Europe: Expert Group caution against reopening Biotech Directive
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Europe: Expert Group caution against reopening Biotech Directive

In 2012 the European Commission set up an Expert Group to advise the Commission with respect to the relation between IP and Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. This directive is also known as the Biotech Directive.

According to the final report of this Expert Group, which has recently appeared, there are two main conclusions. The first is that a consensus could not be reached within the Expert Group on any of the subjects that were discussed. The second is that they strongly advised against reopening negotiations of the Biotech Directive.

The Expert Group addressed three main problem areas that are covered by the Biotech Directive: the patentability of plants and essentially biological methods, the patentability of inventions on or using stem cells and the scope of protection of nucleic acid-related patent claims.

With regards to plants, the majority of the Expert Group advised against changing the legislation. The fact that the limited breeders' exemption has only been implemented in a few national patent laws will be shortly offset by the UPC, where such an exemption is included and thus harmonised.

For the human stem cell-based inventions, the majority of the Expert Group did not find a further definition of the "use" of human embryos necessary, since that was deemed sufficiently defined in the case law, before both the EPO and the CJEU.

On the scope of protection of patent claims on nucleic acids (absolute product protection versus purpose-related protection) the Expert Group analysed in detail the decision of the CJEU in the Monsanto case (C-428/08), where an intact genomic DNA sequence was present as an artefact in biological material. The majority of the experts agreed with the CJEU that in this specific case the DNA was not infringing the patent, because it did not exert its function. However, the Experts also indicated that this decision should not be interpreted in such a way that the function would need to be part of the patent claim. They also found that the provisions of the Biotech Directive could not touch the overall rule of absolute product protection.

vanwezenbeek.jpg

Bart van Wezenbeek


V.O.Johan de Wittlaan 72517 JR The HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article