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

A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Attain IP, developed by two UK patent lawyers, will meet ‘forensic’ needs of patent attorneys by showing a verifiable reasoning chain, according to its co-founders
The High Court of Australia has allowed a fashion designer to retain her registered ‘Katie Perry’ trademark for clothing
Gift this article