another research organisation that comes to the fore as an applicant is Leiden University (in fourth position in Table 5). Position in the league table is no indication of the ‘value’ or quality of the inventions being patented.
Page 24 of 105
Table 4 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company
Origin of inventions
Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Proportion of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
1
Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l26
US
522
5.4%
2
Monsanto Co
DE, FR, GB, NL,
375
3.9%
3
Du Pont de Nemours
GB, US
360
3.8%
4
BASF
DE, NL, US
356
3.7%
5
Syngenta
AU, CH, GB, NL,
303
3.2%
238
2.5%
US
US 6
Bayer
BE, CA, DE, FR, US
7
Uni California
US
173
1.8%
8
Cropdesign NV (spin-off of
BE
135
1.4%
Flanders Inter-University Institute of Biotechnology) 9
Astrazeneca
GB, SE
124
1.3%
10
Calgene Inc. (owned by
AU, US
112
1.2%
AU
109
1.1%
Monsanto since 1997) 11
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
12
Canada Nat Res Council
CA
105
1.1%
13
Max Planck Gesellschaft27
CH, DE, FR
102
1.1%
14
Dow Chemical
CA, US
90
0.9%
15
Cornell University
US
89
0.9%
16
Wageningen URC (WURC)
NL
87
0.9%
17
Ceres Tech Inc
US
86
0.9%
18
Agronomique Inst Nat
FR
76
0.8%
Rech 19
Ciba Geigy
CH, GB, JP
75
0.8%
20
US Dept of Agriculture
US
72
0.8%
26
Pioneer Hi Bred International has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999. It has been listed as an independent company in the tables because of its large patent position and the fact that it was an independent company for part of the survey period.
27
Full name: Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften Eingetragener Verein
Page 25 of 105
Table 5 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 19802008 period Company/Organisation
Number of applications
Proportion of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
1
Wageningen URC28 (WURC)
87
0.90%
2
Unilever
56
0.58%
3
Mogen Int (part of Syngenta AG)
54
0.56%
4
Leiden University
29
0.30%
5
Keygene NV (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.)
27
0.28%
6
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel
27
0.28%
7
AVEBE NV
18
0.19%
8
De Ruiter Seeds (part of Monsanto)
16
0.17%
9
Syngenta
15
0.16%
10
Royal Dutch Shell Group
14
0.15%
11
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
12
0.13%
12
Expressive Res BV
11
0.11%
13
Nunhems BV
10
0.10%
14
Advanta Seeds
9
0.09%
15
BASF
9
0.09%
16
Gist Brocades
8
0.08%
17
STW
8
0.08%
18
Bejo Zaden BV
7
0.07%
19
DSM NV
6
0.06%
20
Stichting Binair Vector Systeem
6
0.06%
4.3
Profile of applicants
‘Profile’ in this report refers to the interest (based on patent applications) displayed by applicants in the three sub-areas of plant breeding. The two tables below (Tables 6 and 8) show the distribution of patent publications among the sub-areas for the main international and main Dutch applicants in terms of numbers of applications. The tables are based on applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. The applicants are listed here as shown on the patent applications, not corrected for any subsequent takeovers or mergers. The percentages show the ratio of each applicant’s applications in each sub-area to its total number of applications in the area of plant breeding. As patent documents
28
It should be noted that all the institutes known to be part of Wageningen University and Research Centre (WURC) have been listed under it.
Page 26 of 105
can have several classification codes, they can fall into more than one sub-area, so the percentages do not always add up to 100%. The figures should be regarded as an indication of the relative distribution of ‘interest’ among the three sub-areas. On average, 31.0% of applications relate to processes, 62.2% to products and 83.3% to DNA-related techniques.
Profile of the largest international companies DNA-related techniques are clearly in the spotlight. Processes is the sub-area where the fewest patent applications are made by these applicants.
Table 6 Profile of top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO Company
Origin of patent applications
Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Average
Processes
Products
DNArelated techniques
31.0%
62.2%
83.3%
(WIPO or EPO) 1
Pioneer Hi Bred
US
522
21.1%
65.9%
93.1%
DE, FR, GB,
375
33.3%
70.7%
89.3%
GB, US
360
17.2%
54.4%
92.2%
Int’l (whollyowned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999) 2
Monsanto Co
NL, US 3
Du Pont de Nemours
4
BASF
DE, NL, US
356
9.0%
63.8%
96.1%
5
Syngenta
AU, CH, GB,
303
24.1%
76.9%
89.8%
238
15.1%
68.5%
94.5%
NL, US 6
Bayer
BE, CA, DE,
7
Uni California
US
173
37.6%
64.7%
90.2%
8
Cropdesign NV
BE
135
8.9%
63.7%
97.8%
FR, US
(spin-off of Flanders InterUniversity Institute of Biotechnology) 9
Astrazeneca
GB, SE
124
22.6%
81.5%
88.7%
10
Calgene Inc.
AU, US
112
29.5%
68.8%
99.1%
(owned by
Page 27 of 105
Company
Origin of patent applications
Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Processes
Products
DNArelated techniques
AU
109
33.9%
74.3%
87.2%
CA
105
29.5%
67.6%
85.7%
CH, DE, FR
102
22.5%
76.5%
90.2%
Monsanto since 1997) 11
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
12
Canada Nat Res Council
13
Max Planck Gesellschaft
14
Dow Chemical
CA, US
91
22.0%
56.0%
90.1%
15
Cornell
US
89
38.2%
61.8%
91.0%
University 16
Ceres Tech Inc
US
86
20.9%
31.4%
98.8%
17
Agronomique
FR
76
28.9%
69.7%
75.0%
Inst Nat Rech 18
Ciba Geigy
CH, GB, JP
75
40.0%
76.0%
92.0%
19
US Dept Of
US
72
48.6%
66.7%
83.3%
GB
71
0.0%
69.0%
97.2%
Agriculture 20
Plant Biosciences Ltd
Profile of the Dutch companies The Dutch applicants that came to the fore in this study, totalling 79, were classified into four types. The table below shows the results of this classification.
Table 7 Distribution of the 79 Dutch applicants by type Intermediary organisation
4 (4%)
Chemical corporation
7 (9%)
Research organisation
12 (15%)
Company active in the area of seed breeding or biotechnology company
56 (71%)
The profile of the Dutch applicants (Table 8, p. 29), especially that of companies active in the area of seed breeding, differs substantially from that of the major international applicants as described in the previous section. ‘Traditional seed improvers’ such as Rijk Zwaan, De Ruiter, Enza and Bejo Zaden are clearly particularly interested in patents in the sub-area of processes. The major interest of Shell for processes sub-area is also remarkable.. Page 28 of 105
Table 8 Profile of top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company/Organisation
Type of company29
Number of applications
Average (WIPO or EPO)
Processes
Products
DNA-related techniques
31.0%
62.2%
83.3%
1
Wageningen URC (WURC)
R
86
10.5%
75.6%
93.0%
2
Unilever
C
56
17.9%
64.3%
87.5%
3
Mogen Int
S/B
54
27.8%
88.9%
100.0%
4
Leiden University
R
29
37.9%
51.7%
96.6%
5
Keygene NV
S/B
27
18.5%
44.4%
85.2%
6
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en
S/B
27
66.7%
70.4%
25.9%
Zaadhandel 7
AVEBE NV
S/B
18
16.7%
83.3%
83.3%
8
De Ruiter Seeds
S/B
16
56.3%
93.8%
43.8%
9
Syngenta
S/B
15
13.3%
86.7%
93.3%
10
Royal Dutch Shell Group
C
14
85.7%
21.4%
21.4%
11
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer
S/B
12
50.0%
75.0%
41.7%
63.6%
100.0%
Zaadhandel 12
Expressive Res BV
S/B
11
18.2%
13
Nunhems BV
S/B
10
50.0%
90.0%
60.0%
14
Advanta Seeds
S/B
9
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
15
BASF
C
9
11.1%
100.0%
100.0%
16
Gist Brocades
S/B
8
50.0%
62.5%
100.0%
17
STW
I
8
12.5%
75.0%
75.0%
18
Bejo Zaden BV
S/B
7
71.4%
85.7%
28.6%
19
DSM NV
C
6
16.7%
66.7%
66.7%
20
Stichting Binair Vector
I
6
0.0%
33.3%
100.0%
Systeem
4.4
Summary
The applicant with the most patent applications accounted for 5.4% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period. Six applicants (Pioneer Hi Bred, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer) each accounted for 2.5%-5.4% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, making them markedly larger than the other applicants, of which the University of California was the largest, with 1.8%. Together these six companies accounted for approximately
29
B=Biotechnology company, C=Chemical corporation, I=Intermediary organisation, R=Research organisation, S=company active in the area of seed breeding
Page 29 of 105
22.5% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. There cannot therefore be said to be any real monopoly in terms of numbers of patent applications. Dutch applicants play a relatively modest role. Among them Wageningen URC is the largest, with 0.9% of total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO, placing it in sixteenth position in the league table. Looking at the companies’ profiles, we note that interest in DNA-related techniques among the top 20 largest international applicants is substantial, at over 83.3%. Dutch companies that have traditionally concerned themselves with seed breeding have more than average interest in processes in their profiles.
Page 30 of 105
5
Market Concentration in Patents
There is concentration in the plant breeding sector due to takeovers and mergers. The question is whether this ‘economic’ concentration is also reflected in R&D in the sector, hence in patent applications. The question this chapter sets out to answer is: “Are inventions increasingly being made by a relatively limited group of companies and organisations, with the result that intellectual property rights (IP rights) are increasingly falling into the hands of an ever smaller group of companies and organisations, enabling them to dominate the market?” The question of the concentration of IP rights is separate from that of where R&D is carried out. This study is only able to provide information on the legal entities in whose names IP rights (i.e. patents) are being applied for. There are a number of ways of ascertaining whether there is any concentration of e.g. intellectual property rights. Three angles have been selected in this chapter: (1) in the case of applicants with ten or more applications during the 1980-2008 period, the average number of patent applications per year and the maximum number of applications in any given year; (2) the proportion of the total accounted for by the 20 largest applicants; and (3) the Herfindahl index
5.1
Comments
Throughout this study, especially when looking at concentration of activities (if any), the question is to what extent changes in the ownership of companies can and should be taken into account. The situation is constantly changing as a result of takeovers, mergers, splits and liquidations. As this study is based on patent applications, an applicant is the company or organisation listed as such on the application. The name of an applicant as shown on the patent application has been treated as a unit for counting purposes. Any corrections to names have only been made to correct obvious errors.
g
In other words, mergers, liquidations, takeovers and splits are not reflected in the figures presented here, nor have any transfers of IP rights been taken into account.
5.2
Patent applications per applicant
There were 215 patent applicants to the WIPO or EPO with ten or more applications in the area of plant breeding during the 1980-2008 period. For these 215 applicants both the average number of applications in each year and the maximum number of applications by these applicants in that year were calculated. The results are shown as a graph in Fig. 11. These applicants accounted for 63.2% of total patent applications during the survey period. As Table 4 (p. 25) shows, together the six companies Pioneer Hi Bred, Monsanto, Du Pont de Nemours, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer accounted for approximately 22.5% of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO: thus while they leave a substantial mark on the sector, there cannot be said to be any ‘real’ monopoly on the basis of numbers of applications.
Page 31 of 105
Average number of patent applications/applicant
90
5
75
4
60
3
45
2
30
1
15
0
Maximum number of patent applications/applicant
6
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Filing year Average number of patent applications per applicant Maximum number of patent applications per year
Fig. 11 Number of patent applications per applicant and maximum number of applications in any given year for applicants with ten or more applications in the 1980-2008 period
The peak in the maximum number of applications in 1998 and 1999 was accounted for by the company Pioneer Hi Bred. This peak also affects the average number of applications per applicant. Market concentration would mean fewer and fewer applicants accounting for an increasing proportion of applications. To prevent a structural decline in the absolute number of applications, the average number of applications per applicant would therefore have to increase. During the pre-2000 period we see an increase in average applications per applicant, which coincides with the sharp growth in the number of applications (Figs. 5 and 7). Since 2000 the average number of applications for these 215 applicants has ranged between 3.5 and 4.5 applications per applicant per year.
5.3
The twenty largest applicants
The top 20 patent applicants to the WIPO or EPO each made 71 or more applications over the entire 1980-2008 period. The maximum was 524 in the case of Pioneer Hi Bred Int. The proportion accounted for by these applicants, shown as ‘Coverage’ in the figure, has gradually increased from approximately 30% in the 1990s to just under 50% at present. The data is shown as a graph in Fig. 12. The proportion accounted for by the 20 applicants with the largest numbers of applications rose from 1980 to 2000. Since 2004 the level appears to have stabilized at around 47%.
Page 32 of 105
300
60% 50%
200
40% 30%
100
Coverage
Number of patent applications per year
70%
20% 10%
0
0% 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Filing year Patent applications from top 20 largest applicants C overage of top 20 largest applicants
Fig. 12 Top 20 largest patent applicants as regards total applications in the area of plant breeding filed with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period
5.4
Herfindahl index
To gain a better understanding of the concentration process, the Herfindahl index30 was calculated for the ‘Total’. This is used e.g. by the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to gauge market distortion due to mergers and takeovers. “The Herfindahl index (also known as Herfindahl–Hirschman Index), a term used in macroeconomics – in particular in the area of competition – is a measure of concentration (market share) in an industry. It can therefore be used to determine whether there is a monopoly or virtual monopoly, an oligopoly or a well distributed range of providers in an industry. The term ‘concentration ratio’ refers to the number of providers of goods or services in a particular industry.” The Herfindahl index (H) is the sum of the squares of the market shares. Where M1, M2, ... Mn are the relative market shares of all n providers in an industry, the index for that industry is: n
2
H = ∑M i i =1
(Source: Dutch Wikipedia)
30
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index or William A. Kelly Jr., A Generalized Interpretation of the Herfindahl Index, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Jul. 1981), pp. 50-57.
Page 33 of 105
The Herfindahl index (H) ranges from 0 to 1. It was decided when calculating the Herfindahl index only to include patent applicants with five or more applications during the 1980-2008 period, so as to ensure that it would not be affected by ‘occasional applicants’ (i.e. private persons, companies or organisations with very few applications). Over the entire period the selection (coverage) covers roughly 70% of total patent applications, from a total of 407 different applicants. The applications not included in this selection were made by a total of 2572 different applicants. The market shares of the 407 applicants were squared and then totalled.
0,5
100%
0,4
80%
0,3
60%
0,2
40%
0,1
20%
0,0
Coverage
Herfindahl-index
Fig. 13 shows both the Herfindahl index and the coverage of the selection. The figures for 1980-1982 are shown shaded, as the numbers of patent applications in those years were very small (less than five).
0% 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Filing year Limif for market disturbance Herfindahl-index C overage of the selected 407 applicants
Fig. 13 Herfindahl index and coverage of the selection of 407 applicants with five or more applications to the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period
The rule applied in the literature is that as long as H is less than 0.15 the ‘market’ is regarded is one without any major concentration. The value of H for the total area under consideration is less than 0.05. The Herfindahl index has been on the rise in recent years (since 2000), but whether this will continue in coming years is unclear, as since 1990 it has shown rising periods alternating with falling periods. It has not gone above 0.04 since 1986. Concentration has not reached a level such that the market can be said to be ‘distorted’. Based on the values found, there is no major concentration at present.
5.5
Summary
The average number of patent applications for the 215 applicants with ten or more applications to the WIPO or EPO during the 1980-2008 period has increased from Page 34 of 105
1.0 to 4.5. The twenty largest applicants have seen their market share rise from 30% in 1990 to just under 50% in 2008. The Herfindahl index calculated remains within a range such that there is no market distortion. Based on the analyses in this chapter it cannot therefore be concluded that there is a single company or organisation that dominates the market in terms of numbers of patent applications. It is the case, however, that the twenty largest applicants have increased their joint share over time from approximately 30% to just under 50% of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO. Since 2004 this joint share appears to have stabilized at a level around 47%. This chapter does not provide any information on market positions or any concentrations in specific sectors such as cotton, soya or maize, as discussed in the 2011 report Drivers of Consolidation in the Seed Industry and its Consequences for Innovation,6 the Executive Summary of which notes the following (p. 7): According to the economic analysis, the high levels of concentration in the US seed markets for cotton, maize and soybean have not had negative impacts on innovation over the last seventeen years; a period that coincided with the substantial adoption of GM technology by these US seed markets.
Page 35 of 105
6
Sub-area: Plant Breeding Processes
(for detailed information see Appendix VIII, p. 85)
‘Plant breeding processes’ refers to: • Processes for modifying genotypes31 The following are differentiated here: o Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination o Processes of selection o Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemical mutagens32 or with radiation • Processes for modifying phenotypes33 : o by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination o by treatment with chemicals • Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques
6.1 6.1.1
Trend Absolute numbers
Looking at the numbers of patent applications (Fig. 14) filed with the WIPO or EPO for processes in the area of plant breeding, we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. The precise cause of the step change cannot be ascertained from the data used. It may be due to the maturing of DNA techniques, causing an increase in activity in the entire area of plant breeding. A similar step change is also apparent in the other two sub-areas (Figs. 18 and 22). The vast majority of applications are from applicants in UPOV member countries. In the 2005-2008 period the proportion of applicants in the Netherlands was around 78%.
31
Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’ (the standard Dutch dictionary): genetic predisposition of human, animal or plant.
32
Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’: substances that cause mutations in the genetic DNA code. Source: ‘Dikke Van Dale’: (heredity) the manifestation of living creatures that develops as a result of interaction between hereditary information (genotype) and the influencing environment.
33
Page 36 of 105
Patent applications per year
200
150
100
50
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 14 Number of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for processes
6.1.2
Trend
Until 2005 – with the exception of the 1990-1994 period – the numbers of applications to the WIPO or EPO from Dutch applicants lagged behind the general pattern (Fig. 15), but since then they seem to have recovered. Because of the small numbers for the Netherlands, a small change has relatively large effects. The clear peak around 2000 here too was due to biotechnology patents, as noted in §3.2 and note 10. 150 2005
%
100
50
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year
Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 15 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (processes), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
Page 37 of 105
6.2
Origin of patent applications
Fig. 16 shows the origin of patent applications broken down by applicants’ domicile, namely into applications from one of the EU countries, the United States, Japan and other countries. JP 10%
Not EU, US, or JP 24%
EU 22%
US 44%
Fig. 16 Origin of patent applications for processes by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008
Fig. 17 shows the origin of all patent applications by individual country, thus refining the information shown in Fig. 16. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in third position, which it shares with the Federal Republic of Germany. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 44%. Japan is in second position, with 10% of applications.
NL 5%
DE 5%
GB 4%
CH 4%
AU 4%
BE 2%
CA 4% FR 3%
JP 10%
IL 2% CN 2% KR 2%
Other 16%
IN 2% Rest 7%
US 44%
Fig. 17 Origin of patent applications for plant breeding processes over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile Page 38 of 105
6.3
Patent applicants
6.3.1
Applicants: the international picture
The 20 applicants that submitted the most inventions in the area of processes related to plant breeding (applications filed with the WIPO or EPO) internationally over the entire period are shown in descending order in the table below. The University of California is in fourth position, after the three major companies of Monsanto, Pioneer Hi Bred Int and Syngenta. The list also includes other government-affiliated research organisations, such as the Australian Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis (6), the US Department of Agriculture (8), Cornell University (9) and the Canada Nat Res Council (13). No one applicant predominates. Table 9 Top 20 largest applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (processes) Company/Organisation
Origin of inventions
1
Monsanto Co
FR, GB, NL, US
125
4.2%
2
Pioneer Hi Bred Int
US
110
3.7%
3
Syngenta
AU, CH, GB, NL
73
2.5%
4
Uni California
US
65
2.2%
5
Du Pont de Nemours
US
62
2.1%
6
Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis
AU
37
1.2%
7
Bayer
BE, DE, FR
36
1.2%
8
US Dept Of Agriculture
US
35
1.2%
9
Cornell University
US
34
1.1%
10
Calgene Inc
AU, US
33
1.1%
11
BASF
DE, NL, US
32
1.1%
12
Japan Tobacco Inc
DE, JP
32
1.1%
13
Canada Nat Res Council
CA
31
1.0%
14
Ciba Geigy
CH, GB, JP
30
1.0%
15
Weyerhaeuser Co
US
30
1.0%
16
Astrazeneca
GB, SE
28
0.9%
17
Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences
JP
26
0.9%
18
Seminis Vegetable Seeds
FR, US
26
0.9%
19
Max Planck Gesellschaft
DE, FR
23
0.8%
20
Uni Rutgers
US
23
0.8%
6.3.2
Number of inventions (1980-2008)
Proportion of total
Dutch applicants
The top 20 Dutch applicants for processes in the area of plant breeding over the entire period are shown in Table 10. In terms of numbers these companies are much smaller than the major international companies and organisations (shown in Table 9), and the highest position they achieve in the international league table is 26th (Rijk Zwaan).
Page 39 of 105
Table 10 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants (processes) Company/Organisation
Number of inventions
1
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel
18
2
Mogen Int (part of Syngenta AG)
15
3
Royal Dutch Shell Group
12
4
Leiden University
11
5
Unilever
10
6
De Ruiter Seeds (part of Monsanto)
9
7
Wageningen URC (WURC)
6
8
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
6
9
Bejo Zaden BV
5
10
Keygene NV (wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.)
5
11
Nunhems BV
5
12
Gist Brocades
4
13
AVEBE NV
3
14
Florigene
3
15
Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis
3
16
Monsanto Co
3
17
Permx BV
3
18
Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A
3
19
Vereniging VU-Windesheim (board of trustees of VU University Amsterdam)
3
20
Bakker Joost Petrus Jacobus
2
6.4
Summary
The main difference from the overall picture described in Chapter 3 is that, looking at inventions in the sub-area of ‘Processes used in plant breeding’, we find different players coming to the fore in the case of the Netherlands. This is in line with the profiles as set out in §4.3. Internationally the pattern in this sub-area does not differ substantially from that of the total. The three main international players are Monsanto, Pioneer Hi Bred and Syngenta. Among the sixteen largest applicants are four research organisations, of which the University of California is the largest. The proportion of Dutch patent applicants in this sub-area does not differ markedly from that in the total. Rijk Zwaan is the largest Dutch applicant in this sub-area, in 26th position (see also Table 29, p. 88).
Page 40 of 105
7
Sub-area: Plant Breeding Products
(for detailed information see Appendix IX, p 92)
Plant breeding products are divided into: • Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms, subdivided into flowers, stems, roots, fruits, seeds and leaves • Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers • Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails • Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts • Algae • Fungi, Lichens, Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza
7.1 7.1.1
Trend Absolute numbers
Looking at the numbers of patent applications (Fig. 18) filed with the WIPO or EPO, we are struck by the higher average level since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques.
Patent applications per year
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 18 Patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for plant breeding products
In addition to the step change there is a clear peak in the period around 2000. This was due to biotechnology patents, as noted in §3.2 and note 10. As patent applications often have several characteristic features there is some overlap
Page 41 of 105
between areas of technology, and biotechnology-related applications can therefore be found in the products sub-area.
7.1.2
Trend
Inventions originating with Dutch applicants display a more variable pattern than the total. This is due partly to the small numbers, as a result of which small changes can have large effects. There was a very sharp dip in Dutch inventions in 2003, the cause of which is not known. After 2003 the number of Dutch inventions returned to the original level.
200
150
%
2005 100
50
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 19 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (products), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
7.2
Origin of patent applications
The two figures below (Figs. 20 and 21) show the origin of all patent applications in the area of plant breeding products during the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 5%. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 40%. Germany is in second position, with 10% of applications.
Page 42 of 105
JP 7% Not EU, US, or JP 20% EU 33%
US 40%
Fig. 20 Origin of patent applications for products by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008
GB 7%
NL 5%
JP 7%
CH 4%
FR 4%
CA 3%
BE 4% AU 4%
IL 2% DK 1% CN 1%
DE 10%
Other 15%
AT 1% ES 1% NZ 1% IN 1%
US 40%
KR 1% Rest 3%
Fig. 21 Origin of patent applications for plant breeding products over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile
7.3 7.3.1
Patent applicants Applicants: the international picture
Table 11 gives an overview of the top 20 international applicants that filed applications with the WIPO or EPO for products in the area of plant breeding. Among the companies are a number of research organisations, among which the University of California (Uni California) has the most applications to its credit, the number Page 43 of 105
amounting to about a third of that for the largest applicant, Pioneer Hi Bred Int. Wageningen URC is in 14th position internationally, with 65 applications.
Table 11 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (products)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Company/Organisation
Country where registered
Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l Monsanto Co Syngenta BASF Du Pont de Nemours Bayer Uni California Astrazeneca Cropdesign NV Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft Calgene Inc Canada Nat Res Council Wageningen URC (WURC) Ciba Geigy Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences Cornell University Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Dow Chemical Novartis
US DE, FR, GB, NL, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US DE, NL, US GB, US BE, DE, FR, US US GB, SE BE AU DE, FR AU, US CA NL CH, GB, JP JP US FR CA, US AT, CH, NL
7.3.2
Total applications 344 265 233 227 196 163 112 101 86 81 78 77 71 65 57 56 55 53 51 49
Proportion of total 5.8% 4.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.3% 2.7% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%
Dutch applicants
The table below gives an overview of the top 20 Dutch applicants that filed patent applications with the WIPO or EPO during the survey period. Each of them made five or more applications during that period. Table 12 Top 20 largest Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (products) Company/Organisation
Total applications
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Wageningen URC (WURC) Mogen Int Unilever Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel AVEBE NV De Ruiter Seeds Leiden University
65 48 36 19 15 15 15
8
13
9
Syngenta (applications from the Netherlands) Keygene NV
10 11
Advanta Seeds BASF
Page 44 of 105
12 9 9
Company/Organisation
Total applications
12 13
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Nunhems BV
9 9
14
Expressive Res BV
7
15
Bejo Zaden BV
6
16 17 18 19 20
STW Dun, Cornelis M P van Gist Brocades Haan, Petrus Theodorus de Heineken NV
6 5 5 5 5
7.4
Summary
The same Dutch companies come to the fore in this sub-area as in the overall picture described in Chapter 3. We do not see any striking differences from the overall picture internationally either. The inventions are accounted for mainly by a few large, mainly American, companies. The proportion of the total accounted for by Dutch patent applicants is small. Of the research organisations, the University of California is the largest applicant. In terms of numbers, Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant in this sub-area, in 14th position internationally.
Page 45 of 105
8
Sub-area: DNA techniques for Plant Breeding
(for detailed information see Appendix X, p 99)
Mutation or genetic engineering, DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification. Use of hosts for these processes. All the above geared to plant cells, including viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus and TI plasmids.
8.1
Trend
8.1.1
Absolute numbers
The numbers of patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (Fig. 22) have been higher on average since 1996. This step change may have been due to a breakthrough in DNA-related techniques. As in the other sub-areas, the number of applications peaks around the year 2000. This may be due to a change in the requirements for patenting biotechnology inventions that came into force in 2000. These more stringent requirements have resulted in a dip in the number of DNA-related patent applications (see also §3.2 and note 10). In terms of numbers, the Netherlands occupies a modest position, as can be seen from Fig. 22.
Patent applications per year
800
600
400
200
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 22 Applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for DNA-related techniques
Page 46 of 105
8.1.2
Trend
The pattern of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO by Dutch companies and organisations is similar to that of other countries.
250
200
150
%
2005 100
50
0 1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Filing year Total
Applicants from UPOV-countries
Dutch applicants
Fig. 23 Numbers of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO (DNA-related techniques), taking the respective numbers for 2005 as the baseline (100%)
8.2
Origin of patent applications
The distribution by applicants’ domicile of applications filed with the WIPO or EPO in the sub-area of DNA techniques for plant breeding is shown in the two figures below. Fig. 24 breaks them down into applications from one of the EU countries, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. Fig. 25 shows their origin by applicants’ country of domicile. Over the entire period the Netherlands is in fifth position, with 4%. In terms of percentages, the Netherlands performs less well in this sub-area than the other two sub-areas. Applicants from the United States predominate, with 41%. Applicants from Germany occupy second position, with 11% of applications.
Page 47 of 105
JP 6%
Not EU, US, or JP 23%
EU 30%
US 41%
Fig. 24 Origin of patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding by country group (US, EU, Japan and other countries), 1980-2008
JP 6%
NL 4%
GB 7%
BE 4%
KR 2% CH 4%
FR 4%
IL 1% AU 3% CA 3%
DE 11%
Other 12%
DK 1% CN 1% NZ 1% AT 1% IN 1% ES 1% Rest 4%
US 41%
Fig. 25 Origin of patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding over the 1980-2008 period, based on applicants’ domicile
Page 48 of 105
8.3
Patent applicants
8.3.1
Applicants: the international picture
The top 20 international applicants for applications filed with the WIPO or EPO for DNA techniques for plant breeding are shown in descending order in Table 13.
Table 13 Top 20 largest international applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (DNA techniques) Company/Organisation
Origin of inventions
Total number of
Percentage of total
applications 1
Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l
US
486
6.1%
2
BASF
DE, NL, US
342
4.3%
3
Monsanto Co
DE, FR, GB,
335
4.2%
NL, US 4
Du Pont de Nemours
GB, US
332
4.2%
5
Syngenta
AU, CH, GB,
272
3.4%
6
Bayer
225
2.8%
NL, US BE, CA, DE, FR, US 7
Uni California
US
156
2.0%
8
Cropdesign NV
BE
132
1.7%
9
Calgene Inc
AU, US
111
1.4%
10
Astrazeneca
GB, SE
110
1.4%
11
Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis
AU
95
1.2%
12
Max Planck Gesellschaft
CH, DE, FR
92
1.2%
13
Canada Nat Res Council
CA
90
1.1%
14
Ceres Tech Inc
US
85
1.1%
15
Dow Chemical
CA, US
82
1.0%
16
Cornell University
US
81
1.0%
17
Wageningen URC (WURC)
NL
80
1.0%
18
Ciba Geigy
CH, GB, JP
69
0.9%
19
Plant Biosciences Ltd
GB
69
0.9%
20
Novartis
AT, CH, NL, US
63
0.8%
Page 49 of 105
8.3.2
Dutch applicants
The table below gives an overview of the top 20 Dutch applicants. These filed five or more patent applications for DNA techniques for plant breeding with the WIPO or EPO during the survey period. Apart from Wageningen URC, which comes first in the league table, Leiden University is notable in fourth position. In terms of number of applications, Wageningen URC is significantly larger than the other applicants.
Table 14 Major Dutch applicants filing with the WIPO or EPO (DNA techniques) Company/Organisation
Total number of applications
1
Wageningen URC (WURC)
80
2
Mogen Int
54
3
Unilever
49
4
Leiden University
28
5
Keygene NV
23
6
AVEBE NV
15
7
Syngenta
14
8
Expressive Res BV
11
9
Advanta Seeds
9
10
BASF
9
11
Gist Brocades
8
12
De Ruiter Seeds
7
13
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel
7
14
Nunhems BV
6
15
Stichting Binair Vector Systeem
6
16
STW
6
17
Dun, Cornelis M P van
5
18
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
5
19
Haan, Petrus Theodorus de
5
20
Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV
5
8.4
Summary
The main difference from the overall picture described in Chapter 3 is that, looking at inventions in the sub-area of DNA techniques for plant breeding, we find different players coming to the fore in the case of the Netherlands. The ‘seed improvers’ such as Rijk Zwaan and De Ruiter in particular occupy lower positions among the top 20 Dutch applicants in the sub-area of DNA techniques than in the overall picture. This is in line with the profiles as set out in §4.3, which show that these companies are lagging behind when it comes to developing inventions in the sub-area of DNA techniques compared with the other sub-areas. Internationally the pattern in this sub-area does not differ substantially from that of the total. The six main international players are Pioneer Hi Bred Intl, BASF Monsanto Page 50 of 105
Co, Du Pont de Nemours, Syngenta and Bayer. Among the top 20 largest applicants are seven research organisations, among which the University of California is the one with the most applications (156), making it twice as large as Wageningen URC. Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant, with a total of 80 applications during the survey period, placing it seventeenth in the international league table. Among the research organisations Leiden University also comes to the fore, with 28 applications.
Page 51 of 105
9
The Role of Dutch Inventors in International Corporations
In recent years there seems to have been concentration within the sector. Dutch companies too have been taken over and thus become part of large international corporations. The question is whether these takeovers have caused the innovatory influence of Dutch inventors to be lost from the sector.
This section attempts to outline the role of the Dutch operations of international corporations34 in the innovation process in the area of plant breeding by looking at inventors’ domicile. This involved looking at the number of inventions where at least one Dutch inventor is listed (the proportion of Dutch inventors) in patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO by Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF. These three are the only foreign companies in our selection that list Dutch inventors in their patent applications. The results for these three corporations are shown in Table 15. Syngenta has a significantly higher proportion of Dutch inventors listed in its applications than BASF or Monsanto. Syngenta, however, has made applications involving Dutch inventors since 1990, but stopped doing so from 2001. It is difficult to ascertain the cause, based on the information available. It may be that in Syngenta’s case Dutch inventors (in the sense of inventors domiciled in the Netherlands) have no longer been active since 2001; another possibility is that the inventors’ domicile has not been listed correctly. It has already been concluded in §3.1 that the pattern of activity of Dutch inventors not generally differ from that of all inventors in the sector. In view of the small number of patent applications concerned, they have not been broken down chronologically.
Table 15 The role of Dutch inventors in patent applications by BASF, Monsanto and Syngenta filed with the WIPO or EPO in the 1980-2008 period Company
Total applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Number of patent applications involving Dutch inventors
BASF
356
9 (2,5%)
Monsanto Syngenta
375 303
7 (1,9%) 40 (13,2%)
34
Note
Since 1993. Maximum two per year, usually one or none. Since 2004. Since 1990.Ranges from none to nine per year. No applications crediting Dutch inventors since 2001.
See also §5.1 Comments (p. 35) for the names used and the fact that the effects of takeovers, liquidations, mergers etc. have not been included.
Page 52 of 105
10 The Nature Of The Dutch Applicants
This chapter sets out to answer two questions, giving a brief answer to the question ‘What are the characteristics of Dutch applicants?’ and making a start on answering the question ‘How dependent are Dutch applicants for patents in the area of plant breeding in terms of their IP positions?’. 10.1 Characteristics of Dutch applicants The table below gives an overview of the company descriptions of patent applicants listed as Dutch in the patent publications.
Table 16 Characteristics of Dutch companies and organisations with patent applications in the area of plant breeding to their credit 35
Company/Organisation
Description of company activities
Fa. A Verschoor
Floriculture; Cultivation of ornamental plants
ADP Internat BV
Research and development in the area of agriculture and fisheries
Advanta Seeds
(part of Limagrain) The name itself has been in existence since 1996, but the company developed from the wellestablished seed company of Van der Have, which has been active in such areas as cereals, grasses, onions and maize since 1879.
Akzo Nobel NV
Chemical corporation: in this context development and production of pharmaceutical products
AMC (Academic Medical Centre) Amsterdam
University-level higher education
Anglo Netherlands Grain BV
Wholesale trade in cereals
AVEBE NV
Manufacture of starch and starch products
BASF
(BASF Agrochemical Products B.V.) Manufacture and processing of and trade in colouring agents, chemical pharmaceutical and phytopharmaceutical products, plastics in the broadest sense, also activities connected with or conducive to these aims. Including agricultural chemicals
Bejo Zaden BV
Import/export, development, cultivation of and trade in vegetable seeds
Biogen
Wholesale trade in pharmaceutical products
Bromyc BV
Wholesale trade in seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes
Bruinsma Seeds BV
(part of Seminis Vegetable Seeds) Development and cultivation of and trade in vegetable seeds
Brunob II BV
Financial holding company
35
Based on the data in Bureau van Dijk’s Reach database and information on the companies’ websites.
Page 53 of 105
35
Company/Organisation
Description of company activities
Chromagenics BV
Research and development in the area of health and nutrition
CNC – Coop. NL Champignonkwekers
Cooperative association of Dutch mushroom growers, part of C4C Holding B.V. C4C has a number of subsidiaries involved in (a) producing raw materials for the cultivation of mushrooms and (b) processing the cultivated mushrooms.
Crucell Holland BV
Biopharmaceutical company
Daco Invest NV
Investment company with headquarters in Wemmel (Belgium)
De Ruiter Seeds
(part of Monsanto) Cultivating garden and flower seeds
DSM NV
Relevant company unit: research into, production of, trade in and advice on biotechnology
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
Research and development of vegetable seed varieties; Processing and packaging of and wholesale trade in vegetable seeds
Expressive Res BV
Provision of services, scientific research, trade in know-how and knowledge, sale of products to companies, advice on and rental of equipment in the areas of biology and biotechnology Part of the Genetwister Group.
Florigene
(Dutch wing of Florigene Pty Ltd) biotechnology company specializing in the further development of flowers by means of genetic modification
Genetwister Technologies BV
Research and development in the area of agriculture and fisheries
Genoclipp Biotechnology BV
Research and development in the area of agriculture and fisheries
Gist Brocades
(subsidiary of DSM since 1998) Development and manufacture of and trade in food ingredients
Heineken NV
Manufacture of beer
Hom Consultancy BV
Management and finance consultancy
Incotec BV
Treatment of arable seeds for propagation and provision of biochemical services to the agro-food industry
Introgene BV
Biotechnology company
Jethar Deelnemingen BV
Venture capital company
Kemira
Chemical corporation active inter alia in the area of the production and distribution of fertilizers, chemicals and farming and horticultural products
Keygene NV
(wholly-owned subsidiary of Bio Seeds B.V.) Research and development in the area of molecular plant biotechnology and exploiting acquired knowledge
Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis
(subsidiary of Seminis, a division of Monsanto) Better known as Royal Sluis; engaged in the production and improvement of and trade in seeds
Royal Dutch Shell Group
Petroleum extraction and refining/chemicals
Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV
Wholesale trade in potatoes, seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes
Leiden University Medical Center
University-level higher education
Page 54 of 105
Company/Organisation
Description of company activities
35
(LUMC) Mogen Int
(part of Syngenta AG) Research in the area of biological and industrial technology and genetics, production and marketing of health products, the acquisition, sale and issuing of patents, trademarks, industrial and intellectual property
Nickerson Zwaan
(part of the Limagrain group) Vegetable seed cultivation and selection
NSURE Holding BV
Testing and inspection of fresh agricultural and horticultural products (quality diagnosis) and development of the required tests
Nunhems BV
(wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG) Cultivating garden and flower seeds Wholesale trade in seeds, seed potatoes/onions and legumes
Permx BV
Research organisation affiliated with the WURC
Pharming BV
Phytovation BV
Research into, development of technologies for and feasibility studies into new products and technologies in the area of the development, production and marketing of health care products from the milk of transgenic animals Development and production of proteins by means of biotechnology processes and worldwide trade therein
Plant Production Systems BV (PPS-WU)
(part of WURC) PPS-WU’s main scientific research goal is the integration of knowledge to enable production systems to be analysed
Protanol BV
Scientific research into new applications for agricultural products
Quest Int
The Dutch wing of this company used to be called Chemische Fabriek Naarden, producer of aromas and flavourings. Now part of the Swiss corporation Givaudan
Radboud University Nijmegen
University-level higher education
Recticel Holding Noord BV
Manufacturing plastic sheeting, foil, pipes and profiles
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel
Commissioning, production, processing and packaging of seeds. Cultivating and developing agricultural and horticultural crops and research in that area
Royal Van der Have Group
Subsequently incorporated in Advanta Seeds (now part of Limagrain)
S & G Seeds BV
(part of Syngenta) Known as Zaadunie International until 1994. Production of high-grade seeds for professional growers
Seed Capital Invest - Sci 2 BV
Investment company
SON - Stichting Scheikundig
Other support funds nme
Page 55 of 105
Company/Organisation
Description of company activities
35
Onderzoek Nederland Stichting Binair Vector Systeem
Other support funds nme36
Stichting Phytogenetics
Other scientific research and development
STW
Other support funds nme
Terra Nigra BV
Cultivation of ornamental plants (not trees or shrubs)
Tissue Culture Propagation Int
Not known
TNO
Research and development
Unilever
Biotechnology research and development in the area of medical products and pharmaceutical processes
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC)
University-level higher education
University Medical Centre Utrecht
University-level higher education
Leiden University
University-level higher education
Utrecht University
University-level higher education
University of Amsterdam
University-level higher education
UToC BV
Management of intellectual rights and intellectual property rights
Vereniging VU-Windesheim
University-level higher education
Vitro Plus CV
Worldwide breeding, production, sale and marketing of source material from ferns
VU University Amsterdam
University-level higher education
Wageningen URC (WURC)
University-level higher education
Western Seed
(part of Monsanto) Specializes in research into and development of tomato, paprika, melon, watermelon, cucumber, aubergine, squash and papaya varieties
Zaadunie BV
(part of Syngenta) See S & G Seeds
Zeneca Mogen BV
(part of Syngenta) Specializes in breeding of crops by means of genetic engineering, especially in the area of fungal control
10.2 Proportion of plant breeding in total IP37 positions The tables below show both the total patent positions of Dutch applicants and their positions in the area of plant breeding. In the case of international corporations, patent applications are only included if they are from the Netherlands, insofar as this is differentiated. The patent applicants are divided into four groups, each shown in a separate table. The column ‘Other’ shows the numbers of unique inventions that do not fall under
36
nme = not mentioned elsewhere
37
IP = Intellectual Property
Page 56 of 105
the heading of plant breeding. The numbers in this column are an approximation of reality, as no detailed check of errors in names etc. has been carried out. The four groups are: 1. Companies active in the area of seed improvement and biotechnology (Table 17) 2. Large (chemical) corporations (Table 18) 3. Intermediary organisations (Table 19) 4. Research organisations (Table 20)
Table 17 Numbers of inventions (1980-2008): seed improvement and biotechnology companies Proces ses
Produ cts
DNAtechni ques
Total plant breeding38
Other39
Proportion of plant breeding in Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)
(5)
(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}
Fa. A Verschoor
1
0
0
1
0
100%
ADP Internat BV
0
1
0
1
3
25%
Advanta Seeds
0
9
9
9
1
90%
Anglo Netherlands Grain BV
0
1
1
1
0
AVEBE
3
15
15
18
99
15%
Bejo Zaden BV
5
6
2
7
1
88%
Biogen
1
1
1
1
51
Bromyc BV
0
1
0
1
0
100%
Bruinsma Seeds BV
0
1
1
1
0
100%
Brunob II BV
0
3
1
3
18
14%
Chromagenics BV
0
0
2
2
14
13%
CNC – Coop. NL Champignonkwekers
0
1
0
1
2
Crucell Holland BV
1
2
1
4
140
Daco Invest NV
1
0
0
1
2
33%
De Ruiter Seeds
9
15
7
16
0
100%
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
6
9
5
12
0
Expressive Res BV
2
7
11
11
2
85%
Florigene
3
3
3
3
0
100%
Genetwister Technologies BV
1
1
1
1
0
Genoclipp Biotechnology BV
0
1
1
1
1
Gist Brocades
4
5
8
8
346
Hom Consultancy BV
0
1
0
1
0
100%
2%
33% 3%
100%
100% 50% 2% 100%
38
The number of unique inventions (patent families) in the area of plant breeding is not necessarily the simple sum of the various sub-areas.
39
The column ‘Other’ shows all inventions that do not fall under the heading of plant breeding. This is the best possible approximation of reality.
Page 57 of 105
Proces ses
Produ cts
DNAtechni ques
Total plant breeding38
Other39
Proportion of plant breeding in Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)
(5)
(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}
Incotec BV
2
0
0
2
7
Introgene BV
0
1
0
1
55
Jethar Deelnemingen BV
2
0
0
2
1
Kemira
1
2
2
2
16
11%
Keygene NV
5
12
23
27
39
41%
Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis
3
0
0
3
2
Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV
2
3
5
5
2
Madaus AG
1
1
0
1
0
15
48
54
54
2
Monsanto Co
3
1
4
5
8
38%
Novartis
1
1
1
2
11
15%
NSURE Holding BV
0
0
1
1
1
50%
Nunhems BV
5
9
6
10
0
100%
Permx BV
3
0
0
3
1
75%
Pharming BV
1
0
1
2
28
Phytovation BV
0
0
1
1
4
Mogen Int/Zeneca Mogen
22% 2% 67%
60%
71%
100% 96%
7% 20%
Plant Production Systems BV
2
0
0
2
Protanol BV
0
0
1
1
0
Quest Int
0
2
0
2
287
Recticel Holding Noord BV
1
0
0
1
12
18
19
7
27
2
Royal Van der Have Group
0
3
3
3
1
S & G Seeds BV
2
2
0
2
0
Seed Capital Investments - SCI 2 BV
0
1
2
3
21
Syngenta
2
13
14
15
8
65%
Terra Nigra BV
0
2
0
2
0
100%
Tissue Culture Propagation Int
1
0
0
1
0
UToC BV
1
0
0
1
0
100%
Western Seed
1
1
1
2
1
67%
Zaadunie BV
1
1
0
1
0
100%
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel/Nickerso n Zwaan
Page 58 of 105
0
100% 100% 1% 8% 93%
75% 100% 13%
100%
Table 18 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): Large (chemical) corporations Processes
Products
DNAtechniques
Total plant breeding40
Other41
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)
(5)
Akzo Nobel NV
0
0
1
1
2850
0%
BASF
1
9
9
9
92
9%
DSM NV
1
4
4
6
3022
0%
Heineken
Proportion of plant breeding in Total (6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}
0
0
0
5
145
3%
Royal Dutch Shell Group
12
3
3
14
4687
0%
Unilever
10
36
49
57
4702
1%
Table 19 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): intermediary organisations Processes
Products
DNA techniques
Total plant breeding42
Other43
Proportion of plant breeding in Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)
(5)
(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}
SON Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland
0
2
2
2
8
20%
Stichting Binair Vector Systeem
0
2
6
6
0
100%
Stichting Phytogenetics
0
1
1
1
0
100%
STW
1
6
6
8
212
4%
40
The number of unique inventions (patent families) in the area of plant breeding is not necessarily the simple sum of the various sub-areas.
41
The column ‘Other’ shows all inventions that do not fall under the heading of plant breeding. This is the best possible approximation of reality.
42
The number of unique inventions (patent families) in the area of plant breeding is not necessarily the simple sum of the various sub-areas.
43
The column ‘Other’ shows all inventions that do not fall under the heading of plant breeding. This is the best possible approximation of reality.
Page 59 of 105
Table 20 Numbers of unique inventions (1980-2008): research organisations Processes
Products
DNA techniques
Total plant breeding44
Other45
Proportion of plant breeding in Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (1) + (2) + (3)
(5)
(6) = (4) / {(4) + (5)}
AMC (Academic Medical Centre) Amsterdam
0
1
0
1
87
1%
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
0
0
2
2
72
3%
Radboud University Nijmegen
1
3
3
3
75
4%
TNO
2
3
3
5
1186
0%
UMC Utrecht
0
0
1
1
48
2%
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC)
1
1
1
1
84
1%
Leiden University
11
15
28
29
170
15%
Utrecht University
0
3
4
4
103
4%
University of Amsterdam
1
1
1
1
80
1%
Vereniging VUWindesheim
3
3
3
3
49
6%
VU University Amsterdam
1
2
2
2
11
15%
Wageningen URC (WURC)
2
18
21
23
92
20%
10.3 Summary There are a number of companies whose intellectual property position consists mainly or even entirely of patents in the area of plant breeding. These companies and organisations are vulnerable to changes in patent legislation, as they currently have no ways of diversifying into other sectors to establish intellectual property rights there.
44
The number of unique inventions (patent families) in the area of plant breeding is not necessarily the simple sum of the various sub-areas.
45
The column ‘Other’ shows all inventions that do not fall under the heading of plant breeding. This is the best possible approximation of reality.
Page 60 of 105
11 UPOV and PCT
Important international treaties in the area of plant breeders’ rights and patents are the UPOV Convention and the PCT. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) provides internationally harmonized legislation on plant breeders’ rights. In the 1990s a scheme was initiated in developing countries to provide protection for plant breeders that the initiators believed would be more in line with local interests and conditions. “Poor people live without fundamental freedoms of action and choice that the better-off take for granted.1 Within the IPR system of the WTO, this holds true in the case of developing countries’ farmers (poor people), and the developed countries’ breeders and commercial seed companies (better off).” 1
Sen, Amartya, 1999. Development as Freedom. New York, Knopf.
From SAWTEE46 Policy Brief, No. 10, Year 2004, IPRs and Alternative Models to Protect Farmers’ Rights47
This alternative to UPOV is also known as the Convention of Farmers and Breeders (CoFaB).48 Clearly, the countries that support the CoFaB initiative feel the need to protect plant breeders’ rights but consider that joining UPOV is not the right solution at present. India is regarded as the leader of this group of countries. On 9 August 2001 the Indian parliament passed the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, which other CoFaB countries are taking more or less as a model for legislation. Generally speaking, most countries, even those that are not members of UPOV, have signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). For a list of the UPOV member countries see Appendix V. A list of the PCT member states can be found in Appendix IV. Based on these two lists, the following table of countries has been drawn up showing which of the two treaties they have signed (Table 21). This shows the situation at the time of writing. Among the larger countries it is noteworthy that Argentina has signed the UPOV Convention but not the PCT as yet. This is remarkable, as most countries with patent legislation have also signed the PCT. Table 22 gives an overview of the countries with national legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (PVP) and whether they are members of UPOV. It also shows in which countries the situation is unclear at present. Of the 31 countries in the table that have legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights, 19 are members of UPOV. The table is based on the information on the Farmers’ Rights website (April 2011)49 (see also Appendix VI, p. 75). No check was carried out on how comparable the various national plant breeders’ rights are or how they relate to the regulations under the UPOV Convention.
46
SAWTEE = South Asia Watch On Trade, Economics And Environment, (http://www.sawtee.org/)
47
http://www.sawtee.org/publications/Policy-Brief-12.pdf
48
See the Gene Campaign website (http://www.genecampaign.org/)
49
http://www.farmersrights.org/database/
Page 61 of 105
Table 21 Membership of UPOV and PCT (official English country names) Country Albania
UPOV member
PCT member
Country
UPOV member
PCT member
X
X
Country
UPOV member
PCT member
X
Germany
X
Peru
Algeria
X
Ghana
X
Philippines
Angola
X
Greece
X
Poland
X
X
Antigua and Barbuda
X
Grenada
X
Portugal
X
X
Guatemala
X
Qatar
X
Guinea
X
Republic of Korea (South Korea)
X
X
X
Republic of Moldova
X
X
Argentina
X
Armenia
X X
X
Australia
X
X
GuineaBissau
Austria
X
X
Honduras
X
Romania
X
X
Azerbaijan
X
X
Hungary
X
X
Russian Federation
X
X
Bahrain
X
Iceland
X
X
Rwanda
X
Barbados
X
India
X
Saint Kitts and Nevis
X
Belarus
X
X
Indonesia
X
Saint Lucia
X
Belgium
X
X
Ireland
X
X
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
X
Belize
X
Israel
X
X
San Marino
X
Benin
X
Italy
X
X
Sao Tome and Principe
X
X
Senegal
X
Serbia
X X
Bolivia
X
Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana
Japan
X
X
Jordan
X
X
Kazakhstan
X
Seychelles
Brazil
X
X
Kenya
X
X
Sierra Leone
Bulgaria
X
X
Kyrgyzstan
X
X
Singapore
X
X
Burkina Faso
X
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
X
Slovakia
X
X
Cameroon
X
Latvia
X
Slovenia
X
X
X
Lesotho
X
South Africa
X
X
Central African Republic
X
Liberia
X
Spain
X
X
Chad
X
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
X
Sri Lanka
X
X
Sudan
X
X
Swaziland
X
Canada
X
X
X
Chile
X
X
Liechtenstein
China
X
X
Lithuania
Colombia
X
X
Luxembourg
X
Sweden
X
X
Comoros
X
Madagascar
X
Switzerland
X
X
Congo
X
Malawi
X
Syrian Arab Republic
X
X
Malaysia
X
Tajikistan
X
X
Mali
X
Thailand
X
Costa Rica
X
Côte d’Ivoire
Page 62 of 105
X
UPOV member
PCT member
X
X
Malta
X
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
X
Cuba
X
Mauritania
X
Togo
X
Cyprus
X
Mexico
X
Trinidad and Tobago
X
X
X
Monaco
X
Tunisia
X
X
X
Mongolia
X
Turkey
X
X
X
Montenegro
X
Turkmenistan
X
X
Morocco
X
Uganda
X
Country Croatia
Czech Republic
X
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) Denmark
X
Dominica
Country
UPOV member
X
X
PCT member
Country
UPOV member
PCT member
Dominican Republic
X
X
Mozambique
X
Ukraine
Ecuador
X
X
Namibia
X
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
X
Netherlands
X
X
United Kingdom
El Salvador
X
New Zealand
X
X
United Republic of Tanzania
Equatorial Guinea
X
Nicaragua
X
X
United States of America
X
X
Niger
X
Uruguay
X
Nigeria
X
Uzbekistan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Estonia
X
European Community (EU)
X
Finland
X
X
Norway
X
X
Vietnam
France
X
X
Oman
X
X
Zambia
X
Gabon
X
Panama
X
Zimbabwe
X
Gambia
X
Papua New Guinea
X
Paraguay
Georgia
X
X
X
Page 63 of 105
Table 22 Overview of countries with national legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights that differs from the UPOV Convention and whether they are members of UPOV Country
National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights and UPOV membership (as of 2011)
Argentina
UPOV member
X
Barbados
National plant breeders’ rights
X
National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (2011)
UPOV member (July 2011) X
not a UPOV member Belize
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member Bolivia
UPOV member
X
X
Brazil
UPOV member
X
X
Chile
UPOV member
X
X
China
UPOV member
X
X
Colombia
UPOV member
X
X
Dom. Rep. Ecuador Hong Kong
?
X
UPOV member
X
National plant breeders’ rights
X
X
not a UPOV member India
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member Indonesia
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member Jordan
?
Kenya
UPOV member
X
X
Korea, S
UPOV member
X
X
Mexico
UPOV member
X
X
Morocco
UPOV member
X
X
Nicaragua
UPOV member
X
X
Oman
UPOV member
X
X
Panama
UPOV member
X
X
Paraguay
UPOV member
X
X
Peru
UPOV member
X
X
National plant breeders’ rights
X
Philippines
X
not a UPOV member South Africa Taiwan
UPOV member
X
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member Tanzania
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member Thailand
National plant breeders’ rights not a UPOV member
Page 64 of 105
X
X
Country
National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights and UPOV membership (as of 2011)
National legislation in the area of plant breeders’ rights (2011)
UPOV member (July 2011)
Trinidad and Tobago
UPOV member
X
X
Tunisia
UPOV member
X
X
Uruguay
UPOV member
X
X
National plant breeders’ rights
X
Venezuela
not a UPOV member Zimbabwe
National plant breeders’ rights
X
not a UPOV member
Page 65 of 105
12 Conclusions
•
Most patents in the area of plant breeding are applied for by large companies with their headquarters in the United States.
•
There is no one applicant with a monopoly in terms of numbers of patent applications.
•
Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Du Pont de Nemours since 1999) is the largest applicant, with 5.4% of total patent applications.
•
Although the number of applications from Dutch inventors or Dutch applicants is small, the Netherlands occupies a leading position.
•
Some Dutch companies’ patents relate solely to plant breeding, and they are therefore particularly vulnerable to changes in patent legislation in that area, which could affect their entire patent position.
•
The Netherlands generally comes fifth in the league table, but third in the case of patents for processes.
•
The Netherlands accounts for a relatively smaller proportion in the sub-area of DNA techniques than in the sub-areas of products and processes.
•
The proportion of patent applications to which inventors resident in the Netherlands contributed is similar to that of applications from applicants registered in the Netherlands.
•
Inventions credited to Dutch applicants have continued to lag behind those in the sector as a whole since the second half of the 1990s.
•
Wageningen URC is the largest Dutch applicant for patents in the area of plant breeding.
•
The activity of Dutch inventors has remained nearly unchanged during the survey period. There is no apparent ‘knowledge drain’, which would be seen as a dip in the number of patent applications to which Dutch inventors have contributed. Some of the inventions by inventors domiciled in the Netherlands do however fall into foreign ownership.
•
Inventions for DNA techniques for plant breeding form the largest group, followed by those for plant breeding products.
•
The smallest number of patent applications is in the area of plant breeding processes.
•
Applicants from UPOV countries also apply for patent protection in the area of plant breeding.
Page 66 of 105
Appendices
In the tables in the Appendices showing international positions, data on Dutch applicants or Dutch inventors are highlighted with a background colour.
Page 67 of 105
Appendix I Description of Patent Categories Used
The following categories in the International Patent Classification (IPC) were used in the study to select the patent documents: Plant breeding processes and products Description of patent categories used: A01H New plants or processes for obtaining them, Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques Processes A01H 1/00 Processes for modifying genotypes A01H 1/02 . Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination A01H 1/04 . Processes of selection A01H 1/06 . Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemicals or with radiation (specific mutations prepared by genetic engineering on plant cell or plant tissues C12N 15/00) A01H 1/08 . Methods or apparatus for producing changes in chromosome number A01H 3/00 Processes for modifying phenotypes A01H 3/02 . by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination A01H 3/04 . by treatment with chemicals A01H 4/00 Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques Products A01H 5/00
Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms
A01H 5/02 . Flowers A01H 5/04 . Stems A01H 5/06 . Roots A01H 5/08 . Fruits A01H 5/10 . Seeds A01H 5/12 . Leaves A01H 7/00 Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers A01H 9/00 Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails of horse tail milk weeds??? A01H 11/00 Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts A01H 13/00 Algae (unicellular algae C12N 1/12) A01H 15/00 Fungi; Lichens (fungal micro-organisms C12N 1/14) A01H 17/00 Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza (lichens A01H 15/00)
Recombinant DNA technology The description of the patent categories used is as follows: C12N 15/00 Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts for these purposes. . Recombinant DNA technology . . Introduction of foreign genetic material using vectors; Vectors; Use of hosts for these purposes; Regulation of expression . . . Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts C12N 15/82 . . . . for plant cells C12N 15/83 . . . . . Viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus C12N 15/84 . . . . . Ti-plasmids
Page 68 of 105
Appendix II Acronyms for Organisations in the Area of Intellectual Property
Acronym
Description
EPO
European Patent Office, responsible for administering the European Patent Convention (EPC), known in Dutch as the Europees Octrooi Bureau (EOB).
EU
European Union. At the time of writing the following 27 countries were members: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom
NLOC
The NL Patent Office (NL Octrooicentrum) is a division of the NL Agency. As a Dutch government agency it is responsible for administering the Patents Act (Rijksoctrooiwet).
UPOV
Intergovernmental organisation responsible for administering the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which was signed in 1961 and amended in 1972, 1978 and 1991.
USPTO
United States Patent and Trademark Office, the unit of the American administration that grants patents, trademarks, etc.
WIPO
The World Intellectual Property Organisation is the United Nations body responsible for intellectual property rights, including patents. Responsible inter alia for administering the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
Page 69 of 105
Appendix III Country Codes Used
The country codes used are in line with ISO50 standard 3166-1.51 The codes that occur in this report are listed in the table below.
Table 23 Country codes used Country
Country
code AT
Austria
AU
Australia
BE
Belgium
CA
Canada
CH
Switzerland
DE
Federal Republic of Germany
DK
Denmark
ES
Spain
FR
France
GB
United Kingdom
IL
Israel
IN
India
JP
Japan
NL
Netherlands
SE
Sweden
UA
Ukraine
US
United States
50
ISO: International Organisation for Standardization
51
See http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists.
Page 70 of 105
Appendix IV Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Contracting States
Page 71 of 105
Page 72 of 105
Appendix V UPOV Convention Member Countries
Page 73 of 105
Page 74 of 105
Appendix VI Intellectual Property Rights related to Agricultural Crops and UPOV Membership
The table below shows which countries have legislation on intellectual property related to agricultural crops and whether they are UPOV members. The table below is based on information in the Farmers’ Rights database (http://www.farmersrights.org/database) supplemented with information on UPOV membership as of 8 July 2011.
Key to terms and abbreviations used in Table 24 Farmers’ Rights
Legislation on farmers’ rights and community rights related to crop genetic resources
Cons. & sus. use
Legislation on conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources
Trad. knowl.
Traditional knowledge legislation
Access & benefits
Bioprospecting legislation with access and benefit-sharing provisions
Seed laws
Seed laws, including seed certification rules
PVP
Laws on plant variety protection, also called plant breeders’ rights legislation
Patent laws
Patent laws
O
Each symbol stands for one Act or regulation on the subject indicated in the country concerned.
Table 24 Intellectual property rights in the area of agricultural crops Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
Afghanistan African Union
Seed laws
PVP
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
No
O
No
Andorra
No O
No
Antigua/Barbuda Argentina
No YES
Algeria
Angola
UPOV member? (July 2011)
No
Albania Andean Community of Nations
Patent laws
No O
OO
O
YES
Page 75 of 105
Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
O
O
O
O
Seed laws
PVP
Armenia ASEAN
Patent laws
UPOV member? (July 2011)
O
No
O
YES
No
Australia
OO
Austria
O
YES
Azerbaijan
O
YES
Bahamas
No
Bahrain
No
Bangladesh
OO
O
O
Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize
O
No
OO
No
O
No
O
YES
OO
No
Benin
No
Bhutan
O
Bolivia
O O
OO O
O
No
OO O
YES
Bosnia/Herzegovina
No
Botswana
O
Brazil
No O
O
O
OO
YES
O
YES
O
No
Brunei Darussalam
No
Bulgaria
O
Burkina Faso
O
Burundi
O
O
OO
O
No
Cambodia
No
Cameroon
O
Canada
O
No
OO
YES
Cape Verde
No
Central African Republic
No
Chile
OO
YES
China
O O
OO O
YES
Colombia
O
O
YES
O
O
YES
Comoros Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire
No O
O
OO
O
Croatia Cuba
O OO
O
O
Cyprus Czech Republic
No O
YES O
O
YES No No
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
No
Democratic Republic of the Congo
No
Page 76 of 105
Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
Seed laws
Denmark
PVP
Patent laws
UPOV member? (July 2011)
OO O
O
YES
Djibouti
No
Dominica
O
No
Dominican Republic
O
YES
Ecuador
O
O
O
Egypt
O
El Salvador
YES O
No
O
No
Equatorial Guinea
No
Eritrea
No
Estonia Ethiopia
O
European Union
O
O
O
O
O
O
YES
O
O
No
OO
OO
YES
OO
OO
YES
OO
YES
Fiji Finland France Gabon
No
Gambia
No
Georgia
O
Germany
OO
O
YES
O
YES
Ghana
No
Greece
O
O
O
No
Grenada
No
Guatemala
O
No
Guinea
No
Guinea-Bissau
No
Guyana
O
No
Haiti
No
Honduras
O
Hungary
No O
O
YES
Iceland India
YES OO
O
OO
OO
Indonesia Iran
O
OO
OOO O
No
O
No
O
No
Iraq
O
O
No
Ireland
O
O
YES
Israel
O
YES
Italy
O
YES
Jamaica Japan
No OO
Jordan
OO
YES
O
YES
Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati
No O
OO
No No
Page 77 of 105
Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
Seed laws
PVP
Patent laws
Kosovo
UPOV member? (July 2011)
No
Kuwait
No
Kyrgyzstan
O
YES
O
YES
Laos Latvia Lebanon
No
Lesotho
No
Liberia
No
Libya
No
Liechtenstein
O
Lithuania Luxembourg
O
O
YES
O
No
Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of
No
Madagascar
No
Malawi Malaysia
No
O
OO
O
O
No O
No
Maldives
No
Mali
No
Malta
OO
No
Marshall Islands
No
Mauritania
OO
Mauritius Mexico
OO
No O
No
OO
YES
Micronesia, Federated States of
No
Moldova
O
YES
Monaco
No
Mongolia
O
Montenegro
No No
Morocco
O
Mozambique
O
O
YES No
Myanmar (Burma)
No
Namibia
No
Nauru Nepal Netherlands
No O
OO
O
OO
OO O O
New Zealand
Nicaragua Niger Page 78 of 105
O
No O
YES
OO OO OO O
YES
O
YES No
Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
Seed laws
Nigeria
O
Norway
O
Oman Pakistan
O
O
O
O
PVP
Patent laws
UPOV member? (July 2011)
No OO
YES
O
YES
O
No
Palau
No
Palestinian Territories
No
Panama
O
OO
YES
OO
YES
Papua New Guinea
No
Paraguay
OO
Peru
O
YES
OO
O
No
Poland
O
OO
YES
Portugal
O
OO
YES
Republic of China (Taiwan)
OO
OO
No
Republic of Korea (South Korea)
O
O
YES
Philippines
OOO
OO
O
O
OO
OO
Qatar
No
Republic of the Congo
No
Romania Russian Federation
OO
YES
O
YES
Rwanda
No
Saint Kitts/Nevis
No
Saint Lucia
O
No
Saint Vincent/the Grenadines
No
Samoa
No
San Marino
No
Sao Tome and Principe
No
Saudi Arabia
OO
Senegal
OO
O
O
No No
Serbia
No
Seychelles
No
Sierra Leone
No
Singapore
O
O
YES
Slovakia
O
YES
Slovenia
OO
YES
Solomon Islands
No
Somalia
No
South Africa
O
O
O
Spain Sri Lanka Sudan
O
OO O
YES
OO
YES
O
No No Page 79 of 105
Farmers’ Rights
Cons. & sus. use
Trad. knowl.
Access & benefits
Seed laws
PVP
Patent laws
Surinam
UPOV member? (July 2011)
No
Swaziland
No
Sweden
O
Switzerland
OO OO
Syria
OOO
YES YES No
Tajikistan
O
O
No
Tanzania
O
O
No
Chad Thailand
No O
O
O
No
Timor-Leste
No
Togo
No
Tonga
No
Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia
O
Turkey Turkmenistan
OO
YES
OO
YES
O
YES
O
No
Tuvalu
No
Uganda
O
O
Ukraine
No O
United Arab Emirates
YES No
O O O O
O O O O
United Kingdom
O
Uruguay
O
O
YES
USA
O
OO OO
YES
O
YES
Uzbekistan Vanuatu
No
Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam
No O OO O
O
O O
No OO
Western Sahara
Zimbabwe
Page 80 of 105
YES No
Yemen Zambia
YES
No OO
O
No
O
O
No
Appendix VII The Role of Dutch Applicants and Inventors
Table 25 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) of which via EPO53 (EP publications)
Patent applications worldwide52 Year of application
All applic ants
of which from Dutch applicants55
(numb er)
(number)
1980
391
2
1981
318
1982
(%)
All applicants
via NLOC54 (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants56
All applicant s
of which from Dutch applicants57
(number)
(number)
(number)
(%)
(number)
(%)
0.5
9
2.3
2
22.2
1
0
0.0
5
1.6
6
1.9
0
0.0
2
0
0.0
360
4
1.1
8
2.2
1
12.5
4
1
25.0
1983
589
31
5.3
44
7.5
3
6.8
3
2
66.7
1984
586
10
1.7
45
7.7
3
6.7
5
3
60.0
1985
601
6
1.0
47
7.8
1
2.1
1
1
100.0
1986
796
35
4.4
88
11.1
3
3.4
2
1
50.0
1987
1031
11
1.1
80
7.8
0
0.0
8
1
12.5
1988
1224
7
0.6
103
8.4
6
5.8
5
3
60.0
1989
1172
24
2.0
111
9.5
7
6.3
8
6
75.0
1990
1276
37
2.9
151
11.8
13
8.6
7
6
85.7
1991
1233
32
2.6
135
10.9
10
7.4
6
4
66.7
1992
1153
44
3.8
136
11.8
12
8.8
3
2
66.7
1993
1048
55
5.2
160
15.3
10
6.3
5
1
20.0
1994
1184
60
5.1
175
14.8
6
3.4
4
3
75.0
1995
1486
86
5.8
216
14.5
8
3.7
4
3
75.0
1996
1819
103
5.7
296
16.3
25
8.4
8
5
62.5
1997
2066
123
6.0
380
18.4
15
3.9
4
3
75.0
1998
2593
121
4.7
466
18.0
17
3.6
8
6
75.0
1999
2696
86
3.2
512
19.0
26
5.1
3
2
66.7
52
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible.
53
Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.
54
Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands).
55
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 56 This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. 57
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
Page 81 of 105
(%)
Table 25 Inventions and the role of Dutch applicants (continuation) of which via EPO59 (EP publications)
Patent applications worldwide58 Year of application
All applicants
of which from Dutch applicants61
All applicants
via NLOC60 (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants62
All applicants
of which from Dutch applicants63
(number)
(number)
(%)
(number)
(%)
(number)
(%)
(number)
(number)
2000
2575
92
3.6
466
18.1
24
5.2
6
3
50.0
2001
2845
150
5.3
403
14.2
18
4.5
5
4
80.0
2002
2982
169
5.7
333
11.2
17
5.1
5
5
100.0
2003
2760
140
5.1
336
12.2
7
2.1
3
3
100.0
2004
3052
205
6.7
367
12.0
20
5.4
3
2
66.7
2005
3102
287
9.3
324
10.4
23
7.1
2
1
50.0
2006
3058
245
8.0
300
9.8
15
5.0
4
3
75.0
2007
3038
191
6.3
363
11.9
24
6.6
6
5
83.3
2008
3013
211
7.0
46
1.5
8
17.4
3
3
100.0
Total
50047
2572
5.1
6106
12.2
82
64.1
324
5.3
128
58
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible.
59
Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.
60
Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands).
61
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
62
63
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
Page 82 of 105
(%)
Table 26 Inventions and the role of Dutch inventors (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications worldwide64 Year of application
All inventors
(number)
of which from Dutch inventors66 (number)
(%)
of which via EPO65 (EP publications) All inventors
(number)
of which from Dutch inventors67
(%)
(number)
(%)
1980
391
2
0.5
9
2.3
0
0.0
1981
318
5
1.6
6
1.9
0
0.0
1982
360
4
1.1
8
2.2
1
12.5
1983
589
31
5.3
44
7.5
3
6.8
1984
586
10
1.7
45
7.7
3
6.7
1985
601
6
1.0
47
7.8
1
2.1
1986
796
35
4.4
88
11.1
1
1.1
1987
1031
11
1.1
80
7.8
1
1.3
1988
1224
7
0.6
103
8.4
4
3.9
1989
1172
24
2.0
111
9.5
8
7.2
1990
1276
37
2.9
151
11.8
12
7.9
1991
1233
32
2.6
135
10.9
12
8.9
1992
1153
44
3.8
136
11.8
11
8.1
1993
1048
55
5.2
160
15.3
16
10.0
1994
1184
60
5.1
175
14.8
8
4.6
1995
1486
86
5.8
216
14.5
10
4.6
1996
1819
103
5.7
296
16.3
19
6.4
1997
2066
123
6.0
380
18.4
13
3.4
1998
2593
121
4.7
466
18.0
19
4.1
1999
2696
86
3.2
512
19.0
28
5.5
2000
2575
92
3.6
466
18.1
29
6.2
2001
2845
150
5.3
403
14.2
28
7.0
2002
2982
169
5.7
333
11.2
16
4.8
2003
2760
140
5.1
336
12.2
10
3.0
2004
3052
205
6.7
367
12.0
26
7.1
64
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible.
65
Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO. There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated.
66
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch inventor in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
67
This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch inventor filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
Page 83 of 105
Patent applications worldwide64 Year of application
All inventors
(number)
of which from Dutch inventors66 (number)
(%)
of which via EPO65 (EP publications) All inventors
(number)
of which from Dutch inventors67
(%)
(number)
(%)
2005
3102
287
9.3
324
10.4
27
8.3
2006
3058
245
8.0
300
9.8
14
4.7
2007
3038
191
6.3
363
11.9
25
6.9
2008
3013
211
7.0
46
1.5
4
9.5
Total
50047
2572
5.1
6106
12.2
349
5.7
Page 84 of 105
Appendix VIII Plant Breeding Processes
Definition ‘Plant breeding processes’ refers to: •
•
•
Processes for modifying genotypes. The following are differentiated: o
Methods or apparatus for hybridization; Artificial pollination
o
Processes of selection
o
Processes for producing mutations, e.g. treatment with chemical mutagens or with radiation
Processes for modifying phenotypes: o
by controlling duration, wavelength, intensity, or periodicity of illumination
o
by treatment with chemicals
Plant reproduction by tissue culture techniques
Trend Table 27 Numbers of patent families (Total)
68
(data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent families worldwide [1] Year of applicati on
68
of which via EPO or WIPO [2] (EP or WO publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1980
121
2
9
2
9
2
1
0
1981
75
0
6
0
6
0
2
0
1982
76
2
8
1
7
1
4
1
1983
162
5
34
3
35
3
3
2
1984
199
4
38
3
38
3
5
3
1985
214
1
37
1
37
1
1
1
1986
340
2
76
1
72
1
2
1
1987
395
4
71
62
0
7
1
1988
521
7
90
6
72
6
4
3
1989
484
11
70
4
51
4
5
5
[1]
The number of patent families was counted so as to obtain as accurate a picture as possible.
[2] Absolute numbers of patent families in the area of plant breeding filed with the EPO or WIPO (PCT applications). There is no simple way of ascertaining which of these in turn have the Netherlands as the designated state. The assumption is that the Netherlands is designated. [3]
Absolute numbers of patent applications in the area of plant breeding filed nationally (in the Netherlands).
[4] This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the EPO in the area of plant breeding in the particular year. [5] This column shows the absolute numbers of patent families with at least one Dutch applicant filed with the NL Patent Office in the area of plant breeding in the particular year.
Page 85 of 105
Patent families worldwide [1] Year of applicati on
of which via EPO or WIPO [2] (EP or WO publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1990
540
21
109
11
85
9
4
4
1991
420
11
75
6
51
5
3
2
1992
450
16
74
9
51
5
2
2
1993
344
8
78
8
50
4
4
0
1994
380
6
66
3
39
1
2
1
1995
475
10
94
6
67
3
3
2
1996
532
11
84
5
57
3
5
3
1997
686
17
150
5
90
1
3
3
1998
918
8
152
3
76
1
2
1
1999
982
9
190
4
117
3
2
1
2000
972
14
150
5
79
3
4
1
2001
1014
18
166
6
86
3
4
3
2002
1189
19
153
5
86
5
4
4
2003
1234
6
146
1
91
0
2
2
2004
1182
13
164
7
72
6
2
2
2005
1201
24
147
11
63
7
2
1
2006
1334
18
145
11
71
7
4
3
2007
1375
28
184
13
96
7
3
3
2008
1340
18
170
12
9
4
3
3
19155
313
2936
152
1725
98
92
58
Total
Table 28 Applications from UPOV countries69 (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent families worldwide [1]
of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications))
Year of application
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1980
100
9
2
9
2
1
0
1981
53
6
0
6
0
2
0
1982
60
8
1
7
1
4
1
1983
133
34
3
34
3
3
2
1984
141
37
3
37
3
5
3
1985
149
37
1
37
1
1
1
1986
221
73
1
72
1
2
1
1987
250
67
0
62
0
7
1
1988
329
85
6
72
6
4
3
1989
308
69
4
50
4
5
5
1990
394
96
11
85
9
4
4
1991
273
70
6
51
5
3
2
1992
263
64
9
51
5
2
2
1993
234
64
8
50
4
4
0
1994
288
56
3
39
1
2
1
Page 86 of 105
Patent families worldwide [1]
of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications))
Year of application
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1995
362
89
6
67
3
2
2
1996
397
79
5
57
3
5
3
1997
566
146
5
90
1
3
3
1998
734
140
3
76
1
2
1
1999
780
179
4
115
3
2
1
2000
744
142
5
74
3
3
1
2001
729
154
6
85
3
4
3
2002
926
146
5
84
5
4
4
2003
987
140
1
90
0
2
2
2004
936
162
7
71
6
2
2
2005
1021
142
11
61
7
1
1
2006
1157
140
11
67
7
3
3
2007
1223
170
13
93
7
3
3
2008 Total
1007
166
12
9
4
3
3
14765
2770
152
1701
98
88
58
Page 87 of 105
Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 63 applicants with ten or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period.
Table 29 Top 63 applicants with ten or more applications69 in the 1980-2008 period (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Orga Domicil Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 nisation e of applica – – – applica tions 1989 1999 2004 nt 1 Monsanto Co FR, GB, 125 15 17 42 7 14 20 9 NL, US 2 Pioneer Hi Bred US 110 8 45 31 6 4 3 12 Int’l 3 Syngenta AU, CH, 73 2 22 31 4 4 5 5 GB, NL 4 Uni California US 65 0 37 17 5 1 2 3 5 Du Pont de US 62 4 21 24 3 3 2 4 Nemours 6 Commw Scient & AU 37 3 16 11 4 2 0 1 Ind Res Organis 7 Bayer BE, DE, 36 2 20 10 2 1 1 0 FR 8 US Dept Of US 35 0 22 5 1 4 2 1 Agriculture 9 Cornell US 34 6 19 7 0 1 1 0 University 10 Calgene Inc AU, US 33 15 17 1 0 0 0 0 11 BASF DE, NL, 32 0 9 16 0 2 1 4 US 12 Japan Tobacco DE, JP 32 0 18 9 0 1 3 1 Inc 13 Canada Nat Res CA 31 1 8 8 5 4 3 2 Council 14 Ciba Geigy CH, GB, 30 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 JP 15 Weyerhaeuser US 30 4 13 8 0 0 5 0 Co 16 Astrazeneca GB, SE 28 9 19 0 0 0 0 0 17 Nat Inst of JP 26 0 4 13 0 1 4 3 Agrobiological Sciences 18 Seminis FR, US 26 1 6 10 2 1 3 3 Vegetable Seeds 19 Max Planck DE, FR 23 7 10 4 0 0 0 0 Gesellschaft 20 Uni Rutgers US 23 1 19 1 0 0 0 2 21 Agronomique FR 22 7 5 5 1 1 0 2 Inst Nat Rech 22 Dow Chemical US 20 1 5 10 1 1 0 2 23 Plant Genetic BE 20 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 Systems NV 24 DNA Plant Techn US 19 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 Corp 25 Ceres Tech Inc US 18 0 1 5 1 0 0 11 26 Rijk Zwaan NL 18 0 2 2 5 4 2 3
69
Patent applications filed with the WIPO or EPO
Page 88 of 105
Company/Orga nisation
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53
54 55
56 57 58
Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel Novartis Gen Hospital Corp Lubrizol Genetics Inc Mitsui Chemicals Inc Rhône-Poulenc Uni Florida Kirin Holding Mogen Int Uni Washington Sungene Univ North Carolina State Israel State Riken Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Yeda Res and Dev Corp Ltd Agrigenetics Corp Cropdesign NV Hoechst Group ICI Ltd Royal Dutch Shell Group Sandoz Univ Michigan State Cargill Inc CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique Grains Res & Dev Corp Japan Science & Tech Agency Mendel Biotechnology Inc Purdue Res Found Salk Inst for Biological Studies Sapporo Breweries Temasek Life Sciences Lab Ltd Unilever
Domicil e of applica nt
Total applica tions
1980 – 1989
1990 – 1999
2000 – 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
AT, CH, NL US
17
1
15
1
0
0
0
0
16
5
8
3
0
0
0
0
US
16
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
JP
16
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR, GB US JP NL US DE, US US
16 16 15 15 15 14 14
5 2 2 2 1 12 0
11 5 8 13 10 0 11
0 6 1 0 1 2 2
0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 1 0 1 0 0
IL JP US
13 13 13
0 0 1
6 0 7
4 4 5
2 0 0
0 2 0
1 4 0
0 2 0
IL
13
1
6
5
1
0
0
0
US
12
9
2
0
0
1
0
0
BE DE AU, GB NL
12 12 12 12
0 6 7 4
4 6 5 3
6 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
AT, CH, DE US
12
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
4
4
1
0
2
1
US FR
11 11
0 1
9 3
2 5
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
AU
11
0
2
3
2
4
0
0
JP
11
0
1
5
1
3
1
0
US
11
0
3
3
1
2
2
0
US
11
1
7
2
0
0
0
0
US
11
2
7
1
0
0
0
1
JP
11
0
7
3
0
1
0
0
SG
11
0
2
2
0
1
1
4
GB, IN, NL NL
11
1
7
0
0
0
3
0
11
9
1
0
0
1
0
0
59
Leiden University
60 61
Agrinomics Llc Council of Scient & Ind Res
US IN
10 10
0 0
0 0
6 9
0 1
4 0
0 0
0 0
62
Plant Biosciences Ltd
GB
10
0
8
1
1
0
0
0
63
Yissum Res Dev Corp
IL
10
1
6
2
0
0
0
1
Page 89 of 105
Table 30 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel Mogen Int Royal Dutch Shell Group Leiden University Unilever De Ruiter Seeds Wageningen URC (WURC) Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Bejo Zaden BV Keygene NV Nunhems BV Gist Brocades AVEBE Florigene Koninklijke Zaaizaadbedrijven Gebroeders Sluis Monsanto Co Permx BV Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A Vereniging VUWindesheim Expressive Res BV Incotec BV Jethar Deelnemingen BV Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV Nickerson Plant Production Systems BV S & G Seeds BV Syngenta TNO Fa. A Verschoor BASF Biogen Boer, Anne Douwe de Bongers, Henricus Chretien Mari Carree, Franciscus Hermanus Colijn-Hooymans, Caterina Maria Crucell Holland BV Daco Invest NV Den Bosch, Franciscus Gerardus Elzen, Peter J M van den Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter Dijk, Magdalana Maria Gerarda v Doorn, Johannes Elizabert van DSM NV Dun, Cornelis M P van Elsenga-Boersma, Annemarie Eveleens, Leo Anne Genetwister Technologies BV Grosveld, Frank Haan, Petrus Theodorus de Hilhorst, Hendrikus Wilhelmus M Holman, Edwin Henricus
Page 90 of 105
Total applications
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
18
0
2
2
5
4
2
3
15 12 11 10 9
2 4 9 0 0
13 3 1 7 0
0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 3 3
0 0 0 0 0
9
0
2
4
0
2
1
0
6
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
5 5 5 4 3 3
0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 4 4 2 3
1 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 3 0 0 0 0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3 3
0 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2 2 2
0 0 2
2 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 2 2 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Company/Organisation
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
Antonius Jong, Cornelis Jacob de Kemira Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd Krause, Klaus Peter Madaus AG Nijs, Johannes Jacobus Maria de Novartis Oosterwijk, Simone Adriana M. Pharming BV Radboud University Nijmegen Recticel Holding Noord BV Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes Schrijver, Albertus Johannes M. STW Tissue Culture Propagation Int Toorn, Peter v.d. Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam UToC BV Van den Enden, Johannes Henriku Van den Heuvel, Johannes Franciscus Johanna Maria Van der Vlugt, Rene Andries Antonius Van Paassen, Martinus Quirinus Visser S Gravendeel Holding Vitro Plus CV Voermans, Wilhelmus Petrus Adri VU University Amsterdam Western Seed Zaadunie BV Zeeuw, Eveline Johanna v.d.
Total applications
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Page 91 of 105
Appendix IX Plant Breeding Products
Definition Plant breeding products are divided into: • Flowering plants, i.e. angiosperms, subdivided into flowers, stems, roots, fruits, seeds and leaves • Gymnosperms, e.g. conifers • Pteridophytes, e.g. ferns, club-mosses, horse-tails (of horse-tail milkweeds?) • Bryophytes, e.g. mosses, liverworts • Algae • Fungi, Lichens, Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants, e.g. mycorrhiza
Trend Table 31 Numbers of patent applications (Total)69 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications worldwide [1]
of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
Year of application
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1980
274
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
245
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
286
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1983
434
27
13
2
13
2
3
2
1984
417
5
17
0
16
0
2
0
1985
404
6
15
1
15
1
1
1
1986
491
32
45
2
45
2
1
0
1987
672
10
37
0
35
0
1
0
1988
739
7
52
3
49
3
2
1
1989
713
14
75
3
67
3
1
1
1990
842
27
108
10
95
8
3
2
1991
882
27
119
8
92
5
2
0
1992
794
34
125
18
96
11
3
2
1993
768
53
148
17
115
9
4
1
1994
920
55
157
10
133
5
1
1
1995
1178
78
197
12
157
5
1
1
1996
1447
94
271
25
217
20
4
3
1997
1612
110
352
19
260
11
2
1
1998
1963
118
485
29
342
15
4
2
1999
2076
81
539
35
358
23
0
0
2000
1951
87
478
29
300
16
2
1
2001
2178
134
411
16
261
8
4
4
2002
2242
156
349
16
213
11
1
1
2003
1991
134
319
4
175
3
1
1
2004
2303
197
340
18
212
16
0
0
Page 92 of 105
Patent applications worldwide [1]
of which via EPO or WIPO (EP or WO publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
Year of application
of which via EPO [2] (EP publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
2005
2278
276
305
19
178
14
2
1
2006
2223
240
258
14
136
11
3
3
2007
2251
175
340
16
194
12
4
4
2008
2293
195
324
18
24
7
2
2
Total
36867
2380
5881
345
3800
222
55
36
Table 32 Numbers of patent families from UPOV countries
69
(data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent of which via EPO or of which via EPO [2] applications WIPO [2] (EP or (EP publications) worldwide WO publications) [1] of which from of which from Year of Dutch Dutch application applicants applicants [4] [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications) of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1980
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
1982
226
2
1
2
1
1
1
1983
337
12
2
12
2
3
2
1984
273
17
0
16
0
2
0
1985
278
15
1
15
1
1
1
1986
354
45
2
45
2
1
0
1987
190
37
0
35
0
1
0
1988
176
52
3
49
3
2
1
1989
221
75
3
67
3
1
1
1990
326
108
10
95
8
3
2
1991
425
119
8
92
5
2
0
1992
636
124
18
95
11
3
2
1993
676
148
17
115
9
4
1
1994
794
157
10
133
5
1
1
1995
1021
197
12
157
5
1
1
1996
1223
271
25
217
20
4
3
1997
1322
352
19
260
11
2
1
1998
1656
485
29
342
15
4
2
1999
1714
536
35
356
23
0
0
2000
1544
474
29
296
16
2
1
2001
1708
410
16
261
8
4
4
2002
1807
344
16
211
11
1
1
2003
1595
314
4
171
3
1
1
2004
1865
336
18
211
16
0
0
2005
1843
300
19
173
14
1
1
2006
1729
253
14
133
11
3
3
2007
1758
333
16
193
12
4
4
2008
1644
317
18
24
7
2
2
27702
5833
345
3776
222
54
36
Total
Page 93 of 105
Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 61 applicants with 21 or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period. Table 33 Top 61 applicants with 21 or more applications70 in the 1980–2008 period
1
(data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Organisation Domicile Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 of applications – – – applicant 1989 1999 2004 Pioneer Hi Bred Int US 344 8 182 90 11 12 20
2
Monsanto Co
3
Syngenta
4
BASF
5 6
Du Pont de Nemours Bayer
7 8 9 10
DE, FR, GB, NL, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US DE, NL, US GB, US BE, DE, FR, US US GB, SE BE AU
2008
17
265
13
65
95
16
23
24
24
233
5
95
87
14
5
13
11
227
0
40
81
26
16
34
26
196 163
9 5
82 67
58 57
7 16
7 5
17 6
13 6
112 101 86 81
1 8 0 3
60 93 22 35
31 0 40 25
5 0 10 3
5 0 3 5
1 0 11 2
4 0 0 8
DE, FR AU, US CA
78 77 71
5 11 0
54 61 33
16 5 17
1 0 7
1 0 2
0 0 8
1 0 3
11 12 13
Uni California Astrazeneca Cropdesign NV Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft Calgene Inc Canada Nat Res Council
14
Wageningen URC (WURC)
NL
65
0
40
14
4
5
2
0
15
Ciba Geigy
57
20
37
0
0
0
0
0
16
56
0
12
28
3
1
4
6
US FR
55 53
5 3
30 25
15 19
4 0
1 2
0 1
0 3
19 20
Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences Cornell University Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Dow Chemical Novartis
CH, GB, JP JP
51 49
0 2
16 45
15 2
2 0
2 0
5 0
10 0
21
Plant Biosciences Ltd
CA, US AT, CH, NL GB
49
0
29
12
2
2
3
1
22 23
Mogen Int US Dept Of Agriculture
NL US
48 48
2 0
46 25
0 11
0 3
0 5
0 2
0 1
24 25 26
Biogemma Agrinomics Llc Unilever
46 43 42
0 0 3
21 0 30
18 36 8
2 1 0
2 5 0
2 1 1
1 0 0
27 28
Hoechst Group Plant Genetic Systems NV
FR, GB US DK, GB, IN, NL DE BE
41 41
8 12
33 29
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
29
FR
40
1
16
17
0
3
1
2
AU, GB ES
40 39
12 0
28 9
0 14
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 3
32 33
CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique ICI Ltd Consejo Superior Investigacion Uni Florida Sanofi-Aventis
US DE, FR
38 37
0 0
22 25
14 12
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
34
Seminis Vegetable Seeds
US
36
1
13
10
4
2
2
4
35
Icon Genetics
DE, US
35
0
3
30
0
0
1
1
36
Rhône-Poulenc
FR, GB
34
7
27
0
0
0
0
0
37
Uni Washington
US
34
3
18
10
1
1
0
0
38
Univ Michigan State
US
32
0
9
12
2
6
3
0
39
Japan Science & Tech Agency Int Flower Development Ltd
JP
31
0
5
14
4
4
3
1
AU
29
0
11
6
1
2
6
2
17 18
30 31
40
Page 94 of 105
Company/Organisation
41
Japan Tobacco Inc
Domicile of applicant JP
42
Cargill Inc
US
28
0
21
7
43
US
28
0
6
12
4
3
2
1
44 45
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Ceres Tech Inc Mendel Biotechnology Inc
US US
27 27
0 0
5 7
16 12
4 1
0 4
0 1
2 2
46
Riken
JP
27
0
2
11
0
5
4
4
47 48
Sungene Uni Rutgers
DE, US US
27 27
1 0
3 23
20 2
3 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
49
Univ North Carolina State
US
27
0
18
6
2
0
1
0
50
Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Suntory Ltd Yissum Res Dev Corp Purdue Res Found Cambridge Advanced Tech Mycogen Corp Flanders Interuni Inst Biotech Agriculture Victoria Serv Pty Danisco Sandoz
US
27
0
19
7
0
0
1
0
JP IL US GB
25 25 24 23
0 1 0 4
11 13 14 14
7 7 9 3
3 0 0 0
1 1 1 0
2 2 0 1
1 1 0 0
US BE
23 23
4 0
19 7
0 12
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
AU
22
0
0
17
2
0
2
1
DK AT, CH, DE, JP US DE
22 22
0 0
21 22
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
21 21
6 1
12 20
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
DNA Plant Techn Corp Inst Genbiologische Forschung
Total applications 29
1980 – 1989 0
1990 – 1999 19
2000 – 2004 7
2005
2006
2007
2008
0
1
2
0
Page 95 of 105
Table 34 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation
Total applications
1980 – 1989
1990 – 1999
2000 – 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1
Wageningen URC (WURC)
65
0
40
14
4
5
2
0
2
Mogen Int
48
2
46
0
0
0
0
0
3
Unilever
36
0
27
8
0
0
1
0
4
19
0
3
2
4
3
2
5
5
Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel AVEBE NV
15
0
8
6
0
0
1
0
6
De Ruiter Seeds
15
0
0
7
4
2
2
0
7 8
Leiden University Syngenta
15 13
5 0
8 7
2 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9
Keygene NV
12
0
9
1
1
1
0
0
10
Advanta Seeds
9
0
3
4
1
1
0
0
11 12
BASF Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel
9 9
0 0
0 2
2 1
1 2
2 0
1 2
2 2
13 14
Nunhems BV Expressive Res BV
9 7
0 0
5 2
1 4
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
15
Bejo Zaden BV
6
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
16
STW
6
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
17
Dun, Cornelis M P van
5
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
18 19
Gist Brocades Haan, Petrus Theodorus de
5 5
0 0
5 4
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 21
Den Elzen, Peter J M van DSM NV
4 4
0 0
4 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
22
Lee, Frederique Marianne vd Meer, Ingrid Maria vd
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
25
Sela-Buurlage, Marianne Beatrix Tunen, Arjen J van
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
26
Amerongen, Aart van
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
27
Brunob II BV
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
28
Florigene
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
29 30
Royal Dutch Shell Group Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV
3 3
2 0
1 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
31 32
Oort, Erica van Radboud University Nijmegen
3 3
0 0
0 2
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
33 34
Ree, Ronald van Royal Van der Have Group
3 3
0 0
0 3
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
35 36
TNO Utrecht University
3 3
0 0
1 0
2 1
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
37
Vereniging VUWindesheim Vetten, Nick de
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
Agrotechnology & Food Science Group (WURC) Bres-Vloemans, Alexandra Aleida
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
41 42
Crucell Holland BV Den Hombergh, Johannes Petrus
2 2
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
43
Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
23 24
38 39 40
Page 96 of 105
Company/Organisation
Total applications
1980 – 1989
1990 – 1999
2000 – 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
44
Ebskamp, Michael Johannes M
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
45 46
Heineken Kemira
2 2
0 0
0 2
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
47
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
48
Krieken, Wilhelmus Maria vd Laan, Jan Metske vd
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
49
Linthorst, Hubertus J M
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
50
Maagd, Rudolf A de
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
51
Nickerson
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
52 53
Quest Int S & G Seeds BV
2 2
0 1
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
54
SON - Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
55
Stichting Binair Vector Systeem Terra Nigra BV
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
58
Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Vincken, Jean Paul
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
59
Vries, Sape Cornelis de
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
60 61
VU University Amsterdam Zeneca Mogen BV
2 2
0 0
1 2
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
62
ADP Internat BV
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
AMC Amsterdam
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
64
Anglo Netherlands Grain BV
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
65
Biogen
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
Boer, Anne Douwe de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
67
Bongers, Henricus Chretien Mari
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
68
Bromyc BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
69 70
Bruinsma Seeds BV Carree, Franciscus Hermanus
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
71
CNC – Coop. NL Champignonkwekers
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
72
Connell, Ann Patricia O
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
73
Den Bosch, Franciscus Gerardus
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
74
Doorn, Johannes Elizabert van Eijsden, Ronald Roelof van Elsenga-Boersma, Annemarie Fierens-Onstenk, Bernarda Gerha
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
78
Fits, Cornelia Theodora Elisabe
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
79
Florack, Dionisius Elisabeth An Genetwister Technologies BV Genoclipp Biotechnology BV
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
82 83
Groot, Marion de Grosveld, Frank
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
84
Heldens, Jozef Wilhelmus Gerard Hoge-Meppelink, Anneke HF
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Holst, Gerrit Jan van
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
56 57
75 76 77
80 81
85 86
Page 97 of 105
Company/Organisation
Total applications
1980 – 1989
1990 – 1999
2000 – 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
87
Hom Consultancy BV
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
88
Introgene BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
89
Jong, Cornelis Jacob de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
90
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
91
Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd Kraker, Jan Willem de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
92
Krause, Klaus Peter
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
93 94
Kroon-Swart, Saskia Liu Chun Ming
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
95
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
96
Lookeren Campagne, Michiel van Madaus AG
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
97
Monsanto Co
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
98
Nap, Jan-Peter Hendrik
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
99
Nijs, Johannes Jacobus Maria de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
100
Novartis
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
Oosterwijk, Simone Adriana Mari
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
102
Pater, Bernadette Sylvia de Posthuma, Geertruide Afina Rhee, Miranda Debora van de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
105
Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
106
Schaaper, Wilhelmus Martinus Ma Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A Schrijver, Albertus Johannes Ma
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
109
Seed Capital Invest - Sci 2 BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
110
Stichting Phytogenetics
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
111
Tegelen, Leonardus Johannes Pet
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
112
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
113
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
114
Valk, Pieter vd
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
115
Van den Enden, Johannes Henriku
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
116
Van Paassen, Martinus Quirinus Voermans, Wilhelmus Petrus Adri Voort, Jeroen Nicolaas Albert M Vossen, Edwin Andries Gerard v
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
120 121
Wallaart, Thorvald Eelco Western Seed
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
122
Wiel, Dirk Franciscus Marinus v Wijbenga, Dirk Jan Wijnzen
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
124 125
Wit, Pierre J G M de Zaadunie BV
1 1
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
126
Zeeuw, Eveline Johanna v.d.
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
103 104
107 108
117 118 119
123
Page 98 of 105
Appendix X DNA Techniques for Plant Breeding
Definition Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA relating to genetic engineering. Vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification. Use of hosts for these processes. All the above geared to plant cells, including viral vectors, e.g. cauliflower mosaic virus and Ti plasmids.
Trend Table 35 Numbers of patent families (Total)69 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent applications of which via EPO or of which via EPO worldwide [1] WIPO (EP or WO [2] (EP publications) publications) of which from Dutch applicants [4]
Year of application
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
of which from Dutch applicants [4]
of which from Dutch applicants [5]
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981
4
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
1982
8
1
5
1
4
1
2
1
1983
63
5
21
2
21
2
2
2
1984
57
3
24
2
24
2
2
2
1985
66
1
23
1
23
1
1
1
1986
131
4
47
3
45
2
2
1
1987
165
1
53
0
51
0
2
0
1988
208
3
69
3
63
3
3
2
1989
239
8
94
4
85
4
4
2
1990
319
22
114
8
102
7
3
2
1991
318
15
139
11
112
8
3
2
1992
316
20
150
18
110
9
1
1
1993
312
15
173
16
126
8
4
1
1994
349
11
186
9
155
5
2
2
1995
473
20
241
13
187
6
1
1
1996
664
43
327
29
262
23
3
1
1997
819
26
447
25
337
14
0
0
1998
1206
34
595
27
415
15
5
4
1999
1200
36
669
35
450
22
1
1
2000
1209
32
646
33
405
21
1
1
2001
1061
32
527
27
327
16
3
2
2002
1103
20
488
20
285
11
1
1
2003
1016
7
482
7
287
6
1
1
2004
1104
20
512
17
323
14
1
0
2005
1005
24
450
18
275
12
0
0
2006
1054
20
442
15
269
11
2
2
2007
1198
27
490
18
303
16
1
0
2008
958
13
458
12
34
1
0
0
Total
16625
463
7874
374
5082
240
51
33
Page 99 of 105
Table 36 Applications from UPOV countries35 (data relating to Dutch applicants are highlighted with a supporting colour) Patent of which via EPO or of which via EPO applications WIPO [2] (EP or [2] (EP worldwide[1] WO publications) publications) Year of application
of which via NLOC [3] (NL publications)
1980
0
0
of which from Dutch applicants [4] 0
0
of which from Dutch applicants [4] 0
0
of which from Dutch applicants [5] 0
1981
4
2
0
2
0
0
0
1982
7
5
1
4
1
2
1
1983
61
21
2
21
2
2
2
1984
54
24
2
24
2
2
2
1985
58
23
1
23
1
1
1
1986
117
47
3
45
2
2
1
1987
144
53
0
51
0
2
0
1988
190
69
3
63
3
3
2
1989
218
94
4
85
4
4
2
1990
289
114
8
102
7
3
2
1991
288
139
11
112
8
3
2
1992
281
150
18
110
9
1
1
1993
288
173
16
126
8
4
1
1994
326
186
9
155
5
2
2
1995
441
241
13
187
6
1
1
1996
605
327
29
262
23
3
1
1997
732
447
25
337
14
0
0
1998
1070
592
27
412
15
5
4
1999
1078
668
35
449
22
1
1
2000
1005
642
33
401
21
1
1
2001
886
525
27
324
16
3
2
2002
892
477
20
279
11
1
1
2003
883
474
7
282
6
1
1
2004
1003
506
17
321
14
0
0
2005
920
442
18
268
12
0
0
2006
983
432
15
262
11
2
2
2007
1107
486
18
300
16
1
0
2008
846
447
12
34
1
0
0
14776
7806
374
5041
240
50
33
Total
Page 100 of 105
Patent applicants The table below shows the names of the 62 applicants with 28 or more patent applications to their credit during the survey period. Table 37 Top 62 applicants with 28 or more applications70 in the 1980-2008 period (data relating to Dutch applicants or companies with operations in the Netherlands are highlighted with a supporting colour) Company/Organisation Origin of Total 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 inventions – – – 1989 1999 2004 1 2 3
Pioneer Hi Bred Int’l BASF Monsanto Co
4 5
Du Pont de Nemours Syngenta
6
Bayer
7 8 9 10 11
US DE, NL, US DE, FR, GB, NL, US GB, US AU, CH, GB, NL, US BE, CA, DE, FR, US US BE AU, US GB, SE AU
486 342 335
9 0 17
228 46 79
123 125 124
23 43 23
25 28 28
26 55 29
45 38 31
332 272
9 5
155 112
86 106
16 12
18 4
23 15
20 14
225
7
73
69
29
11
17
14
156 132 111 110 95
2 0 21 10 4
79 23 85 100 41
47 69 5 0 30
8 16 0 0 3
6 6 0 0 8
3 18 0 0 3
7 0 0 0 6
CH, DE, FR
92
8
59
17
2
3
1
2
12
Uni California Cropdesign NV Calgene Inc Astrazeneca Commw Scient & Ind Res Organis Max Planck Gesellschaft
13
Canada Nat Res Council
CA
90
1
38
24
5
7
9
5
14 15 16 17
Ceres Tech Inc Dow Chemical Cornell University Wageningen URC (WURC)
US CA, US US NL
85 82 81 80
0 0 5 0
5 20 47 37
31 30 15 26
11 6 11 7
26 7 2 6
1 6 1 4
11 10 0 0
18 19 20
Ciba Geigy Plant Biosciences Ltd Novartis
69 69 63
26 0 2
43 36 53
0 18 8
0 3 0
0 3 0
0 7 0
0 2 0
21 22
Biogemma Nat Inst of Agrobiological Sciences US Dept Of Agriculture
CH, GB, JP GB AT, CH, NL, US FR, GB JP
61 60
0 0
26 16
26 31
2 3
3 1
2 4
2 5
US
60
0
37
13
2
4
1
2
FR
57
5
22
17
2
5
1
4
US JP DK, GB, IN, NL NL BE
56 55 55
2 0 5
27 33 39
19 15 9
2 1 0
1 1 0
2 4 2
3 1 0
54 53
3 0
51 8
0 28
0 7
0 3
0 3
0 3
BE
51
17
34
0
0
0
0
0
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Agronomique Inst Nat Rech Uni Florida Japan Tobacco Inc Unilever Mogen Int Flanders Interuni Inst Biotech Plant Genetic Systems NV
31 32 33 34
Sungene Uni Washington Sanofi-Aventis Group CNRS - Centre National de Rech Scientifique
DE, US US BE, DE, FR FR
51 50 49 48
1 3 2 0
4 34 35 18
43 12 12 18
3 1 0 0
0 0 0 6
0 0 0 2
0 0 0 4
35 36 37 38 39
DE, US US US AU, GB ES
45 45 44 42 40
0 0 0 15 0
3 32 0 27 5
35 8 37 0 16
3 1 1 0 4
2 2 5 0 4
1 0 1 0 3
1 2 0 0 5
US US
39 39
0 0
0 9
8 19
7 4
10 4
4 2
7 1
42
Icon Genetics Uni Rutgers Agrinomics Llc ICI Ltd Consejo Superior Investigacion Athenix Corp Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Univ North Carolina State
US
39
0
21
12
3
2
1
0
43 44 45 46
Mycogen Corp Hoechst Shering Agrevo Rhône-Poulenc Uni York
US DE FR, GB GB
38 37 37 37
6 3 7 0
32 34 30 3
0 0 0 23
0 0 0 4
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3
40 41
Page 101 of 105
Company/Organisation
Origin of inventions
Total
1980 – 1989
1990 – 1999
2000 – 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
47 48 49 50 51
Univ Michigan State Purdue Res Found Gen Hospital Corp Novozymes AS Salk Inst for Biological Studies
US US US DK, US US
37 36 35 35 33
0 2 9 0 4
8 21 19 5 19
16 11 7 15 8
2 0 0 2 0
7 2 0 1 1
3 0 0 7 0
1 0 0 3 1
52 53
Uni Queensland Yissum Res Dev Corp
AU IL
33 33
0 1
16 14
12 8
2 0
0 2
1 5
2 3
54
Mendel Biotechnology Inc
US
31
0
7
14
1
4
2
3
55
Wisconsin Alumni Res Found Japan Science & Tech Agency Cambridge Advanced Tech
US
31
0
20
8
0
0
2
0
JP
30
0
7
11
3
4
4
1
GB
29
4
17
5
0
0
1
1
58 59
Grains Res & Dev Corp Int Flower Development Ltd
AU AU
29 28
0 0
5 11
7 7
3 1
7 2
3 6
4 1
60 61
Large Scale Biology Corp Suntory Ltd
US JP
28 28
1 0
14 12
12 8
1 4
0 1
0 2
0 1
62
Leiden University
NL
28
8
10
9
0
1
0
0
56 57
Table 38 Dutch applicants70 Company/Organisation
Total
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1
Wageningen URC (WURC)
80
0
37
26
7
6
4
0
2
Mogen Int
54
3
51
0
0
0
0
0
3
Unilever
49
2
36
9
0
0
2
0
4 5
Leiden University Keygene NV
28 23
8 0
10 8
9 5
0 4
1 1
0 3
0 2
6
Wageningen URC (WURC)
21
0
12
3
0
4
2
0
7
AVEBE NV
15
0
9
4
0
0
2
0
8 9
Syngenta Expressive Res BV
14 11
0 0
9 2
5 7
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
10
Advanta Seeds
9
0
3
4
1
1
0
0
11
BASF
9
0
0
2
1
2
1
2
12
Gist Brocades
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
13 14
De Ruiter Seeds Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt en Zaadhandel
7 7
0 0
0 0
3 5
2 2
1 0
1 0
0 0
15 16
Nunhems BV Stichting Binair Vector Systeem
6 6
0 0
5 0
0 6
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
17 18
STW Dun, Cornelis M P van
6 5
0 0
2 4
4 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
19
Enza Zaden - De Enkhuizer Zaadhandel Haan, Petrus Theodorus de
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
5
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
21
Kweek en Researchbedrijf Agrico BV
5
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
22
Den Elzen, Peter J M van
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
23 24
DSM NV Lee, Frederique Marianne vd
4 4
0 0
1 4
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
25 26
Meer, Ingrid Maria vd Monsanto Co
4 4
0 0
4 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
27
Sela-Buurlage, Marianne
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
20
Page 102 of 105
Company/Organisation
Total
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
28
Beatrix Tunen, Arjen J van
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
29
Utrecht University
4
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
30
Amerongen, Aart van
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
31
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
32
Deventer-Troost, Johanna Pieter Florigene
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
33
Heineken Tech Services
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
34 35
Royal Dutch Shell Group Radboud University Nijmegen
3 3
1 0
2 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
36 37
Royal Van der Have Group TNO
3 3
0 0
3 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
38
Tunen, Adrianus Johannes van Vereniging VUWindesheim
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
40 41
Vetten, Nick de Bejo Zaden BV
3 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
42
Bres-Vloemans, Alexandra Aleida Chromagenics BV
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Ebskamp, Michael Johannes M Kemira
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Krieken, Wilhelmus Maria vd Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
48 49
Linthorst, Hubertus J M Schilperoort, Prof. Robbert A
2 2
0 2
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
50
Seed Capital Invest - Sci 2 BV
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
51
SON - Stichting Scheikundig Onderzoek Nederland
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
52 53
Vincken, Jean Paul Vries, Sape Cornelis de
2 2
0 0
1 2
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
54
VU University Amsterdam
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
55
Zeneca Mogen
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
56 57
Akzo Nobel NV Anglo Netherlands Grain BV
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
58 59
Biogen Boer, Anne Douwe de
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
60
Bruinsma Seeds BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
61
Brunob II BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
62
Burg, Sjoerd Henricus vd
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
63 64
Connell, Ann Patricia O Crucell Holland BV
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
65
Den Hombergh, Johannes Petrus T Dijk, Magdalana Maria Gerarda v
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
67 68
Eijsden, Ronald Roelof van Enckevort, Leonora Johanna Gert
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
69
Fierens-Onstenk, Bernarda Gerha
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
70
Fits, Cornelia Theodora Elisabe Florack, Dionisius Elisabeth An
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
39
43 44 45 46 47
66
71
Page 103 of 105
Company/Organisation
Total
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
74
Genetwister Technologies BV Genoclipp Biotechnology BV Groot, Marion de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
75
Grosveld, Frank
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
76
Heineken Supply Chain BV
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
77
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
80
Heldens, Jozef Wilhelmus Gerard Hijden, Hendrikus Theodorus Wil Hoge-Meppelink, Anneke HF Holst, Gerrit Jan van
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
81
Knaap, Bernardus Josef vd
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
82
Kraker, Jan Willem de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
83
Krause, Klaus Peter
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
84 85
Kroon-Swart, Saskia Laan, Jan Metske vd
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
86
Liu Chun Ming
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
87
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
88
Lookeren Campagne, Michiel van Maagd, Rudolf A de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
89
Nap, Jan-Peter Hendrik
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
90 91
Novartis NSURE Holding BV
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
92
Oort, Erica van
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
93
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
94
Pater, Bernadette Sylvia de Pharming BV
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
Phytovation BV
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
96
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
98
Pieterse, Cornelis Marinus Joze Posthuma, Geertruide Afina Protanol BV
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
99
Ree, Ronald van
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Ruiter, Wouter Pieter Johannes Schaaper, Wilhelmus Martinus Ma Stichting Phytogenetics
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Tegelen, Leonardus Johannes Pet UMC Utrecht Holding BV
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
106
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) University of Amsterdam
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
107
Valk, Pieter vd
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
108
Van den Heuvel, Johannes Franciscus Johanna Maria Van der Vlugt, Rene Andries Antonius Van Kessel, Cornelis Petrus Mar
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
111
Van Strijp, Johannes Antonius G
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
112
Visser, Richard G F
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
113
Voort, Jeroen Nicolaas Albert M
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
114
Vos Cornelis Henricus de
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
115
Vossen, Edwin Andries
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
72 73
78 79
97
100 101 102 103 104 105
109 110
Page 104 of 105
Company/Organisation
Total
19801989
19901999
20002004
2005
2006
2007
2008
116
Gerard v Wallaart, Thorvald Eelco
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
117
Western Seed
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
118
Wiel, Dirk Franciscus Marinus v Wijbenga, Dirk Jan Wijnzen
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
119
Page 105 of 105
This is a publication of: Ministry of Economic Affairs NL Agency Prinses Beatrixlaan 2 | 2595 AL The Hague P.O.box 10366 | 2501 HJ The Hague T +31 (0) 88 602 60 00 F +31 (0) 88 602 90 24 E
[email protected] I www.agentschapnl.nl/octrooicentrum © NL Agency | december 2012 A great degree of care has been taken in the preparation of this document. In an effort to improve legibility, certain passages containing legal terminology have been reproduced here in a simplified form. NL Agency is an agency of the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation responsible for the implementation of sustainability, innovation and economic development programmes for various governmental bodies. NL Agency is a department of the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation that implements government policy for sustainability, innovation, and international business and cooperation. It is the contact point for businesses, educational institutions and government bodies for information and advice, financing, networking and regulatory matters. The division NL Patent Office grants patents in the Netherlands, informs about the patent system and represents Dutch interests in European and international organisations.