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

One of the litigators expects that she’ll have to help clients navigate challenges posed by USPTO developments
Counsel explain what kind of ITC-related inquiries they’re getting from clients and why complaints at the forum were up in 2024
A ruling concerning a juicing machine, a tussle over a preliminary injunction and a new judge in Paris were among the top talking points this fortnight
John Squires has had a range of in-house and private practice experience, most recently in the IP group at Dilworth Paxson
President Donald Trump’s attacks on Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling should not go unchallenged
The combined entity, which is expected to offer IP services across Australia and New Zealand, will be called Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis
The Iconix v Dream Pairs dispute, to be heard at the UK Supreme Court, concerns trademarks owned by sports brand Umbro and the issue of post-sale confusion
The European IP team from Simmons & Simmons discusses the current approaches to IP enforcement against look-a-like or copycat products
Ten firms have each received more than 11 nominations, while more than 20 in-house counsel are up for awards
Yanfeng Xiong discusses 6am wake ups, honing his basketball skills, and how he prioritises tasks
Gift this article