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

Cassie Hill, partner at Mishcon de Reya, discusses rebuilding client relationships after maternity leave and the pressures facing women at a pivotal stage of their career
Matthew Asbell discusses why empathy is important in law, being inspired by diverse workplaces and working on the latest, greatest large language model
The new partners add patent trial depth in high-value technology sectors including semiconductors, software, and cloud computing
From seller vetting and proprietary screening technology to brand collaboration and industry partnerships, Temu explains how its intellectual property enforcement programme combats infringement on its marketplace
A handful of US firms have quietly invested in European patent talent. Recent moves by Baker Botts and K&L Gates suggest that trend may be accelerating
Loke Khoon Tan and Stephanie Yip at Dentons explain what brand owners need to know ahead of January 1 2027, when updates to China’s Trade Mark Law come into force
New US bills signal that firms should work with clients to ensure they are complying with potential regulatory requirements
Octavio Espejo of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains how sweeping patent reforms reshape filing strategies, prosecution, and divisional application practice
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Tesla v Avanci enhances the UK's attractiveness for global FRAND battles, say lawyers at Simmons & Simmons
PE-backed practices now comprise the majority of ranked firms for patent prosecution in the Netherlands, but competitors are confident about their decision to remain independent
Gift this article