Europe: Expert Group caution against reopening Biotech Directive

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Europe: Expert Group caution against reopening Biotech Directive

In 2012 the European Commission set up an Expert Group to advise the Commission with respect to the relation between IP and Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. This directive is also known as the Biotech Directive.

According to the final report of this Expert Group, which has recently appeared, there are two main conclusions. The first is that a consensus could not be reached within the Expert Group on any of the subjects that were discussed. The second is that they strongly advised against reopening negotiations of the Biotech Directive.

The Expert Group addressed three main problem areas that are covered by the Biotech Directive: the patentability of plants and essentially biological methods, the patentability of inventions on or using stem cells and the scope of protection of nucleic acid-related patent claims.

With regards to plants, the majority of the Expert Group advised against changing the legislation. The fact that the limited breeders' exemption has only been implemented in a few national patent laws will be shortly offset by the UPC, where such an exemption is included and thus harmonised.

For the human stem cell-based inventions, the majority of the Expert Group did not find a further definition of the "use" of human embryos necessary, since that was deemed sufficiently defined in the case law, before both the EPO and the CJEU.

On the scope of protection of patent claims on nucleic acids (absolute product protection versus purpose-related protection) the Expert Group analysed in detail the decision of the CJEU in the Monsanto case (C-428/08), where an intact genomic DNA sequence was present as an artefact in biological material. The majority of the experts agreed with the CJEU that in this specific case the DNA was not infringing the patent, because it did not exert its function. However, the Experts also indicated that this decision should not be interpreted in such a way that the function would need to be part of the patent claim. They also found that the provisions of the Biotech Directive could not touch the overall rule of absolute product protection.

vanwezenbeek.jpg

Bart van Wezenbeek


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Matthew Yeates, managing director at Integrated IP, discusses its acquisition of Clark IP and reveals further expansion plans
Paul Lee discusses moving from venture capital to IP, why lawyers are becoming more receptive to tech, and why he starts his day with a cold plunge
Barbara Lawton, a counsellor and mental health trainer at wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, outlines tips for engaging with vulnerable people
New partner Amir Ghavi, who will help launch the group, says he expects more lateral hires in the coming weeks
Counsel at three firms reveal the tools they’re using to generate patent invalidity claim charts and why they’re making investments in the technology
Eric Lee says the firm’s thought leadership on artificial intelligence convinced him to move
McKool Smith and Arnold Ruess are among the firms acting for InterDigital
Law firms are developing AI tools to improve productivity and efficiency – and that is having an impact on patent and trademark work
Harpreet Dhaliwal is HGF’s first lateral partner hire since it received private equity investment at the end of last year
Munich-based Epic Legal, founded by Nicolás Schmitz and Philipp Strommer, hopes to attract market talent by abandoning old-hat systems
Gift this article