EPO: Plants which are not patentable

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

EPO: Plants which are not patentable

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
Young plant tree sprout in woman hand. Concept of farming and environment protecting.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO (EBA) has recently issued opinion G 3/19, which concludes that plants and animals exclusively obtained by “essentially biological processes” are exempt from patentability. This finding only affects patents derived from patent applications filed after July 1 2017.

Summary

Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) exempts 1) plant and animal varieties and 2) essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals from patentability. In 2015, the EBA concluded in its consolidated decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 that this exemption did not extend to products of such methods. Since July 1 2017, Rule 28(2) EPC has provided that under Article 53(b) of the EPC, plants obtained exclusively from an essentially biological process are also exempt from patentability. However, in 2018, a Technical Board of Appeal held in its controversial decision T 1063/18 that new Rule 28(2) EPC conflicted with Art. 53(b).

The president of the EPO in 2019 referred a point of law to the EBA concerning the interpretation of Article 53(b) of the EPC.

The EBA initially endorsed its earlier decisions on the matter. But in contrast to the Board deciding T 1063/18, the EBA found that in the time after Decisions G2/12 and G2/13 the meaning of Article 53(b) could change. Consequently, the EBA now holds that introduction of Rule 28(2) EPC and its implementation throughout Europe is a development that provides for a new interpretation of Art. 53(b), namely that plants obtained from essentially biological processes are exempted. Somewhat uniquely, the EBA set a cutoff date for the new interpretation of July 1 2017, meaning that any European patent application pending on that date and seeking protection for plants obtained from essentially biological processed is not affected by the new interpretation.

Peter Koefoed

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Law firms are rethinking litigation strategies after USPTO director John Squires said he would take control of PTAB challenges
News of Singapore planning to streamline the licensing framework for foreign law firms and a partnership between Avanci and Xprize were also among the top talking points
In major recent developments, the court also ruled on another request concerning access to documents and appointed a new panel to the Court of Appeal
A new foundation in Chile is giving women in the IP community the mentorship, and visibility they’ve long lacked
The EUIPO is keen to stress the benefits of mediation as a means of resolving IP disputes, but do roadblocks remain?
Åsa Gustafson, global patent paralegal manager at Zacco, provides insight into the world of a paralegal, explains how she keeps abreast of legal developments, and reveals a passion for weaving
Alif Gultom and Andrew Diamond of Januar Jahja & Partners explain why Indonesia must adopt reforms against bad-faith filings and safeguard its trademark system for the future
In the third episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the ‘Women in IP’ network and the current state of diversity within the profession
Practitioners, including two ex USPTO directors, say the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act could restore clarity and predictability to US patent law, though concerns remain
News of an alliance between two Malaysian law firms and the launch of a self-help video aimed at supporting IP professionals through menopause were also among the top talking points
Gift this article