Europe: EU interpretation of Biotech Directive
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Europe: EU interpretation of Biotech Directive

The patentability of biotechnological inventions in Europe is governed by the EU Directive on the protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EG, the Biotech Directive). The Directive is implemented in the national patent laws, but has also been used to amend the European Patent Convention.

In the recent past, the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal had a few cases in which they had to interpret the wording of the EPC that was driven by the Directive. The most discussed cases are the so-called tomato and broccoli cases, in which the metes and bounds of the exclusion of "essentially biological processes" were discussed (G 2/07, G 1/08, G 2/12 and G 2/13). In essence, the EBoA ruled that excluded essentially biological processes are those processes that involve normal crosses between plants or animals, but that the products of such crosses would be patentable if not confined to one specific variety.

The latter decisions on the products-by-process claims were heavily criticised by the plant breeding community. In June 2016 an expert committee of the EU advised the EU Commission to issue a clear statement on the interpretation of the Directive on this topic (instead of opening negotiations on an amendment of the directive). This was done in November, when the Commission explained that the exclusion should be understood to also include products obtained by essentially biological processes.

On basis of this, the EPO has announced (OJ EPO, 2016, A104) that all proceedings before the EPO examining and opposition divisions in which the decision depends entirely on the patentability of a plant or animal obtained by essentially biological processes, will be stayed ex officio.

On February 20 2017 the EU Council (the meeting of the ministers of all member states) adopted the proposal of the Commission and urged the member states, in their capacity as members of the European Patent Organisation, to advocate that the practice of the European Patent Organisation is in line with these conclusions.

This had not yet led to any proposal for amending the EPC, but on a national level the new interpretation has already been provided for in the Dutch patent law, where products obtained by essentially biological processes are excluded from patentability.

Bart van Wezenbeek

V.O.

Johan de Wittlaan 7

2517 JR The Hague

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 70 416 67 11

Fax: +31 70 416 67 99

info@vo.eu

www.vo.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article