Practice Areas

PVPA Enforcement

PVPA Enforcement

Our firm has advanced the most cases of any firm in the nation on behalf of seed breeders, universities, and private companies.

Our firm has an unparalleled proven history of representing a diverse group of intellectual property owners in the unique area of seed genetics. Most resolutions are not confidential, so we can share a listing of some of our results – exceeding $21 Million. The attorneys with Henry Law Firm have worked on more Plant Variety Protection Act (“PVPA”) cases than any law firm nationwide. This unique federal agricultural law protects plant breeders and universities alike. We can help breeders and universities protect their future royalties on grains, wheat, grasses, peas, etc.

In this unique area of the law, we represent some of the nation’s leading plant scientists and university institutions. As part of that work, we urge a robust educational message to farmers and producers on why the royalties they pay for legal seed are essential for tomorrow’s seed investment. As part of the intensive educational effort, we work with institutions to circulate a broad newsletter that informs the seed industry of upcoming positive developments in the law and across the scientific community. An example of this positive messaging can be found at FarmYields.com.

History of the PVPA – Why this unique law is important to scientists

The PVPA, first signed into law in 1970 and amended in 1994, helps provide patent-like rights to those contributing to the development of new varieties of plants. The benefits of such an act are that individuals taking the time to improve the industry have the ability to take ownership of the seed and earn a certificate to control its distribution. Overall, the idea is to protect the owner of the certified seed and allow for the research costs endured to be covered through the sales of the developed product. Concerning the PVPA, protection allows the certificate holder to monitor how the seed is sold or advertised and determines who may be permitted to do so. If the owner of the certified seed feels someone has illegally sold or distributed the property, he or she may then bring a civil action against the people involved and receive compensation.

Title V Plant Variety Protection Benefits U.S. Agriculture and You

  • Encourages the development of resourceful wheat varieties.
  • Ensures better agronomic wheat varieties for producers.
  • Provides genetically pure varieties to the producer through the use of certified seed.
  • Ensures ongoing wheat variety development by public and private plant breeders.
  • Grants developers patent-like protection from the sale of protected varieties.
  • Promotes agriculture progress in the public interest.

We believe consistent enforcement includes policing both large and small situations. We would be happy to discuss our results with you, all of which are intended to secure the future of our country’s small grain and grass innovation.

PVPA Results
PVPA Results
PVPA Results
PVPA Results

Contact Us Today

With a proven track record of achieving excellent results in complex cases, Henry Law Firm is ready to go to work for you.

CONTACT OUR OFFICE

HENRY LAW FIRM

Otto M. Bartsch

With degrees in philosophy and chemistry, Otto excels in complex litigation and intellectual property cases.

In a recent federal case, Otto used forensic digital analysis of crucial documents to reveal their fraudulent nature, immediately resolving all claims in our client’s favor. Otto led a multi-jurisdictional collection effort of a $3.4 million judgment for Oklahoma Genetics, Inc. The case was on claims of intentional violation of the Plant Variety Protection Act, and a federal judge tripled our client’s damages. Years after the judgment was entered, Henry Law Firm forcibly seized substantial assets, and OGI could re-invest proceeds into future seed varieties and genetics.

Before affiliating with Henry Law Firm and practicing law as Otto M. Bartsch, PLLC, Otto earned his Master of Laws in Intellectual Property & Technology Law. At graduation, Otto ranked highest in his LL.M. class. He also won the Client Counseling Competition and competed in the national semi-finals of the AILPA Giles Rich Moot Court Competition in intellectual property law.

Otto works with clients to establish and protect their trademarks, copyrights, and brand identities. He is also experienced in breaking or enforcing non-competition agreements.

COURT ADMISSIONS

Otto is licensed to practice in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas and has been admitted to practice in several federal courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

HENRY LAW FIRM

Mark Henry

Mark is AV-Preeminent™ rated, a distinction earned through years of consistently outstanding legal work and a reputation for integrity. With decades of experience as a registered patent attorney and an LL.M. in agricultural law, he has developed a deep focus on protecting agricultural seed technology. Mark works closely with universities and multinational companies to navigate complex intellectual property matters and ensure long-term protection of innovation. He has handled more than 100 cases under the Plant Variety Protection Act, bringing a wealth of practical insight to the defense of plant breeders' rights. In addition to his legal practice, Mark has contributed to the field as an educator, teaching agricultural biotechnology law in the LL.M. program at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Mark prosecutes and defends highly complex civil litigation and high-stakes, bet-the-company disputes involving trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and DMCA claims in federal courts across the country. His cases frequently address cutting-edge issues involving computer code, seed genetics, and architectural works. Licensed in six states and admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, he has served as lead counsel for clients in more than twenty-five states, offering broad strategic perspective and experience.

Mark brought one of the first cases under the Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-1101, helping to shape the early application of Arkansas’s right of publicity law. He successfully represented professional rodeo athlete Cody James in a case involving the unauthorized commercial use of James’s name and likeness. A decorated competitor, Cody has qualified for the Arkansas Rodeo Association Championships 22 times, is a seven-time ARA Champion, and has been named both Overall Rookie of the Year and Tie-down Roping Rookie of the Year by the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association. Mark’s advocacy in Cody James v. Boot Barn, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-646-KGB (E.D. Ark. 2023), helped affirm the importance of protecting the identity and brand of professional athletes under Arkansas law.

He also serves as both trial and appellate counsel, offering a comprehensive approach to complex litigation. In Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Case No. 23-1293, (8th Cir. 2024), Mark secured a significant trial and appellate victory, successfully defending a $37.64 million claim in an energy dispute involving tariffed energy rates. The Eighth Circuit agreed that SPP had fully compensated AECI for the transactions in question and held that equitable recovery theories are not available when an express contract governs the parties’ relationship.

Mark is also known for taking a principled stand against improper litigation conduct. In Lyon v. The Academy, Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 386, he obtained Rule 11 sanctions against opposing Arkansas counsel Matthew Campbell and Elizabeth Lyon. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions, finding that their claims were frivolous, had no chance of success, and were brought solely to harass and drive up litigation costs—highlighting Mark’s commitment to professionalism and the integrity of the legal process.

When disputes arise with Walmart, Mark provides trusted counsel to both large and small vendors. Given that Walmart is headquartered in Northwest Arkansas and most of its contracts require disputes to be litigated in Benton County, Mark’s location in Fayetteville—home to the federal court for Northwest Arkansas—positions him ideally to handle these matters efficiently and effectively.

Mark is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Federal Circuits, and several federal district courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma. He also represents clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in trademark matters.

LAW REVIEW AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES