The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association (ICMSA) has claimed that it is "highly doubtful" that Irish artificial insemination (AI) companies can apply intellectual property (IP) rights on farmers' animals bred through conventional breeding practices.

In February, four of the largest operators in Ireland’s bovine AI sector confirmed that they intend to introduce intellectual property (IP) rights on their high genetic merit bulls and semen.

The four companies – Dovea Genetics, Eurogene, Munster Bovine, and Progressive Genetics – had said the move is in a bid to “safeguard the Irish genetics industry and retain control of the industry in Irish farmers’ hands”.

The introduction of IP rights on elite Irish bovine genetics is in line with international best practice, the four firms had said in a joint statement.

However, this has given rise to concern among some farm organisations, with the ICMSA claiming that it may undermine farmers' ownership rights over their own animals.

Now, the ICMSA has called into question the legal standing of such a move by AI companies, saying it has engaged with the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) on the issue.

ICMSA president Denis Drennan again called on the four AI companies concerned to suspend their decision and to enter "proper discussions" with farmer representatives.

According to Drennan, the EUIPO told the organisation that the applicability of IP rights to the offspring of a bull in a cattle breeding program depends on the nature of the breeding process used.

This rule means that patents are excluded on animal varieties; processes for production of plants or animals that are 'essentially biological'; and on offspring derived exclusively from 'essentially biological' reproduction.

According to the ICMSA, the EUIPO also said that offspring may be patentable if a technical step (such as some kind of genetic modification) modifies the genome in a way that goes beyond conventional breeding methods and is not merely a tool to assist in crossing or selection (such as sexed semen).

The EUIPO said that a process for production of plants or animals that is based on the sexual crossing of whole genomes and on the subsequent selection of plants or animals is excluded from patentability as being 'essentially biological'.

Drennan said that an explanation from the AI firms on the legal basis of their move "has not been forthcoming and it's all just another example of that complete lack of transparency that ICMSA has already had reason to note".

"Let's be clear here, the onus on the AI [firms] to publish their advice and to explain exactly why they believe they can impose an IP [right]," Drennan said.

He claimed that communication from the AI companies on the matter has been "woeful".

"If a farmer signs a ‘AI-IP’ contract or uses an AI-IP bull in the coming weeks, then he or she will no longer have full ownership over the progeny, and no one has or can deny this simple reality," the ICMSA president said.

Drennan acknowledged the role that AI firms have played in developing "our superb cattle genetics", but also said that "the majority of the work and careful selection that underpinned that progress" has been carried out by the farmers who "paid handsomely” for AI services.

"This is a ‘zero sum ‘ game; any ownership that the AI companies take is from the farmers.... We advise all farmers not to sign contracts, not to enter clubs, to resist new terms and conditions and to strongly resist any attempts of these four companies to place an IP right over their animals," Drennan said.

"It’s perfectly possible to put a system in place that respects the position of everyone and treats all parties with fairness and respect. But the behaviour and communication of the AI [firms] on this highly dubious IP gambit has been shambolic and very disrespectful to their farmer customers," he claimed.