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

Law firms across the world are seemingly united in their reluctance to give juniors a chance, which shouldn’t be the case
In-house counsel say they want more visibility for the next generation of lawyers, but private practice practitioners believe jurisdictional challenges stand in their way
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals this year’s first rankings, showing how firms in Asia-Pacific are performing across a range of practice areas
A dispute over buggies, a decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction, and the formal launch of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were among the top developments
Sofie McPherson says she is excited to work at a firm that offers an integrated approach between attorneys and litigators
Personality rights are among several measures the government must take to maximise the potential of the music licensing market, say lawyers
Pascal Faure, director general of INPI, explains why keeping a cool head is key, and discusses plans to leverage IP assets to secure funding
Lawyers at Carpmaels & Ransford explain how the healthcare sector has not simply participated in the UPC’s early years, but actively shaped it
The firm has hired former in-house counsel Quintin Cassady to lead the launch of the new office
The combined firm has strong IP credentials across the US, Middle East, UK and Europe, despite Taylor Wessing’s German and French practices not joining
Gift this article