Growers lose patent case against USDA, grape commission

10/14/2013 06:19:00 PM
Coral Beach

California table grape commission logoCultivation of ill-gotten plant stock did not constitute “public use,” a federal judge said, ruling against grape growers and upholding the government’s patents and the California Table Grape Commission’s exclusive license for two grape varieties.

Judge Sam Hadden filed his ruling in the six-year-old case in September with little fanfare. Neither the U.S. Department of Agriculture nor the grape commission issued statements when Hadden ruled against the grape growers and ordered them to pay certain legal fees for the commission.

Officials with the commission were not immediately available for comment. The USDA’s staff was unavailable for comment because of the budget-related government shutdown.

California grape growers filed the case in November 2007. They claimed the USDA’s patents for the Scarlet Royal and Autumn King varieties should be nullified because the grapes were in “public use” for a year before the patents were issued in January and February 2006.

The grower plaintiffs were Delano Farms Co., Four Star Fruit Inc., and Gerawan Farming Inc. They presented their case in two days during a bench trial in June.

The growers not only challenged the validity of the USDA’s patents on the two grape varieties, but also the exclusive licensing rights that the California Table Grape Commission has on the two varieties.

In his decision, the judge focused on what turned out to be unauthorized possession of grape vine plant stock that two other California growers — cousins Jim Ludy and Larry Ludy — propagated and planted.

The judge wrote that evidence and testimony showed the Ludys got the plant stock immediately following an August 2001 open house when the grape commission and USDA showed the grape varieties, which were in the experimental phase at the agency’s breeding program.

Commission president Kathleen Nave told Larry Ludy during the open house that growers could not view the varieties in the field because of plans to patent them. He and Jim Ludy asked a USDA employee they knew at the breeding station to get them some “sticks” from the unreleased varieties, according to testimony.

Judge Hadden wrote in his decision that the USDA employee, Rodney Klassen, who did pruning and other field work at the USDA operation, provided the Ludys with grape plant stock. Testimony indicated Larry and Jim Ludy, as well as Jim’s brother Jack Ludy, along with Klassen, all knew that the plant stock should not have been released.

Prev 1 2 Next All

Comments (6) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

NC  |  October, 15, 2013 at 01:27 PM

Shouldn't that lack of identifiable traits also have prevented the grape varieties from having been patented in the first place? If even the inventors cannot distinguish them from other grapes, why do they have a patent?

Coral Beach    
October, 15, 2013 at 04:23 PM

The researchers could not identify the grape varieties based on a visual inspection in the courtroom, according to the judge. With laboratory equipment scientists can easily identify different varieties. Coral Beach, staff writer

Chris Gardella    
Delano California  |  October, 18, 2013 at 02:44 PM

This article is a joke. A misrepresentation of the facts that falsely incriminates some individuals mentioned herein.

Coral Beach    
The Packer  |  October, 18, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Chris, All of the information regarding the facts of the case came from the actual findings of fact and ruling written by the judge on this case. Please feel free to e-mail me directly at if you have further questions. Respectfully, Coral Beach, staff writer

Don Ludy    
Delano  |  October, 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Coral, What ruling did you read please print it! Your article is a total misrepresentation of the facts.

Coral Beach    
The Packer  |  October, 19, 2013 at 11:29 PM

Don, As stated in my response to Chris (above)the facts for this story came from the judge's ruling. It is Document No. 261 in the case and was filed on Sept. 12. The formal name of the document is "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order." The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case number is 1:07-cv-01619. The documents are public record. Coral Beach, staff writer

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight