Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 1

USDA Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) 

Room 3543, USDA South Building 

1400 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Board Members attending (with affiliation): 

Charles Brown; Brownseed Genetics, LLC 

Jianli Chen; University of Idaho 

Joonhyung Cho; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Danielle Conway; University of Maine 

Eloy Corona; Bayer Crop Science LP 

Jose Costa; USDA/ARS 

Emily Dierking; Indiana Crop Improvement Association 

John Duesing; DuPont Pioneer 

Elizabeth Lee; University of Guelph 

Stevan Madjarac; Monsanto Company 

Jose Re; RiceTec, Inc. 

Wendell Shauman; Shauman Farms 

Bernice Slutsky; American Seed Trade Association 

Katherine White; Wayne State University 

Alternate: David Burns, Burns' Farms, Inc. 

Alternate: James Sutton, Georgia Department of Agriculture 

USDA and AMS staff: 

Ruihong Guo, Deputy Administrator, USDA/AMS/Science and Technology 

Douglas Keeler, Associate Deputy Administrator, USDA/AMS/Science and 

Technology 

Paul Zankowski; Commissioner PVPO 

Jeff Haynes, Deputy Commissioner, PVPO 

Others Attending: 

Marymar Butruille, Monsanto 

Paul Nelson, Monsanto 

Rachel Pilloff, Lowe Hauptman & Ham, LLP 

Kitisri Sukhapinda, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Call to Order and Introduction 

The meeting agenda was adopted. The 2015-2017 Board consists of 14 members and 

2 alternates with 4 members continuing from the 2013-2015 Board and 2 who were 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 2

members of earlier Boards. The three main functions of the Board were discussed – 1) 

advising the Secretary regarding the Plant Variety Protection Office’s (PVPO) Rules and 

Regulations, 2) making advisory decisions on all appeals to the Secretary, and 3) 

advising the Secretary on all questions regarding public usage of the varieties. The 

PVPO has also used the Board’s assistance by asking for their advice on PVPO 

procedural matters. 

PVPO Update Report 

A briefing report was provided to the Board prior to the teleconference that highlighted 

the PVPO’s achievements since December 2015. During this time the PVPO examined 

and processed 322 applications year to date (compared to 397 processed last year to 

date). The processing goal for this fiscal year was reduced to allow the PVPO staff to 

focus on testing the electronic PVP (ePVP) application system. Even with reduced 

examining, the average application processing time dropped to 1.4 years compared to 

the 2.8 years in 2013. The PVPO received 304 new applications year to date compared 

to 361 in FY2015. The Office anticipates receiving 100-150 more applications by the 

end of September to finish up FY2016. Thirty three different crop kinds were received 

this year. The current unprocessed application inventory was 305 compared to 307 for 

last year. The PVPO issued 467 PVP certificates year to date. 

The PVPO improved the public's understanding of U.S. PVP concepts by publishing a 

newsletter that provided information on the PVPO website and explained PVP criteria: 

novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability in simple terms. Future newsletter issues 

will discuss variety naming, look into the difference between PVP and patents, and 

provide tips on conducting DUS trials. To extend international outreach the PVPO met 

with 4 different foreign delegations to discuss the U.S. PVP process and its benefits. 

The PVPO has increased its outreach to the U.S. public sector by planning webinars 

and presentations with the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and 

the University and Industry Consortium (UIC) to expand PVP knowledge to as many 

universities as possible. The PVPO has also been targeting the potato sector by 

meeting with the National Potato Council and by also touring potato trials to interact with 

growers and breeders. 

The PVPO staff visited wheat and sorghum field trials to improve their observation 

competency. The PVPO also plans to provide training to the staff on the analysis and 

use of molecular markers once the methods related to PVP applications are better 

determined. 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 3

The PVPO participated in several International Union for the Protection of New Varieties 

of Plants (UPOV) meetings including the general sessions held in Geneva where a 

proposed international system for cooperation is being discussed. The PVPO worked 

with UPOV to have soybean added to the developing Electronic Application System. 

The Office participated in the UPOV Biomolecular Technique (BMT) meeting to discuss 

the U.S. role in molecular technology development related to PVP. The Board asked if 

any policy issues were discussed at the BMT. The PVPO indicated that the U.S. 

presentation of a molecular marker threshold model had a lot of discussion but that 

most BMT discussions focused on the use of molecular technology for variety 

identification, PVP enforcement, and the management of reference collections. 

Electric PVP (ePVP) application Update 

The ePVP system has two components – 1) the web based outward facing Portal which 

is used by applicants for filing, application updates, and bidirectional application 

communication and by the PVPO staff to enter/modify paper based applications and 2) 

CRM (= Customer Relationship Management) which is internal only and is used by the 

PVPO staff for application examination and management. The system operates with 1) 

the portal governing applications entry, 2) an interface that connects the portal to the 

SQL database through a Dot Net application, and 3) CRM connecting to SQL for 

internal PVPO operations. 

The PVPO is fully examining soybean, pepper, and peanut applications using ePVP. 

These crops are entered into the ePVP System from the portal and examined in CRM. 

All three crops have been moved from the legacy STAR database to the ePVP System. 

The Portal access is currently limited and only used by PVPO staff until the software is 

fully rolled out. 

The PVPO is currently reconciling ePVP Portal and CRM errors to allow the entry of 

additional crops into the system. The next steps will be 1) provide the entry of non-PVP 

(reference or similar) varieties for distinctness comparison and 2) bulk upload of 

applications. Following the addition of the bulk upload feature, additional crops will be 

added to the system including corn, wheat, barley and oat in early 2017. An ePVP 

demonstration is planned for the December 2016 PVP Board meeting. 

The Board asked if users could conduct distinctness searches that would allow the 

comparison their variety against other PVP varieties in the system. This feature is not 

currently available because some data for PVP-pending varieties is confidential. In the 

future it may be possible to allow users to conduct distinctness searches lacking 

confidential data. 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 4

The Board asked if the ePVP searches might be copyrighted or if the ePVP system and 

data can be licensed to others for a fee. The PVPO responded that the ePVP software 

might be available to other on a fee-for service basis. 

The Board asked if ePVP would contain data for utility patented varieties. The system 

could use publicly available issued patent data however it was mentioned that utility 

patent data may not correlate to the PVP criteria - distinct, uniform, and stable. 

Molecular Marker (MM) Subcommittee/Working Group Update 

The PVPO provided an update on the MM Joint Working Group (The Board’s MM 

subcommittee combined with the ASTA Group in 2014 to form the Joint Working Group 

(WG)). Initially the Joint WG focused on a MM Reference Distance model but then 

switched emphasis to a Pairwise model in 2015. 

Currently no crops are distinguished solely on MM differences at the PVPO. In 

December 2014 the Board recommended that MM could be used to break ties in cases 

where a new variety is facing a phenotypic tie with existing PVP varieties (i.e. Pairwise 

Model). At this time the Office is not in a position to use MM data to distinguish varieties 

or to break phenotypic ties of similar varieties. Historically the PVPO has been able to 

work with its applicants to obtain additional data that resolved a phenotypic tie. 

The Office explained that it follows UPOV guidelines for PVP examination and the DUS 

determination. In the past some applicants have submitted MM data voluntarily as 

additional data or as a means of distinguishing their new variety from their claimed most 

similar variety; however the PVPO does not use this data in its determination of 

distinctness. The PVPO does retain MM data for future reference. It was explained that 

some PVP exhibit C forms have data fields for MM data but that the PVPO is 

considering removing these MM fields to eliminate confusion about what type of data is 

required. 

In 2016 the Joint WG planned to provide crop specific threshold and minimum distance 

criteria; however as of yet a recommendation has not been made to the Board. The 

PVPO is waiting for the Board’s MM recommendations before 1) developing policy on 

MM data use, 2) developing MM administrative procedures for incorporating data into 

applications, and 3) determining how to examine MM data. 

A technical action plan from the Joint WG explained that the members are working 

together, using the shared dataset (6K soy, 3072 corn) to develop models for arriving at 

a minimum distance threshold. Each WG member validates the model with their own 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 5

datasets (markers and/or germplasm) to determine if they are confident with the 

approach. This technical group is scheduling meetings every 3 weeks to discuss 

problems, progress, and ideas. Their goal is to define a difference/similarity threshold 

and minimum distance criteria for the soybean and/or corn by October. 

The Joint WG's future plan is to 1) provide a recommendation to the ASTA Intellectual 

Property Rights Committee, 2) provide a recommendation to the PVP Board, 3) Publish 

a paper(s) on the MM process, 4) present the procedure to UPOV at the Technical 

Committee, TWA, and BMT meetings, and 5) gain UPOV’s understanding for the U.S. 

PVP MM approach. The Board asked about gaining UPOV’s recognition be it the 

pairwise or reference model. This would not be a formal UPOV endorsement but rather 

information sharing that this is the U.S. PVP MM approach. The Board asked how this 

recommendation would be brought forward – for instance “_____ is how a MM threshold 

would be used in the PVP process” and “_____ is the information that should be 

conveyed to the PVPO to make a distinctness determination”. 

International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 

The reason that the Treaty was developed derives from the fact that 70% of the food 

that is grown and eaten comes from crops that are not native to the U.S. For example 

the wheat developed by Norman Bourlag, father of the green revolution, is based on a 

germplasm from the U.S., Japan, and Mexico. No country is self-sufficient with regard 

to germplasm availability and plant breeding. 

Before the Treaty access to germplasm was being restricted prompting discussions 

from countries about giving something back to the country which provided the genetic 

resource. The Treaty established international rules and standards around germplasm 

access and benefit sharing using a Standard Material Transfer Agreement (sMTA) and 

a multi-lateral system covering 64 crops. Currently the Treaty has 139 contracting 

parties. The U.S. participated in negotiating the Treaty and signed it in 2002, however 

the Senate has not yet ratified it. 

The sMTA is supposed to provide a standard means to access germplasm while giving 

back (benefit sharing) to the source country. However there are problems with the 

sMTA and it is being reviewed. The U.S. has been attending the sMTA meetings but 

cannot fully participate since the U.S. is not a contracting party. 

The Treaty is very important to U.S. breeders because it is becoming increasingly 

difficult to internationally access plant germplasm for the development of new varieties. 

The concept of access and benefit sharing is better suited under the Treaty as 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 6

compared to the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The 

Nagoya Protocol establishes a parallel access and benefit sharing system which is 

bilateral, more cumbersome, more expensive, and is not focused on agriculture. In 

summary the Treaty is a much better option for plant breeder’s germplasm access than 

the Nagoya Protocol. Recently the Senate passed the Treaty through the Foreign 

Relations committee with the hope for a floor vote; however, this did not occur before 

the summer recess. A Senate floor vote for ratification may occur in September. 

Because the Treaty is very technical some parts of it are misunderstood. UPOV also 

plans to have a symposium in October 2016 about the interconnectedness of the Treaty 

and UPOV 

December 2016 PVP Board Meeting 

The December 2016 PVP Board meeting will occur at ASTA’s Corn, Sorghum, and 

Soybean Research Conference (the conference occurs December 5-9)at the Hyatt 

Hotel on East Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL. The meeting will occur over 2 days December 5, 

2016 - 1:00-5:00 PM and December 6, 2016 - 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The meeting agenda 

will include updates on PVPO accomplishments, MM Working Group, UPOV / SAA 

meetings, ePVP and activities on PVP cooperation with other countries. There are also 

plans for a presentation from Peter Button, UPOV’s Vice Secretary General, on the 

UPOV system, development of the UPOV Electronic Application System, and an update 

on the International System of Cooperation. A presentation from Kees van Ettekoven, 

Head of the Netherland (Naktuinbouw) Variety Registration Department, is planned 

about the Netherlands PVP process and UPOV’s BMT perspective on MM. The Joint 

MM Technical Group will also meet on December 5 in the morning and the ASTA IP 

Committee will meet on the morning of December 7. 

2017-2019 PVP Board 

The Charter of the current Board expires on February 5, 2017; the PVPO is in the 

process of renewing the Charter. A non-expired Charter must be in place in order to 

hold a Board meeting. The term of the current 2015-2017 Board expires on May 26, 

2017. The PVPO will be soliciting nominations for 2017-2019 Board starting in 

December 2016. 

Suggestions/Recommendations 

The PVPO should actively seek advice from the Board by directing it and by going into 

more detail on certain topics. For example it may be necessary to have a separate 

Board teleconference on the MM findings and proposed recommendations. The PVPO 
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board Teleconference Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2016 

Page# 7

suggested seeking more guidance on outreach. The Board also mentioned discussing 

the vulnerability of the PVPO’s revenue which is dependent on 2 crops and possible 

options for the PVPO has when revenue drops. The Board suggested re-visiting the 

brainstorming topics that were developed in December 2015 and prioritizing which 

would have the greatest impact. The Board also brought up re-examining payment 

options for PVP applications – looking into annual maintenance fees and different fees 

depending on the applicant size. 

The Board meeting was adjourned.