< Back to latest news & events

Blogs

Plant Patent Infringement in the US Relies on Evidence of Asexual Reproduction

April 2025

A recent case in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) once again highlights how important the initial pleadings and evidence in patent infringement cases can be.

The case is between David Austin Roses Ltd and GCM Ranch LLC[1] and is based on alleged willful infringement of US plant patents held by David Austin covering several varieties of roses, and corresponding trademark infringement. David Austin Roses Ltd is a major British rose breeding company. The varieties bred by David Austin are well known as the company has been established for a long time and consistently obtains PVR protection for its roses around the world, including under the US Plant Patent Act. They also typically file trademarks for the tradenames of each rose covered under a corresponding plant patent.

In this case, David Austin alleged that GCM Ranch infringed nine granted US plant patents by selling rose varieties that fall under the plant patent claims. However the evidence they provided in their pleadings was based mostly on screenshots of the rose products on the GCM Ranch websites resembling the patented varieties, and reviews indicating sale of the products to consumers.

In response, GCM Ranch argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove patent infringement because David Austin failed to provide any explanation of how the alleged infringing plants were produced. According to USC 163, in the case of a plant patent, the grant shall ‘include the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States’.  It was clear that David Austin demonstrated that the plant was being offered for sale and sold, but did not satisfy that said plants were proven to be asexually reproduced from the patented plant. GCM Ranch seized on this point of law in their response, as did the Court. Despite the striking similarities in the plants being sold to the protected varieties, and the agreement that GCM Ranch new of the plant patents at issue, the Court granted GCM Ranch’s motion to dismiss the plant patent infringement case. The Court stated that ‘even though the roses resemble one another, David Austin has failed to plausibly allege that GCM Ranch’s roses were asexually reproduced from David Austin’s roses. For example, David Austin did not allege how GCM Ranch was asexually reproducing the patented roses—i.e., whether they did so by grafting, budding, or layering’.

It is clear that for plant patent infringement in the US the pleadings must be sure to provide factual evidence of how the infringing plants were actually derived from the patented plant, in addition to evidence of sales of the infringing plants. It seems that simply alleging that the patented plant variety has been asexually reproduced is not enough. A full case should be presented at the pleadings stage to avoid surprising dismissal.

[1] https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.txnd.388559/gov.uscourts.txnd.388559.33.0.pdf


This post was written by Partner and Patent Attorney Punita Shah and Partner and Patent Attorney Ellie Purnell.

Latest updates

Avoiding Legal Pitfalls: The Notting Hill Bag Company's Costly Mistake

[2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC) – Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Notting Hill Bag Company Limited v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited, Nangialai Takanai, The Notting Hill Shopper Bag Ltd, Ehsanullah …

Read article
Event - 12th September 2025

Wolters Kluwer Breakfast Panel on AI & IP at AIPPI

Sofie McPherson, Patent Director at HGF, will be moderating a special breakfast panel session hosted by Wolters Kluwer at the AIPPI World Congress in Yokohama on 15 September 2025. Session …

Event details

T1465/23 – No Narrowing by Description—EPO Board Terminates Inventive Step Analysis for Arbitrary Modifications Citing G1/24 and G1/19

“The potential patentability of a specific narrow embodiment…cannot render a claim allowable which, due to its breadth, encompasses a multitude of other, non-inventive embodiments” – r. 3.5. Background EP3113515 was …

Read article

Wrestling with G1/24 – How should the claims be interpreted in view of the description?

In G1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) codified how claims should be interpreted for assessing patentability: in consultation with the description. However, the decision was light on how, in …

Read article

Welcome to HGF Presents - New Video Series

Introducing HGF Presents a new video series delivering practical insights into European Patent Law and practice. Curated by our leading experts in chemistry, life sciences, technology & engineering, each concise …

Read article

Seminar on Incorporating Trade Secrets into your IP Strategy

HGF is hosting a Seminar on Incorporating Trade Secrets into your IP Strategy which will be followed by networking, apero, and snacks. The Seminar will be held on Wednesday, 10th …

Read article

PRESS RELEASE – HGF strengthens European presence with three new Partners in France and Germany

HGF is pleased to announce the arrival of three new partners, further strengthening its European presence. Two partners will be joining the firm’s fast-growing French practice, and one will join …

Read article

Providing Enabling Disclosure for AI inventions at the EPO

  Video overview: The equivalent to the enablement requirement in the US at the EPO is Sufficiency. There is an increasing trend for the sufficiency of AI related patent applications …

Read article