AGSouth Genetics, LLC v. Georgia Farm Services, LLC
22 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exemption from liability in 7 U.S.C. § 2541(d) of the Plant Variety Protection Act does not require proof of actual propagation of the protected variety. An unauthorized sale infringes the Act if the transaction "involves" propagation, which is interpreted broadly to include circumstances where the sale is made for the purpose of planting.
Facts:
- AGSouth Genetics, LLC ('AGSouth') is the holder of a Plant Variety Protection Act ('PVPA') Certificate for a wheat seed variety named AGS 2000.
- Georgia Farm Services ('GFS'), owned by Douglas Wingate, a licensed seed dealer, sold bags of uncertified seed that it represented as AGS 2000.
- Informational booklets referencing the AGS 2000 seed and its protected nature were found in GFS's office.
- Wingate held himself out as a professional 'seedsman' and was a member of the Georgia Crop Improvement Association.
- GFS sold 320 bags of the uncertified AGS 2000 seed to a farmer, Edward Parker, who actually propagated the seed.
- AGSouth hired a private investigator, Zelotis Wofford, who purchased 15 bags of the uncertified seed from GFS.
- During the sale to Wofford, Wingate discussed the seed's characteristics and crop-yielding potential, offered products to help the seeds grow, and admitted he assumed the seeds were to be planted.
- Testing of the seed sold to Wofford revealed that one bag contained only 55% AGS 2000 and another contained 0%.
Procedural Posture:
- AGSouth Genetics, LLC sued Georgia Farm Services in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging violations of the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the Lanham Act.
- The case was tried before a jury for six days.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, Georgia Farm Services made an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied in a written opinion.
- The jury found Georgia Farm Services liable for willful infringement of the PVPA certificate and awarded AGSouth $1,875.00 in damages.
- The jury found in favor of Georgia Farm Services on the Lanham Act claim.
- Following the jury's verdict, Georgia Farm Services filed the present post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exemption in 7 U.S.C. § 2541(d) of the Plant Variety Protection Act shield a seller from liability for an unauthorized sale of a protected seed variety if there is no proof that the specific seeds sold were actually propagated?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Louis Sands
No. The exemption in 7 U.S.C. § 2541(d) does not require proof of actual propagation to establish infringement. The court rejected both parties' interpretations of § 2541(d) as they would render other parts of the statute superfluous. The defendant’s reading, requiring actual propagation, would nullify the provision that makes mere 'stocking' of a protected variety an infringing act. The plaintiff's reading, which would only exempt acts done with the owner's consent, is redundant because the main infringement provision already states that infringing acts must be performed 'without authority.' Finding the statute ambiguous, the court concluded that § 2541(d) exempts acts concerning a protected variety that the owner has placed into the stream of commerce, but only to the extent the acts do not 'involve' further propagation. The court defined 'involve' broadly, not as a strict requirement of actual planting. In this case, the sale to the investigator 'involved' propagation because the conversation was about the seed's growing potential and Wingate assumed it would be planted. Furthermore, evidence of a separate sale to a farmer who did propagate the seed also supported a finding of infringement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'exhaustion' doctrine within the Plant Variety Protection Act, preventing it from creating a significant loophole for infringers. By interpreting 'involves propagation' broadly, the court reinforces protections for PVPA certificate holders against unauthorized sellers, even when a specific infringing transaction, such as a sale to an investigator, does not result in actual planting. This precedent makes it more difficult for infringers to escape liability by arguing a lack of proof of cultivation, focusing instead on the purpose and context of the unauthorized sale. The ruling strengthens the enforcement of intellectual property rights for plant breeders.
Unlock the full brief for AGSouth Genetics, LLC v. Georgia Farm Services, LLC