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

Former professional cricketer Ben Scott talks through the challenges of building a legal tech platform, transitioning from sportsman to entrepreneur and why he believes he has found a gap in the market
The benefits of offering a range of services, innovative enforcement approaches, and gradual AI adoption are all helping SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan develop its IP offering
Nick Redfearn, head of enforcement at Rouse and a classic car enthusiast, explains the sudden viral appearance of classic car restomod parts from China and the impact of IP in this new trade
Our 2026 rankings for Western Europe, taken with historical data, reveal that some European IP markets hardly change – while others are more fluid
Selina Hinchliffe, head of commercial services at Shakespeare Martineau, reflects on rejecting Cambridge, leading through empathy, and why authenticity matters more than fitting in
US corporates are using the UPC, but much of that work still flows to European boutiques. Last week’s merger, as well as others, could alter that dynamic
Publicly listed Australian group IPH delivered on its promise to profoundly shake up the Canadian market. Four years on, rivals have had time to adapt
IP practitioners debate whether new guidelines will make it more difficult to challenge a patent
Varuni Paranavitane says she is excited to bring ‘rounded expertise’ to the firm, which will have a solicitor in its ranks for the first time
Lawyers adapting to AI-driven recommendations are being pushed to demonstrate expertise publicly rather than simply relying on a polished website
Gift this article