< Back to latest news & events

Blogs

The Strawberry Patent Battle: Seeds, Speculation, and Jurisdiction

May 2025

 

This case, relating to infringement of a US plant patent, deals with the evidentiary burden required to show infringement of a plant patent in the US, as well as highlighting the problems associated with asserting IP rights in relation to breeding programs conducted across different jurisdictions.

A US plant patent provides protection for asexually produced plants (apart from tuber propagated plants and uncultivated plants).  A plant patent owner has the right to exclude third parties 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, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States.”  Notably, in contrast to plant variety rights, a plant patent does not provide protection against unauthorised export of the protected plant.

The case relates to the breeding of strawberries, with the patentee (Driscoll) in 2019 alleging that California Berry Cultivars (CBC) had infringed three of their US plant patents, firstly by cross-breeding the patented varieties in Spain, and then secondly by importing seed derived from the cross-breeding program into the US.

In strawberries, the male plant provides the pollen, and the female plant produces the fruit and seeds.  However, most strawberry flowers include both male and female reproductive parts, and so in a cross-breeding event, any single variety could be used as either the male or the female parent.

Driscoll’s allegation relating to infringement as a result of unauthorised importation of seed was based on the argument that their patented plants were used as female plants for crossbreeding, and therefore the seeds imported in the US were a “part” of a patented plant.  To support this allegation, they needed to provide evidence as to which variety was used as the female in each cross.  However, the CBC’s breeding plans did not specify which variety was used as the female in each cross, and there was no evidence of how each cross was performed.  The Judge found that Driscoll relied on “guesswork and speculation” regarding the parents in the cross-breeding, and had failed to meet its evidentiary burden in showing that the seed was indeed a ‘part’ of one of their protected varieties.  The Judge remarked that “the mere existence of progeny of a patented plant does not support an inference that that Defendants imported and used seeds that were grown on a Patented Plant, as opposed to the other variety in any given cross”. 

The Judge further dismissed the allegation of infringement based on cross-breeding because this activity was performed in Spain and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of Driscoll’s US plant patents.

Breeding programs often take place across multiple jurisdictions, and the protection afforded can differ between patents, plant patents, and plant variety rights.  This case again highlights the complexities in adequately protecting innovation in this sector, the challenges in obtaining evidence relating to third-party activities, and protecting the rights of breeders.


This article was written by Partner & Patent Attorney Punita Shah, and Trainee Patent Attorney Delphine Lauté-Caly.

Latest updates

HGF Ranked #1 in the UK for Trade Mark Portfolios in the 2025 Trade Mark Filing Trends Report by Clarivate.

HGF has achieved the #1 ranking for the UK for trade mark portfolios in the newly released 2025 Trade mark Filing Trends report by Clarivate, recognising the firm as a …

Read article

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

Managing Intellectual Property practitioner rankings – IP Stars 2025

We are pleased to share that HGF has once again been prominently featured in the Managing IP STARS 2025 rankings, a leading benchmark for excellence in the global IP profession. …

Read article

Managing IP firm rankings – Trade Marks 2025

HGF has once again been highly recognised in the Managing Intellectual Property firm rankings for trade marks, with Tier 1 rankings and high recommendations in several key jurisdictions. Each year, …

Read article

HGF receives exceptional results in IAM Patent 1000 rankings 2025

We are proud to announce that HGF has once again achieved outstanding recognition in the IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Professionals 2025. With 29 of our attorneys …

Read article

Innovation in the Energy Industry - Do You Have Freedom to Operate?

The energy transition has brought unprecedented change to the energy sector. Whilst change can bring uncertainty and challenges, it also brings opportunities. Many companies have already seized on the opportunity …

Read article

Babek International Limited v Iceland Foods Limited [2025] EWHC 547 (IPEC)

In a significant ruling on 11 March 2025, IPEC upheld the validity of Babek International Limited’s UK trade mark for ‘BABEK’ in its case against Iceland Foods Limited. The judgment …

Read article