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

Counsel at three firms reveal the tools they’re using to generate patent invalidity claim charts and why they’re making investments in the technology
Eric Lee says the firm’s thought leadership on artificial intelligence convinced him to move
McKool Smith and Arnold Ruess are among the firms acting for InterDigital
Law firms are developing AI tools to improve productivity and efficiency – and that is having an impact on patent and trademark work
Harpreet Dhaliwal is HGF’s first lateral partner hire since it received private equity investment at the end of last year
Munich-based Epic Legal, founded by Nicolás Schmitz and Philipp Strommer, hopes to attract market talent by abandoning old-hat systems
OpenAI’s claims that China’s DeepSeek violated its proprietary technology should prompt the US company to rethink its past actions
OpenAI’s accusation against Chinese AI tool DeepSeek and a significant licensing deal for Nokia were among the top talking points this week
Counsel weigh in on how firms should be thinking about surveys in wake of closely followed trademark ruling
Melissa Harwood, who joined this week, said she was impressed by the firm's Seattle presence and is anticipating a busy schedule
Gift this article