Stop The Bio-Piracy of Wild Rice

There is currently a patent application for wild rice being considered by
the US Patent Office. Your voice is needed in helping secure the rejection
of this patent on wild rice. Below is an email from Winona LaDuke about
what you can do to help stop this bio-piracy.

Tom Taylor
Midwest and Southeast Field Organizer
Organic Consumers Association
Tel: 612-331-7309

Dear Friends,
I write with promising news. The US Patent Office is in the final
stages of rejecting patent application with Serial Number 09/839,813. This
application pertains to ongoing research in Australia, where scientists
have been "shooting" DNA from wild rice into the DNA of other plants and
animals. You can act now to help secure the rejection of this patent
application by emailing the letter below [also attached] to the
Commissioners at the patent office. Email your letters to each of these
people:

1. James E. Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Email: James.Rogan@USPTO.gov

2. Nicholas Godici, Commissioner for Patents.

Email: Nicholas.Godici@uspto.gov

3. Stephen G. Kunin, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

Email: Stephen.Kunin@USPTO.gov or Steven.Kunin@USPTO.gov

4. John J. Doll, Director, Technology Center 1600

Email: John.Doll@USPTO.gov

Send letters as soon as possible to each of the individuals listed
above. Your effort will help to ensure that the patent for the results of
this disquieting research is denied. Your ongoing support of the campaign
to protect manoomin is essential.

Miigwech,
Winona LaDuke


Dear Honorable Mr. Commissioner et al.:

We are writing to express our strong concern about a pending US Patent
Application that claims a method of using Manoomin, our wild rice, in order
to make another type of rice, and the plants and seeds made thereby.

Wild rice is central and sacred to the heart and spirit of the
Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous peoples in the United States of America.
It is hard to overstate how close to the core beliefs of our people is the
status of wild rice: it is a gift given to us by our Creator and we are its
custodians. The Anishinaabeg territories are the center of origin for
natural diverse original strains of wild rice. Wild rice is an essential
part of Anishinaabeg sustenance and survival, and its integrity is
threatened by corporate control and genetic engineering. The right and
responsibility to protect wild rice for future generations is an inherent
right of the Anishinaabeg and is further protected by our treaty rights
with the State of Minnesota and the United States of America.

We understand that there is a patent application presently pending in the
US Patent Office. It has a Serial Number 09/839,813 and was filed on 20
April 2001, with the named "inventors" being Henry et al. This patent
application greatly concerns us. The patent application claims a method of
gene transfer of the DNA from wild rice (Zizania palustris) into another
form of rice, and also a transgenic plant, its fruit, its seeds, and its
progeny, made by this method of gene transfer.

The plants made by these techniques are fertile, and it is not clear what
sort of genetic pollution may be incurred were they to be introduced near
genuine Native wild rice. Since the claims of the patent application
specifically refer to "progeny" of the plants which the 'inventors' have
made in the lab, then any wild outcrossing of these plants into our Native
wild rice stands, would mean that the 'progeny' would be covered by patent
claims. This is intolerable to us.

Furthermore, there may be serious negative impacts upon our natural
stands of wild rice by such outcrossing. Genetically modified rice of the
sort claimed in the subject patent application has the potential to
irreversibly alter natural strains of wild rice. This biological concern,
is in fact within the purview of the USPTO. This is because a patent is not
some inherent right but is actually a government subsidy (in the form of a
limited monopoly) given as a positive incentive to a patent applicant.

However, the new 2002 corporate plan of the USPTO reminds one that
patents must always be balanced with the Public Interest. This is found in
Appendix C of the Fiscal Year 2002 Corporate Plan:

"The Under Secretary and Director champions intellectual property rights
and forges a balance between the public's interest in intellectual property
and each customer's interest in his/her patent and trademark."

Thus the USPTO respectfully must consider what negative effects fall upon
others, whenever a patent is granted.

We understand that as of this date, patent application 09/839,813 is
under Final Rejection status. Due to this status, the Patent Examiner has a
very high degree of discretion (under "Rule 116", 37 CFR 1.116) to not
entertain any further arguments or amendments by applicants. We very
respectfully urge the Patent Office to use this very high degree of
discretion to maintain the rejection of the claims of the patent
application. Doing so would indicate to the public that their interest is
being taken into account. Furthermore, should patent applicants re-file the
case as a continuation application of some sort, we very respectfully urge
the patent examiner to not be browbeaten into acquiescence by the
persistence of a patent applicant. Reasons already exist on the record for
rejecting these claims, and these are not diminished upon re-filing of a
claim. Finally, any claim to "progeny" plants respectfully must be rejected
outright, since after many generations of interbreeding of the claimed
plant with natural rice, the resultant progeny would be indistinguishable
from natural, prior art rice. Director J. Doll understands this line of
argument, as he has taken this precisely this position in the reexamination
proceedings on basmati rice (see paper mailed 27 March 2001 in
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,709 first filed Apr. 28, 2000)

List of recipients:

1. James E. Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
2. Nicholas Godici Commissioner for Patents
3. Stephen G. Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy
4. John J. Doll, Director, Technology Center 1600

http://www.organicconsumers.org
Campaigning for food safety, organic agriculture, sustainability, and
fair trade

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED.
==========================================================

http://www.organicconsumers.org/update.htm