By 2001, the five growers who had been sued went to the U.S. Federal District Court of Maryland with the defense that questioned: «Can a plant long well known in nature and cultivated and eaten by humans for decades, be patented merely on the basis of recent realization that the plant has always had some heretofore unknown but naturally occurring beneficial feature?&raqu
By 2001, the five
growers who had been sued went to the U.S. Federal District Court of Maryland with the defense that questioned: «Can a plant long well known in nature and cultivated and eaten
by humans for decades, be patented merely on the basis of recent realization that the plant has always had some heretofore unknown but naturally occurring beneficial feature?&raqu
by humans for decades, be patented merely on the basis of recent realization that the plant has always had some heretofore
unknown but naturally occurring beneficial feature?»