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 2025

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

News of EasyGroup failing in its trademark infringement claim against ‘Easihire’ and Amgen winning a key appeal at the UPC were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by February 16 2026
Edward Russavage and Maria Crusey at Wolf Greenfield say that OpenAI MDL could broaden discovery and reshape how clients navigate AI copyright disputes
The UPC has increased some fees by as much as 32%, but firms and their clients had been getting a good deal so far
Meryl Koh, equity director and litigator at Drew & Napier in Singapore, discusses an uptick in cross-border litigation and why collaboration across practice areas is becoming crucial
The firm says new role will be at the forefront of how it delivers value and will help bridge the gap between lawyers, clients and tech
Qantm IP’s CEO and AI programme lead discuss the business’s investment and M&A plans, and reveal their tech ambitions
Controversial plans were scrapped by the Commission earlier this year after the Parliament had previously backed them
Lawyers at Spoor & Fisher provide an overview of how South Africa is navigating copyright and consent requirements to improve access to works for blind and visually impaired people
Gillian Tan explains how she balances TM portfolio management with fast-moving deals, and why ‘CCP’ is a good acronym to live by
Gift this article