EPO: Plants which are not patentable

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City
Counsel at four US firms explain the semiconductor work they’ve been involved in and how AI is affecting the industry
Lenovo, advised by Kirkland & Ellis, is entitled to an interim licence in its dispute with Ericsson
A copyright campaign against tech companies, an INTA resolution on deepfakes, and a designs survey by the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The court, which has handed down one of the highest ever IP damages awards in India, held Amazon liable for infringing the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark
In BSH v Electrolux, the CJEU said that courts can rule on patent infringement in other member states even where validity is raised as a defence
Exclusive data and analysis reveal the interplay between costs transparency and other factors in helping South African counsel pick their external advisers
A settlement between SharkNinja and Dyson, a costs dispute involving a pornography company, and people moves at Clifford Chance and Casalonga were among the top talking points
The treatment of USPTO employees has been haphazard and shows a misunderstanding of how the IP office works and the challenges it faces
Jeff Kuester discusses why IP is the perfect party conversation and why excitement and stress are two of a kind
Gift this article