Interviews touching on
seed-related Intellectual Property Protection
June 2002
Dr.
Paul Zankowski
Commissioner
Plant Variety Protection
Office
United States Department
of Agriculture
USA
Dr. Paul Zankowski
has been involved in
plant biotechnology and
the seed industry for
the past 15 years. Dr.
Zankowski received his
B.S. degree in Biology
from Penn State
University, and his M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in
Plant Physiology from
the University of
California, Davis. He
conducted post-doctoral
work in Plant
Bioengineering at the
ARCO Plant Cell Research
Institute and Advanced
Genetic Sciences. Dr.
Zankowski joined the
Biotechnology team at
Harris Moran Seed
Company in 1988 where he
held the positions of
Cell Biologist,
Associate Director of
Science & Technology,
Biotechnology Manager,
Vice President of
Research, and Director
of Biotechnology.
Dr. Zankowski was
appointed the
Commissioner of USDA's
Plant Variety Protection
Office in June 2001.
You have recently
returned from the UPOV
meeting in Geneva,
Switzerland. What major
issues were discussed
and what key results
achieved?
This was my first UPOV
meeting, as such I found
the discussions to be
valuable for the
development of new plant
varieties worldwide.
Currently 50 countries
are members of UPOV -
the impact of these
discussions and any
resulting consensus may
have a large impact on
international plant
intellectual property
protection. The UPOV
meetings included the
session of the Technical
Committee, the
Administrative and Legal
Committee, the
Consultative Committee
and an Extraordinary
Council session.
The Technical Committee
discussed guidelines for
plant variety
distinctness,
uniformity, and
stability and the
ongoing work of various
technical working
parties, including the
group on Biochemical and
Molecular Techniques and
DNA-Profiling.
The Administrative and
Legal Committee,
Consultative Committee
and Council session
discussed and adopted
the document dealing
with the notion of the
plant breeder and common
knowledge in UPOV based
plant variety protection
systems.
What are the major
issues that remain to be
tackled towards a
worldwide harmonization
of PVP legislation
within UPOV?
One major issue that was
discussed during the
April 2002 UPOV meeting
involved the interface
between patents and
plant breeders’ rights.
This topic deals with
the breeder’s or
research exemption which
is one of the key
components of the UPOV
convention and the
United States Plant
Variety Protection Act.
The research exemption
promotes the development
of new plant varieties
by making sure that
protected germplasm
sources remain available
for plant breeding. This
exemption also helps to
broaden and safeguard
the genetic basis for
plant improvement which
ensures an approach to
plant breeding that can
be both sustained and
productive in the long
term. This is an
essential aspect of an
effective plant variety
protection system with
the overall goal of
encouraging development
of new varieties of
plants, for the benefit
of all societies.
Other issues that have
and will arise within
UPOV meetings are
schemes to maintain a
free exchange of
germplasm; harmonization
between plant breeders
rights (plant variety
protection) and patent
systems; methods for the
integration of the UPOV
convention with other
treaties such as the
BioDiversity Treaty;
harmonizing concepts of
Essential Derivation;
and topics concerning
bioengineered plants. A
final issue is that some
UPOV member countries
have Plant Breeder’s
Rights offices, which
perform variety testing
for applicants and issue
protection based on the
results of those tests,
while others use a
system similar to the US
PVPO and evaluate
evidence from the
applicant. With these
diverse systems, it is
challenging to achieve
worldwide harmonization
of PVP legislation.
You have been
Commissioner of the
Plant Variety Protection
Office for almost a
year. What have you been
able to achieve during
this first year?
Most of my first year as
Commissioner has
involved learning the
aspects of US plant
intellectual property at
the PVPO relative to the
US Patent and Trademark
Office and to other
countries systems.
The goals that I have
for this first year
include developing a
system for electronic
payment of fees to the
PVPO, making issued and
expired PVP certificates
electronically available
on the Internet,
developing a system for
electronic filing of PVP
certificates, and
maintaining an efficient
work environment. The
Office plans to begin
scanning the paper
expired PVP certificates
as the first step in
electronic document
conversion. We are
continuing to
investigate and evaluate
systems for electronic
fee payment and
electronic filing. I
believe that the PVP
examining staff can
achieve great results by
focusing on examining
applications. Since I
have been appointed
Commissioner the office
has examined 481 PVP
applications and reduced
the applications backlog
from 1083 to 817 PVP
applications. The PVPO
continues to look at
innovative methods to
streamline the PVP
application process.
The PVP Office serves
a large constituency of
breeders. What
percentage of this
constituency is in the
USA, and what other
countries are using the
services of the Office?
Approximately 91 percent
of PVP applicants are
from the United States.
Seventy seven percent of
these are from
commercial company
breeders and 13 percent
are public institution
breeders (experiment
station, government,
etc.).
Approximately 9 percent
of our applicants are
from foreign countries.
We are able to accept
applications from any of
the 50 countries that
are members of UPOV.
In 2000 we received
applications from
breeders in Argentina,
Australia, Canada,
Germany, United Kingdom,
Japan, Mexico,
Netherlands, Poland, and
Sweden.
Are these breeders
making full use of your
services?
The needs of each
individual breeder are
different; I think the
breeders use our
services to the full
extent to satisfy their
needs.
Most people are not
aware that the PVPO also
provides services to the
UPOV Office in Geneva,
our foreign counterparts
in other countries,
internally within the
USDA, seed
certification, banks,
lawyers, schools, and
the general public. All
applicants receive the
same services for the
same price. Since the
Plant Variety Protection
Act allows a breeder to
market the variety for
up to four years in a
foreign country before
applying for a PVP,
foreign applicants have
more time to decide
whether marketing their
variety in the United
States will be
profitable. This is of
great benefit to the
breeders, especially if
they must get
phytosanitary
certificates, or find a
domestic company to
market the variety in
the U.S.
What are the key
areas in which the PVP
Office can and will
raise the level of
service it provides?
The most critical area
is improving the
processing time for PVP
applications. In
addition, the PVPO plans
to migrate to an
e-business system that
will allow customers to
file PVP applications
electronically. This
would help speed the
review process by
reducing paperwork
handling since
applications would be
entered directly into
our crop database. The
PVPO recently completed
a Sixth Sigma review,
which has improved our
efficiency and promises
to lead to higher
quality service and
products. We have a
Quality Assurance
officer, whose job it is
to review applications
for consistent format
and supportable evidence
of distinctness,
uniformity, and
stability. With these
improvements, we were
able to finalize
decisions on over 600
applications last year
-- double the
productivity of the
previous year. We are on
track to maintain this
level of productivity
again this year. One of
most immediate goals to
allow for electronic
payments for PVPO fees.
Also, as I mentioned
previously, we are
planning on making all
expired and issued
certificates available
in an electronic format
on the Internet. The
PVPO would like to
provide easier access to
the public portions of
our data collections,
e.g., online searching
capabilities, so plant
breeders can compare
their experimental
varieties with those
already PV protected
before they send in
their applications or so
they can use this
information in their
breeding programs. Part
of the requirement for
PVP protection is a
description of the
variety’s breeding
history; the PVPO has
these "recipes" for the
creation of some 7,200
plant varieties – this
information would be
more accessible
following the completion
of this scanning
project. The PVPO is
also involved in foreign
outreach and capacity
building by helping
train and assist other
countries in
establishing PVP
offices. The examining
staff has traveled to
China, Thailand, and
Yugoslavia this past
year to present the
system of the US PVPO.
What can the USDA’s
PVP Office learn from
the plant variety
protection offices in
other countries?
I think that one
important aspect is that
we all are members of a
global marketplace and
are all dependent on
each other. There has
never been a greater
need for cooperation,
assistance, and sharing
of information between
all PVP offices. The
need to develop new and
improved varieties for
sustainable world
agriculture is not
something a single
country can accomplish.
Cooperation among PVP
offices and the
dissemination of
information to the
breeders would be a
great service.
We have already learned
much from our colleagues
in other countries.
During discussions, we
have learned which
traits are useful for
distinguishing among
varieties and what
minimum distance between
varieties is acceptable.
We have learned how to
handle first generation
hybrids and tree species
to prove uniformity and
stability in these
crops, which is more
challenging than in most
agronomic crops. The
on-going discussions
about biomolecular
techniques have been
especially enlightening
to our examiners.
Whether the genetic
differences should be
linked to known
morphological traits or
can stand alone as the
basis of distinctness is
still under debate.
Another way that we
benefited from our UPOV
membership is in the
exchange of data about
species that are new to
us and which varieties
in that species are
known to exist.
The reverse is also
true. We welcome
visitors from many
countries to our office
to describe our office
methods and procedures.
We also send examiners
to foreign countries to
teach courses in how to
establish an office
similar to the United
States PVP Office. In
the last year, the PVPO
taught four courses to
international groups.
You have spent 12
years working in the
private seed industry in
the United States before
moving to your current
position. What important
lessons have you learned
during your years in the
seed industry?
I have learned several
things, among them:
a) There are many
knowledgeable people in
the seed and
biotechnology industry
trying to make a profit
through plant variety
development and seed
sales. Often the low
margin on seed sales in
the US makes it
difficult to justify
increased expenditures
for research and
development activities,
especially in plant
biotechnology. But I
believe it is essential
that the efforts remain
strong in the
development of new
bioengineered plants
which will be
fundamental to the
survival of US and
international
agriculture and to the
overall benefit of
society.
b) The importance of
establishing
collaborations – it is
not possible to have
access to all germplasm
sources and
biotechnology tools -
therefore establishing
research and business
collaborations often
provide the synergy to
accomplish far more than
can be achieved by a
single company.
c) Often the short term
gains overshadow the
long term goals and
potential gains in the
private seed sector – I
found the public
research (USDA,
universities,
experimental stations) a
reliable resource for
long term projects which
often appear to have low
profitability.
From your vantage
point, what are the key
issues that will be
confronting the seed
industry in the near
term?
Continued industry
consolidation, increased
use of all forms of
intellectual property,
increased use of
material transfer
agreements and
contracts, and rapidly
decreasing access to
improved germplasm to
develop new varieties.
The concentration on
short term capital gains
will hinder the long
term access to new
breeding material.
Companies will continue
to rethink their
position on developing
bioengineered plant
varieties; and as such
they may resort to
licensing agreements
which could leave new
variety development to
the few major players.
Could you please tell
us about an individual
in the seed industry
whom you have found
particularly
inspirational?
I think that the two
individuals that I found
most inspirational while
at Harris Moran Seed
Company were Phil
Ashcraft, former
President of Harris
Moran Seeds and Bob
Frazier, former vice
president of Research
and Production.
Both of them showed me
the value of remaining
true to your
convictions, having a
vision, maintaining a
long term outlook
through difficult times,
and maintaining moral
standards.
Both Phil and Bob were a
source of direction and
motivation for me while
I was in the seed
industry.
For more information
about the Plant Variety
Protection Office of
USDA, please visit
www.ams.usda.gov/science/PVPO/pvp.htm
Dr. Zankowski can be
reached at
Paul.Zankowski@usda.gov
|