Europe: EU interpretation of Biotech Directive

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking 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

Counsel in Germany, Brazil, and Colombia explain what a US ruling on anti-suit injunctions in a FRAND case means for their advice to clients
Data outlining practitioners’ hopes for the UPC plus news of two major patent licence agreements were among the biggest IP developments this week
Kit Crumbley reveals his plans at Bracewell now that he can officially represent clients at the PTAB
Counsel at five law firms explain some of the trends affecting their businesses, such as difficulties holding onto young talent
A judge left baffled by a Federal Circuit ruling concerning claim construction recused himself from reviewing the patent dispute
Mr Justice James Mellor said the problem of forum shopping in FRAND cases is likely to multiply given the launch of the UPC
Law firms should act now to highlight their credentials for the next research and awards cycle
A&O Shearman’s co-heads of IP litigation say the addition of US partners post-merger ensures the firm is well poised to tap into the world’s major markets
Olena Polosmak reveals why day and night conversations are the norm and why IP is the opposite of boring
Clients will usually stick to trusted individual advisers, so it’s time for law firms to think of alternatives to non-competes if they feel compelled to sue ex-employees
Gift this article