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

Monetisation is standing at the forefront of patent development, and one firm says AI is increasingly being deployed
Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Updates on Nokia’s licensing strides and a surge in patent activity around battery recycling in Australia were also among the top talking points
To mark International Day Against Child Labour, Matteo Amerio at Corsearch says the people inside businesses who can identify counterfeiting risks must be given the tools and authority to act
With genuine equity at IP firms becoming rarer, securing partnership is harder than ever, but increased transparency is also making climbing the ladder more predictable
Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
Gift this article