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

As specialist boutiques challenge traditional firm models, major disputes involving Disney, Ericsson, Siemens and Dolby highlight the firms winning work before the UPC
The firm has added two leading damages specialists as it expands beyond technical analysis and deepens its role in the economics of IP litigation
Josh Seidenfeld, partner at DLA Piper, outlines the emerging legal trends that drive the future of life sciences innovation and how stakeholders can prepare for the future
South Korea's One Law Partners is combining with boutique firm Minwho Law Group to leverage global expansion of K-content and build a broader offering spanning IP, tech and regulatory advisory work
Russell Kennedy's Gina Tresidder on juggling matters, delivering hard truths, and why IP ownership is rarely as simple as people think
Attorney Oran Friar and trainee attorney Harry Cunliffe at Reddie & Grose, share that patent filings for clinical LLMs are surging, but success in the UK and Europe hinges on demonstrating technical innovation
Implementers can use the UK courts to seek FRAND terms for patent pool licences
The first credible UPC spinouts are growing, and they are coming from elite patent litigation teams, suggesting specialist litigators may no longer need large platforms to compete
Voyage IP has hired a veteran IP leader from Spruson & Ferguson as its head of trademarks, as well as another consultant who will boost the firm’s commercial offering
Lawyers say unwritten appearance expectations can disproportionately affect women and junior talent, making proactive guidance a growing responsibility for law firm leaders
Gift this article