News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Bayer plays hardball 

Bayer plays hardball

22 Apr, 2009 04:56 PM
BIOTECH giant Bayer has showed it plans to play hardball on any patent infringements across the globe, securing a partial success in enforcing patent rights in the notoriously hard to win Chinese courts.

A Chinese chemical supplier was adjudged to have infringed on Bayer's patent on the Mefenpyr safener patent and was ordered to stop selling the product and pay compensation.

In its judgement at first instance, the court in Wuxi recently ordered the Chinese company Jiangsu Tian Rong Group Ltd (Tian Rong) to stop selling the crop protection product Mefenpyr in infringement of patent rights and to pay compensation to Bayer CropScience.

Bayer said the verdict was a strong indication that patent infringement was now being taken seriously in China, where patent and copyright issues have traditionally not been a high priority.

"The court’s decision sends a strong signal to Chinese companies, warning them against patent infringements of this kind," commented Dr Ralf-Rüdiger Jesse, Head of Patents & Licensing at Bayer CropScience.

Safeners, which are rapidly absorbed by crop plants, are added to herbicides to accelerate their degradation and prevent damage to the plants.

Bayer CropScience sells Mefenpyr in mixtures with the foliar herbicide Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl under the brand name Puma.

The herbicide is used for weed grass control in cereal crops.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
What will happen to our conventional Australian growers whose GM-growing neighbours' crop cross-pollinates and contaminates the non-GM crop? What happens if that non-GM farmer saves his seed and sows the contaminated crop? The first patent infringement case here should be interesting. Will we see GM companies baying for an Australian farmers' blood?
Posted by Daedalus, 23/04/2009 8:52:23 AM
This won't be a problem unless you deliberately spray the non-selective herbicide over the top and gain benefit from it. This would only happen at 80 or 90pc GM - a percentage that is not likely to happen in any normal situation.

Just have a look at the court outcomes from those who have been caught trying to be smart or attempting to prove a point. Just look to those North Americans who Greenpeace trotted out to Australia recently.

Posted by Concerned, 23/04/2009 9:23:21 AM
Conventional growers should be sued because they didn't bother to take care of cross contamination from their GMO neighbours. The GMO neighbours need protection from their thieving non-gmo neighbours who obviously are out to get all the benefits of higher costs for crop maintenance, lower yields and inferior product - of course they should be sued - this is America (oops Australia ). Just wait until carbon trading comes in - what patents will the bio-techs own there?
Posted by gordons49, 23/04/2009 10:19:03 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Do you think tree changers generally have realistic expectations of rural life when they move to the bush?

Yes
(9.8%)

No
(89%)

Other
(1.2%)

Total Votes: 764
Poll Date: 19 April, 2009

Most popular articles




The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...