## Facts

- Pioneer Hi-Bred International owned multiple utility patents covering inbred and hybrid corn plants and seeds under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- Pioneer sold patented hybrid seed in bags bearing a limited label license permitting production of grain/forage but prohibiting use for propagation, seed multiplication, or development of new seed varieties.
- J.E.M. Ag Supply and related distributors and customers (collectively Farm Advantage) bought Pioneer’s patented seed and resold the bags without Pioneer’s authorization.
- Pioneer sued Farm Advantage and others for patent infringement.
- Farm Advantage counterclaimed that sexually reproducing plants are not patentable under § 101 and argued that the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA) and Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) supply the exclusive federal protection for plant varieties.

## Issues

1. Whether newly developed sexually reproducing plant varieties (including their seeds) are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. Whether the PPA and PVPA limit § 101 or displace utility-patent protection for plant varieties as exclusive, plant-specific schemes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment for Pioneer.
- Newly developed plant breeds, including sexually reproducing plants, fall within the subject matter of § 101.
- Neither the PPA nor the PVPA limits § 101’s coverage or provides the exclusive federal regime for protecting such plant varieties.
- The Court relied on § 101’s broad text, prior precedent recognizing patent eligibility for human-made living organisms, and the PTO’s long-standing practice of issuing plant-related utility patents.
- The Court rejected repeal-by-implication and “no dual protection” arguments, finding the statutory schemes overlapping but not irreconcilable.
- Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, reasoning that plant-specific statutes reflected congressional choices (including limitations and exceptions) that would be undermined by utility patents.

## Legal Principles

- Section 101 extends to “any new and useful” process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter made by humans, including human-developed plant varieties, subject to ordinary patentability requirements.
- The PPA and PVPA operate alongside § 101; absent a clear statement or irreconcilable conflict, plant-specific statutes do not narrow or withdraw plant varieties from § 101.
- Repeal by implication is disfavored; overlap between statutory protections is permissible when both schemes can function without conflict.
- Longstanding administrative practice, coupled with congressional inaction in the face of that practice, supports continued recognition of plant utility-patent eligibility.

## Conclusion

The Court held that sexually reproducing plant varieties, such as hybrid corn and its seeds, are eligible for utility patents under § 101, and that the PPA and PVPA provide additional, nonexclusive forms of plant protection rather than limiting general utility-patent coverage.


J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001)