I have a chance to get a division of Blc. Pamela Hetherington 'Coronation' AM-FCC/AOS. The gentleman says he purchased the plant from Fred Stewart in the 1970's and that the plant was a division when he purchased it. This guy and Fred were apparently close friends back then. This is a patented orchid and was patented in 1970. I don't even know what a "patented orchid" means. I did look up the orchid and saw that one was last auctioned off ten years ago @ $300.00. This was a division that was being auctioned. I don't see this plant for sell anywhere by anyone. The guy swears he has not had this plant or a division out of his possession for at least 20 years. I can't imagine having an orchid for 40 years but this guy has a handful of orchids that date back to purchases in the 70's!

Does anyone have knowledge of this particular orchid? This is a picture of his flowers.

Ken,

If it was patented, that means it was cloned. I would not trust that it is a division of the original awarded plant.

Stewart got the award in 1977. It was later awarded an FCC in 1981 then two CCMs in 2014 (presumably from divisions or clones).

It was patented in 1982 not in 1970. It was registered with RHS in 1970.

http://www.google.com/patents/...

Now that is not to say it would not be a good plant to own, but I would not trust that it is a division from the original without some hard documentation. You can buy the clone for under $30.

http://fatinoinc.com/10694-Blc...

Ken,

I don't believe him. That cannot be his picture unless he is in Japan or Korea. I did a google image search and it comes up that exact photo owned by someone in Asia (looks Japanese) and his personal blooming journal (with translation).

https://www.google.com/search?...

@TedM posted this Orchid in bloom, check February Orchids on the 28. 2015
http://garden.org/thread/view_...

I remember us discussing this plant.

Hey, that's a lot of good information.

We are not talking money here, so whether it is a $300 plant or a $30 plant is of no consequence to me. I don't quite understand why someone patents a plant and why it would be a clone, but again, unless you want to educate me in this matter, it perhaps is not all that important. I am surprised that you found this plant for sell, and apparently readily for sale. I did not see it when looking. I guess I did not look hard enough. I just thought these old registered plants were not often seen for sell. Needless to say, you won't be buying it from Stewart.

He may have been in the Orient. I don't know. I was following some links and I am sure that's where the picture came from. I guess I should have stated that this was a picture of the flowers and not "his flowers". Sorry about that.

Ken, If you read the link about the patent it explains that it is specifically for cloning "meristem" breeding. Meristem or "cloning" is mass producing through tissue culture rather than breeding two parents (seed pod/pollen). Cloning means the blooms will be exactly the same every time.

Seed breeding does not produce the exact bloom every time. Each one is unique.

Cloning is popular because it is cheaper and guaranteed (up to a point) to get that bloom on every plant.

drdawg said: I don't quite understand why someone patents a plant and why it would be a clone,

Patented so that neither YOU nor any one else can reproduce and sell it, legally. Cloned cause: it is easy to do these days and gives an exact duplicate and you can fairly easily make gazillions of them. Flasking.

I hope that your plant in fact goes way back.

A new friend (82 YO) gave me a Daylily division which she got ~ 20 years ago from a friend who was a generation older than my new friend. The friend had gotten it from her grandmother who purchased it in the 1930s or so.. After a ton of research, it looks like I may have a very rare antique Daylily first Registered in 1924. Sorry this is so off topic.

I know what a meristem is and what cloning is. I just did not know that growers actually patented their plants. I guess it is the same as copywriting music, script, and pictures.

I don't guess I will ever know the "true" history of the orchid. Fred might have accurate records, but since it has now been forty years, the likelihood of digging up something concrete is probably remote. But, it is not a big deal. The flowers are supposed to be beautiful, huge, and fragrant and the plants vigorous growers (though they get quite large apparently). I will now have three "old-timey" plants, all divisions of plants purchased from Stewart in the 70's. No one else may think so, but I think that's kind of neat. An old guy with old plants.

I again apologize for the picture confusion. I just liked it.

Hoping you just want these "old timey" plants for your own private enjoyment, Ken. (and of course we will enjoy your pictures)

Do take seriously the fact that you are not allowed to propagate a patented plant to sell. Not sure if you're even allowed to propagate it to trade with your friends, as accepting something in trade could still be construed as "profit".

I don't know if there is anyone at Stewart who would be willing to hire a lawyer to defend a patent that is 30-odd years old - or if the patent is still valid since someone does seem to be selling the plants (maybe under license from the patent holder?) but if they did, you could be in trouble.

I have no thoughts about doing anything with this plant, other than growing it for my enjoyment. I might try to contact Fred (I assume he is still living?) and see if he has any records going back to the 1970's.

This just came to mind. Since this plant was obtained in the 70's, and the patent was not until 1982, would my division still be a patented plant? How about it, lawyer friends?

drdawg said:I have no thoughts about doing anything with this plant, other than growing it for my enjoyment. I might try to contact Fred (I assume he is still living?) and see if he has any records going back to the 1970's.

This just came to mind. Since this plant was obtained in the 70's, and the patent was not until 1982, would my division still be a patented plant? How about it, lawyer friends?

Patent still applies because if you read the full information it explains the breeding original registration and such dating back to the 60s so the timeline is established.

For some reason I thought that Fred had passed away. Maybe I am wrong about that. If you can get an oral confirmation from him about the division, that would be satisfactory to me personally for my collection (growing for self-enjoyment).

Question for the lawyers: Does the friend have the right to sell it to Ken? I assume that the patent only covers breeding and divisions? If one wants to sell their plant, I assume that is okay? But maybe not.

drdawg said: I will now have three "old-timey" plants, all divisions of plants purchased from Stewart in the 70's. No one else may think so, but I think that's kind of neat. An old guy with old plants.

I again apologize for the picture confusion. I just liked it.

You need to post photos of your blooms of the plants! Then we can marvel and drool over the large floofy Cattleyas!

Figuring out the law, particularly using "lawyer-speak" is so much fun. A friend said that if there is a devise, and it is not patented until a certain date, there is no legal reason that a similar or even exact device could not be sold if that device was purchased/produced before the patent or patent-pending date. He says the patent or patent pending date is the critical element, and what precedes that/those dates have no legal binding. That's what my judge-friend thinks anyway. The judge has no expertise in patent-law. It all sounds kind of murky to me, but I don't know the law and understand little of matters like patents.

I don't know whether any of this even means anything, at least not practically speaking. I am not looking to sell this or any of these heirloom orchids. I guess if I did, someone could sue me. The American tradition, huh?

Virtually all plants distributed by the big players these days, e.g. Proven Winners, are noted as Patented or PPAF - Plant Patent Applied For. Strictly read, you are not even supposed to replicate the plant for your own use. "Asexual reproduction is not allowed" or some such is common phrase on plant tags.

For a variety that is patented, the patent applies to all of them. For those granted on or after June 8, 1995, the term is 20 years. Not sure of what the status is for a 1982 patent. Expired? First Plant Patent was 1931. Lotsa info here:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

When you buy a patented plant, a fee per plant goes to the patent holder and varies - I have seen then from 10 cents to several dollars.

IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer, but I did work closely with them for 30 years and held their hands - even writing discovery, cross examination questions and I once wrote a 287 page Brief when an attorney vanished on a project for which I was the clients consultant/Expert Witness.

Right, the patent really only applies to propagating the plant for profit since they're never going to know if you just propagate it at home.

So if you have one plant, and you sell it to someone else without dividing it, that should be legal.

But if you divided it in half, kept half and sold the other half, then you have profited by propagating your plant and that would be patent infringement.

In the case of a patented tool or other device, though, since you can't "propagate" them, any copying of the tool so that you don't have to pay the patent holder for a new one, or pay him a royalty on the design is also patent infringement. We patented a tool a few years ago, and the patent applies to all tools of that particular - exact - design that we have made, whether or not they were made before or after the patent was granted.

I occasionally have bought seedlings (plugs) that had a Royalty Fee tacked on. These came from commercial growers in FL.

I know no one is going to go to the trouble/expense to sue over a dollar, but how in the world can someone tell whether the plant I shipped was my own, personal one or a division of my personal one? I like to occasionally be a Devil's Advocate.

For those who have interest in my original post concerning the Blc. Pamela Hetherington 'Coronation' FCC/AOS, here is updated and correct information.

Plant patents filed/registered before 1996 had a seventeen year expiration period and one cannot renew/extend/re-file for that patent after the seventeen year period expires. Thus this patent has expired and the plant is now considered to be public-domain. I can do whatever I want with this plant.

This information was obtained from the PhD who files plant/material patents and researches patents for the Mississippi State University Research and Technology Center. I would assume this expert on plant patents knows his business.

If I learn something new every day, I consider that to be a good day.

Ken: Came across your thread while researching something else, so I'm a bit late to the party. I too am and "old guy" (I prefer "experienced") who likes older varieties.

My first job out of college was at Stewart's for just over 6 years (1975-1981) here in Southern California. Fred Stewart died in 1972 at age 88, so if your friend got a division of Pamela Hetherington 'Coronation' from Stewart's, it was probably from Ernest Hetherington, the company president. However, it would have been highly unusual and most unlikely for Ernest to release a division of a plant before a patent was secured as doing so could jeopardize the patent approval. If the patent was granted in 1982 as alluded to above, then the meristems would not have been released before then. (I'd have to try to find my old catalogs from that period to see.) So it's almost certain your plant is a division from a meristem, not a division of the "mother plant" from which the meristems were generated. Regardless, it's a beautiful thing and I enjoy mine every year. (Everyone needs a big pink "Brasso" if he/she has the room.)

Your last post on plant patent expirations is correct, so you're free to sell or trade extra divisions as noted. I was involved with writing the descriptions for the patent applications for one or two of Stewart's plants while I was there. (Slc. Precious Stones 'True Beauty' was one that comes to mind. Charming little red with a purplish lip. Wish I could find a division of that one.) It's quite a process so nurseries usually reserve it for the best plants from which they can get a suitable return. The process is also a way to keep others from buying a plant and cranking out 1000's of meristems for low prices, thereby undercutting the originator. Stewart's had patented and released meristems of Lc. Puppy Love 'True Beauty' HCC/AOS in the late '70s or so. I remember seeing an ad in the AOS "Bulletin" in the early '80s from a nursery in Taiwan for "Lc. Puppy Love." It listed no varietal name, but they did say it was "a true beauty" and the picture was a dead ringer for the "real thing." So, they probably bought and cloned a meristem of the Stewart's plant, and since they didn't sell it under the full name, but only hinted at the 'True Beauty' connection, and since they were in Taiwan, it wasn't practical to go after them. Yes, there is skullduggery even in the orchid world.

Hope you've been enjoying your plant.