Europe: EU interpretation of Biotech Directive

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article