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 2026

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

Alabama attorney Miya Aladebumoye has launched a new firm built on ‘big law’ experience and a personal touch approach
A UKIPO campaign aimed at combating fakes in the pre-loved fashion market and registration of the first Portuguese craft and industrial geographical indication were also among the top talking points
Chris Adams, Managing IP’s research lead, joins us to explain what practitioners need to know ahead of our first rankings release of 2026
Another IP litigator joins Winston & Strawn in Dallas as firm seeks to keep pace with ‘rapid’ growth of Texas market
Anthony O'Malley will replace Andrew Blattman at IPH, which owns several large IP firms across Australia, Asia and Canada
Barry Greenbaum, partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, explains how in-house teams can update their approach to brand development, and where AI can add value
Christine Chiramel, who joins a full-service law firm after 17 years of working at specialist firms, says she’s excited to explore how corporate commercial issues are blurring into IP
Practitioners say increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of India’s most popular IP litigation forum to around $2 million would spark unpredictability and make it difficult for SMEs to benefit
The Spain-based firm has appointed an industry veteran to lead the group, which it hopes will strengthen its ability to support clients in ‘disruptive technologies’
Shaina Haria, a final-seat trainee at an international law firm’s UK office, shares how she fell in love with IP and why the area of law has changed the way she views the world
Gift this article