When I met with the fig breeder (discussed in another thread) last week, I mentioned my small orchard and my trellis system.  He informed me that what I was talking about was patented.  "What?!!", I said...."this sort of system has been used in Japan for some time."

I searched and, sure enough, here it is, an Israeli "inventor". https://www.google.com/patents/US7818915

I'm going to ask Ken Love to check with his contacts in Japan to see if they've considered the impact of this patent.

The Japan system starts with one limb running in each direction.  I had originally planned on having two limbs running in each direction (similar to what this patent shows) but decided I would just go with one limb in each direction as has been done in Japan since some varieties just aren't branching that much for me at the low height I've got my lower wire.  Looks like I'm safer following the Japanese system.

Hi Harvey,
As this is a US patent it has no impact on growing figs in other countries.  This is not to say that they have not also patented this method in those countries as well.  They would have to check.  The priority date on this patent is March 5th, 2004, so if you can find anything published from before that date then it's prior art and this patent would be invalid. 

As for how many horizontal trunks are allowed, claim one of this patent doesn't specify how many.  This means any number of horizontal branches is covered.  If you do everything they describe in claim one then that's covered.  If you don't do everything they claim then you aren't infringing.  If you do everything they claim and some extra steps you are still infringing. All other claims are dependent on claim one and further limit the methods.  This is so that if claim one (their broadest claim) should be found invalid, these claims might still be able to stand.

Hopefully you can find public evidence of disclosure that predates this patent's priority date.  If you do please post it here.  Otherwise this patent will expire in 2024 and so one would be risking it by selling figs from plants cultivated in the method of this patent. 

The patent examiner cited Ken Love's report on fig growing in Japan so it seems rather obvious that such trellis and pruning techniques where already in use prior to granting this patent.  I don't understand how the examiner can grant this patent when he's already seen evidence of other practices already using this method.  This makes me wonder if all of the portions together constitute the invention, not separately.

A friend once told me that he inquired into obtaining a patent on a plant variety he developed.  The attorney told him that obtaining the patent wouldn't be extremely costly but that he should have $1 million available to enforce his patent.

You mention the risk of selling fruits from such plants but the risk also extends to just growing the plants in this manner.  At least one other member of the forum has discussed his growing methods such as this.

EDIT: I already had disdain for the Volcani Institute.  Dr. Gregory Levin sent pomegranate accessions from Turkmenistan to the U.S., Israel, and Tasmania before the repository was shut down.  The Volcani Institute renamed the varieties and patented them.  An Israeli lawyer/farmer friend of mine once started challenging these patents but I don't know if he followed through.

I've seen this mentioned before and still find it absolutely astonishing that a method for growing fruit can be patented. If I had the room, I would deliberately breach and copy the patent just to be a smart arse.

Being Australian born with Greek blood does that! ;)

Look at how similar this method is to the way some commercial grapes are grown. I know it's not identical but you know what I mean.

Maybe we should patent our individual perlite soil mix ratios as we post on this forum so commercial growers can't exploit our secrets.

One of these days; some shrewd person may figure a way to patent our good-olde round-wheel ...

money and a good lawyer can buy lot of things. 

Hi

That sort of patent is almost never enforced.  The challenge would be that to one skilled in the art the patent is obvious.  Almost anyone in the plant world would see that sort of culture as obvious.  Anything written and published prior to the application date could invalidate it.  I suspect a really good search would find something as it is nothing new.  Taiwan is going to extreme measures to protect patented orchid clones and I see little success so far.  In many cases you will see things patent pending which means the person only started the process but has no intention of continuing unless someone really rich (ie Walmart) violates it.  Just not worth the cost.

This sort of thing really upsets me. It is ridiculous (ironically, patently so) to be able to patent how one prunes a tree. This foolishness is why we now have patented seeds and organisms. Where will it stop? Someone planning to patent breathing?

This greed is already proving to be detrimental. I recently read whereas a group of researchers was planning to work on a cure (or at least, a vaccine) for the deadly MERS-CoV pathogen. However, even with a high mortality rate, they saw no urgency in the matter. They had to make sure they reserved the rights to the specific germ. After all, they wouldn't want to help anyone, if they could not ensure that they and only they would profit handsomely. We will never see a cure for cancer, because it would have to parceled out into brands.

Harvey,

If that is the case I am already breaking the patent as I am growing a bunch of VDB in the Japanese stepover way now.  I used rebar as the guide.  The entire framework is now filled with the laterals and the horizontals will grow this year and fruit.  

Ken Love says the Japanese have been using this system since before we were born and says they will probably just shake their heads when he asks them about it.  He says Japan has fewer lawyers per capita than any other industrialized country.  Wish they'd take some of ours! ;)

I think that is very good reading about fig culture and physiology. I plan to study it carefully.

I appreciated seeing your comments on this document and agree with your thoughts.   It does seem silly to patent a method or include in the patent a major concept that has been in practice in Japan for a long time (not sure how long the Japanese have been using this pruning method -  for a century(??) more or less.   Need to check my notes)

The patent document is however, an excellent handbook for growing figs intensively and for high production in a small space.   It does not provide "all" of the information related to fig cultivation but what is specifically addressed about production is quite good.  Ken Love's Hawaii Fruit site on the Japanese methods, for example,    http://www.hawaiifruit.net/Figs-Japan.htm   is quite good.   Lots of photos and some useful text.    

I've posted some links to sites and pictures in the past and one particular thread has been very educational http://figs4funforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/japanesestepover-espalier-orchard-the-adventure-begins-6297347 

I visited with Ken about the document a year or two ago and he seemed surprised to see his name show up in the document.

Ingevald

Harvey, I read once that some farmers plant 2 figs trees in one hole, and lean  them in oposite directions, that seems to make the One single main branch even stronger.  So, even if it is not branching, when leaned sideways, they have to. Also, read that cuting the leaf, forces the plant to branch ...worth trying, no?
 

Grasa, I don't like the practice of planting more than one tree in a whole.  It is primarily encouraged so nurseries can sell more trees, IMO.  One root system will often tend to be more vigorous than the other and make it more difficult for the other tree to grow satisfactorily.

I'm not familiar with any practice of cutting leaves to encourage branching.  Most varieties branch fine by pruning but some branch way more than needed and others don't branch much at all (i.e., DFIC 23).

Harvey, the patent is with double row wires system with 4 major espaliered branches, you make triple row with 6 major espaliered branches. The tree being located at the middle wire raw. even more fruit yeild per tree, lets see if Mr Moshe can do anything about it!

This is an oddly written patent.  To me it seems like a process patent which are near impossible to enforce.  I might ask one of my friends to take a look at it and see what he thinks.  Seem like it could be challenged pretty easily.  I've noticed that plant patents seem to be much more loosely written then say those written for chemistry.  For one thing all someone has to find is information that has been out in the public domain prior to the patent date.  I'll bet if the Japanese have been doing it for all these years you could find something that has been published.  A lot of patents really aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  I have a few patents (chemical) so I've been through the process.

maybe someone just wanted to get a "patent" than to really mean much. i see that type of "achievement" more often now days. just something to write on their resume. 

Aaron, keep in mind that in a patent what is actually protected is the claims.  What is written in the claims is effectively the patent, everything in the rest of the patent is basicly just support information for the claim statements.  The claims don't say how many horizontal branches there are, so the number is not of first importance.  In fact, the prior art disclosed by the Ken Love document discusses Japanese methods that include 4 horizontal branches, so that by itself is not patentable.

Shaplin, I agree with you....process patents can be very difficult to enforce, but only if the use of the method is kept secret and the product produced shows no sign of the process used to produce it.  Here we're good with the second part....figs won't display how they were produced, but the first part is a problem if the method of production one is using is discussed openly online. 

This brings up a good point, BTW.  If we don't want someone to patent something we're doing then disclosing that method publicly as early as possible is a good way to create prior art.  Since everything in this forum is dated this forum can be a useful method to do that.

Pete, I see that all the time.  Patents are fairly expensive business tools.  To me it's pretty sad to blow money on a patent if it won't end up protecting a business endeavor, but it happens all the time.  When I have to research the patent literature for my job to see what's been done it's sort of sad to see all the enforced patents that are providing little to no value.  I'm sure the lawyers love it though.

If push comes to shove and legal action is taken against a grower by the patent holder then one may still be able to produce figs by this method, but have to pay a licensing fee, percentage of sales or some such thing.

I plan to grow hardy figs here in Maine via this Japanese method so that the horizontal trunks are easy to protect in winter.  It'll be a few years before I will plant and train my plants and before we know it this patent will be history.  For the remaining years it's in effect we can work around it or find solid prior art statements.

Thank you for finding and sharing this Harvey.

I agree that it could be a case of the person or the institute got the patent for other reasons such a prestige.  Research groups are always having to justify there existence and get money from someone.  Patents often just become score cards.

Patent examiners for the most part try and do a reasonable job of checking for prior art but there is a lot to check out there so I would almost bet that there is prior art somewhere.

From Ken Love's Site... http://www.hawaiifruit.net/index-figs.html with photos and info dating back to early 2004, I'll be pruning using the Japanese method as described by Ken Love... Thanks Ingevald!