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

The Life Sciences Awards is thrilled to present the shortlist for the 2026 Americas Awards
From Türkiye to Poland and Nigeria, firms with deep local roots continue to dominate the top tier, proving that market expertise can outweigh international scale in many CEE, Middle Eastern and African jurisdictions
Former Hoyng Rokh partner Simon Dack takes a leading PMAC role as busy firms continue to jostle for position
Franck Fougere, founder and managing partner of Ananda IP in Thailand, describes how the firm has developed a reputation for patent work and why he believes IP practice is set to change
After two decades at Kass International, Geetha Kandiah discusses the lessons that shaped her career, building an inclusive regional firm, and AI opportunities
Manisha Singh of LexOrbis discusses the need for commercial alignment with clients and why IP lawyers need to have curiosity at their core
As firms expand into integrated IP services, recent hires show the model's appeal – but high-profile departures reveal how quickly questions of depth and durability can emerge
In-house counsel say private practice firms either aren’t conveying sustainability messaging or simply ‘don’t care’, but a mindful approach to the topic could swing pitches
With patent filings stagnant, fewer clients litigating and market consolidation at play, Canadian firms are considering how to challenge the established players
IPH’s strategy of integrating acquired businesses into its larger premium brands, may offer an early signal of how externally funded IP firms will pursue scale, efficiency and market strength
Gift this article