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 2026

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

AI patents and dairy trademarks are at the centre of two judgments to be handed down next week
Jennifer Che explains how taking on the managing director role at her firm has offered a new perspective, and why Hong Kong is seeing a life sciences boom
AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Tarun Khurana at Khurana & Khurana says corporates must take the lead if patent filing activity is to truly translate into innovation
Michael Moore, head of legal at Glean AI, discusses how in-house IP teams can use AI while protecting enforceability
Counsel for SEP owners and implementers are keeping an eye on the case, which could help shape patent enforcement strategy for years to come
Jacob Schroeder explains how he and his team secured victory for Promptu in a long-running patent infringement battle with Comcast
After Matthew McConaughey registered trademarks to protect his voice and likeness against AI use, lawyers at Skadden explore the options available for celebrities keen to protect their image
The Via members, represented by Licks Attorneys, target the Chinese company and three local outfits, adding to Brazil’s emergence as a key SEP litigation venue
The firm, which has revealed profits of £990,837, claims it is the disruptive force in the IP-legal industry
Gift this article