HR-9681-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by James McGovern (D-MA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to prohibit standard utility patents from being applied to plants, plant varieties, or plant germplasm (seeds, pollen, tubers, rootstock). Plant intellectual property protections would be limited exclusively to two existing, narrower frameworks: the Plant Variety Protection Act and the Plant Patent Act of 1930. The bill would also make unenforceable any contract that restricts a farmer's or researcher's ability to save seeds, breed new varieties, conduct experiments, or propagate plants — for any agreement signed after the bill's enactment. Existing issued patents would not be invalidated, but pending patent applications would be affected immediately.
Who benefits
Farmers who currently pay licensing fees or face contractual restrictions on saving and replanting seeds. Independent plant breeders and academic researchers who face licensing barriers when working with patented germplasm. Smaller seed companies that compete with large patent-holding firms. Developing-country agricultural programs that rely on open germplasm exchange. Food security advocates who favor open access to crop genetics. Organic and heritage seed producers who rely on traditional seed-saving practices.
Who is hurt
Large agricultural biotechnology companies (e.g., those holding utility patents on genetically engineered crop traits) that would lose a major intellectual property tool for protecting seed innovations. Investors in agricultural biotech startups whose business models depend on utility patent exclusivity. University technology transfer offices that license plant-related patents. Breeders who developed proprietary varieties under the expectation of utility patent protection. Employees in the agricultural biotech sector if reduced IP protection leads to reduced private R&D spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty and subsequent rulings opened the door to utility patents on plants, concentrating seed market control in a handful of corporations — with four companies now controlling roughly 50% of the global seed market, according to industry analysts. They contend that utility patents, unlike the Plant Variety Protection Act, allow companies to block all research and seed-saving uses, stifling independent breeding and harming farmers who face legal liability for replanting their own harvests. Redirecting plant IP to the PVPA and Plant Patent Act, they argue, would restore a balanced system that rewards innovation while preserving farmers' traditional rights.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that utility patent protection has been the primary driver of private investment in agricultural biotechnology, producing drought-resistant, pest-resistant, and higher-yield crop varieties that have measurably increased farm productivity. They contend that stripping this protection would eliminate the financial incentive for companies and investors to fund the costly, decade-long process of developing new seed technologies, ultimately reducing the pipeline of innovations that farmers depend on. They further argue that the Plant Variety Protection Act and Plant Patent Act offer weaker and narrower protections insufficient to recoup large R&D investments, and that the bill's contract unenforceability provision retroactively disrupts settled commercial expectations.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to define the scope of patent protection under the Patent and Copyright Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 8) and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). The bill's provision voiding existing contracts entered into before enactment could raise Due Process concerns under the 5th Amendment if applied retroactively, though the bill limits contract unenforceability to agreements signed after enactment, which reduces that risk. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency interpretations of the remaining plant IP statutes would face independent judicial review rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress would narrow the scope of patent authority available to the USPTO; courts would retain jurisdiction to interpret the remaining plant IP statutes independently under post-Loper Bright standards, and existing patent holders retain their issued patents as a check against full retroactive loss.
Historical precedent
The Plant Variety Protection Act (1970) and Plant Patent Act (1930) established earlier, narrower frameworks for plant IP; the expansion of utility patents to plants followed Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) and J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred (2001), which this bill would effectively reverse legislatively.