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

While the firm lost several litigators this month, Winston & Strawn is betting that its transatlantic merger will strengthen its IP practice
In other news, Ericsson sought a declaratory judgment against Acer and Netflix filed a cease-and-desist letter against ByteDance over AI misuse
As trade secret filings rise due to AI development and economic espionage concerns, firms are relying on proactive counselling to help clients navigate disputes
IP firm leaders share why they remain positive in the face of falling patent applications from US filers, and how they are meeting a rising demand from China
The power of DEI to swing IP pitches is welcome, but why does it have to be left so late?
Mathew Lucas has joined Pearce IP after spending more than 25 years at Qantm IP-owned firm Davies Collison Cave
Exclusive survey data reveals a generally lax in-house attitude towards DEI, but pitches have been known to turn on a final diversity question
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on May 1 to reveal the winners
Abigail Wise shares her unusual pathway into the profession, from failing A-levels to becoming Lewis Silkin’s first female IP partner
There are some impressive AI tools available for trademark lawyers, but law firm leaders say humans can still outthink the bots
Gift this article