EPO Board of Appeal finds that plants *ARE* patentable at the EPO - Rule 28(2) EPC is unenforceable

EPO Board of Appeal finds that plants *ARE* patentable at the EPO - Rule 28(2) EPC is unenforceable

By Jim Robertson - Patent Attorney | Partner

We have previously reported[1] on the introduction of new Rule 28(2) EPC regarding the patentability of plants and animals obtained by “an essentially biological process”. As detailed in our November 2018 article[2], the first case to go to appeal was scheduled to take place on 5 December 2018. That hearing has now taken place and a decision has issued.

Background

In its March 2015 decisions G2/12[3] and G2/13[4], the Enlarged Board of Appeal found that Article 53(b) EPC (which says that "essentially biological processes for the production of plants" are excluded from patentability) does not exclude product claims directed to plants or plant material from patentability.

Therefore, a plant variety obtained by means of an essentially biological process is not excluded from patentability under the provisions of Art 53(b) EPC, i.e. can be patented.

This caused significant political upheaval (and lobbying), with the end result that new Rule 28(2) EPC was introduced, which states that:

"(2) Under Article 53(b), European patents shall not be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process."

As we stated in our July 2017 article, "[T]his new Rule 28(2) EPC directly conflicts with (indeed, it is explicitly intended to conflict with) Article 53(b) EPC, as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decisions G2/12[3] and G2/13[4]. As such, it should be unenforceable."

This case hinges on the separation of power at the EPO - the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. The legislature enacted the European Patent Convention. The executive (in the form of the Administrative Council) amended the implementing regulations to bring new Rule 28(2) EPC into force. Article 112 EPC[5] confirms that the decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal are binding.

The European Patent Convention states that "In case of conflict between the provisions of this Convention and those of the Implementing Regulations [also referred to as the "Rules"], the provisions of this Convention shall prevail."

So it should have been fairly straightforward - decisions G2/12 and G2/13 say that Article 53(b) EPC (which says that "essentially biological processes for the production of plants" are excluded from patentability) does not exclude product claims directed to plants or plant material from patentability. Therefore, a plant variety obtained by means of an essentially biological process is not excluded from patentability under the provisions of Art 53(b) EPC, i.e. can be patented.

However, the Administrative Council (despite numerous submissions from industry and professional representatives) introduced Rule 28(2) EPC in an attempt to prevent them from being patented.

The end result of all of this was various patent applications being refused, and the current appeal.

The decision

The appeal case is T1063/18 (European Patent Application EP12756468.0; published as EP2753168[6]).

The decision being appealed is a decision of the examining division to refuse the patent application in accordance with the provisions of Article 53(b) EPC and Rule 28(2) EPC.

Board 3.3.04 heard the case and, as noted in our November 2018 article[7], the Board was extended to include two additional members, including one legally qualified member.

The Board decided that amended Rules 27 and 28 EPC are in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, whose meaning has previously been decided in cases G2/07, G1/08, G2/12 and G2/13. Therefore, the Board of Appeal has found that Rule 28(2) is unenforceable.

On the basis of that finding, the Board has remitted the case back to the Examining Division to consider other patentability issues.

What will happen next?

Although not binding case law, this case should be highly persuasive for all other Boards of Appeal, and should be consistently followed. The written decision (when it issues) should be interesting reading.

In terms of this specific case, so long as the other patentability issues are satisfied, a granted patent should issue.

Regarding other cases, the appeal on EP2825024[8] (Nunhems/Bayer) is being heard by Board 3.3.04 and so their decision in this case will clearly be followed. Regarding the opposition against EP2166833[9] (Zeraim/Syngenta), the decision in this case should resolve the Article 53(b) EPC patentability issues.

For applications pending at the EPO, the examining divisions should follow the decision on this case.

In terms of Rule 28(2) EPC (indeed, all of the changes to Rules 27 and 28 introduced by the Administrative Council), our hope is that the Administrative Council will "clean up" the Implementing Regulations by rescinding its 29 June 2017 decision[10] amending Rules 27 and 28 EPC. Given the Board of Appeal's decision on this case, it should (hopefully) not be a politically difficult decision for the Administrative Council members.

If politicians want to exclude plants from patentability at the EPO, the only way for them to do it will now be to amend the European Patent Convention (the EPC) itself. This would require the agreement of all EPC member states (not just a majority of them) and so will be extremely difficult to do.

Final conclusions

This decision is excellent news for those who want to obtain granted patents at the EPO for novel and inventive plant varieties obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

Pleasingly, this decision also reconfirms the independence of the Boards of Appeal and the separation of powers at the EPO, which should boost confidence in the EPO.

 

[1] Wynne-Jones July 2017 article: July 2017 https://wynne-jones.com/news-events/2017/07/is-new-rule-28-2-epc-unenforceable-plant-patents-at-the-epo-and-exclusions-from-patentability

[2] Wynne-Jones November 2018 article: https://www.wynne-jones.com/news-events/2018/11/first-case-to-go-to-appeal-at-epo-since-new-rule-28-2-epc-was-implemented/

[3] Decision G2/12: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g120002ex1.html

[4] Decision G2/13: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g130002ex1.html

[5] Article 112 EPC: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar112.html

[6] EP12756468.0: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP12756468&lng=en&tab=main

[7] Wynne-Jones November 2018 article: https://www.wynne-jones.com/news-events/2018/11/first-case-to-go-to-appeal-at-epo-since-new-rule-28-2-epc-was-implemented/

[8] EP2825024: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer?AP=13708833&CY=EP&LG=en&DB=REG

[9] https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08761009&lng=en&tab=main

[10] Administrative Council decision CA/D 6/17: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/07/a56.html

Related News

Insurance for IP Litigation Costs
news

Insurance for IP Litigation Costs

If you own any intellectual property (IP) rights, are you concerned about your exposure to litigation, and how you will finance any legal action?  One way to address this concern is by means of an insurance policy.

Does owning IP rights improve economic performance?
news

Does owning IP rights improve economic performance?

A recent study performed by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has shown that companies which own at least one patent, trade mark or registered design generate on average 20% higher revenues per employee and pay their staff on average 19% higher wages compared to companies that do not own any of these intellectual property (IP) rights.

Let it go!
news

Let it go!

Keeping an IP budget afloat despite sunk costs.

The cost of securing IP can be heavily front loaded. Examples of such costs include patent drafting, pre-filing searches, filing fees, etc. These costs become “sunk” costs in that they cannot be recovered. Because IP protection can be a relatively long process, at any time during the process there are likely to be significant “prospective” costs: future costs that may be wholly or partially avoided depending on actions taken.

Turkish Declarations of Use
news

Turkish Declarations of Use

Have you recently validated your European patent in Turkey?  Did you know that in addition to paying annual renewal fees, Turkish law also requires you to submit a public declaration stating whether you have actively worked your invention in Turkey?

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis
news

Managing your business-critical IP during the COVID-19 crisis

UK businesses are fighting for survival during the continuing COVID-19 outbreak and trying to trade under difficult conditions, the likes of which haven’t been seen in the living memory of most business people. If you’re afraid that your business is going to the wall, it probably isn’t the top of your mind to pay for a patent application for your new technology or a registration of the trade mark for your brand new clothing range, right?  Where is the money coming from to invest in such luxuries as IP, we hear you say, when staff are being furloughed and orders have been postponed?

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?
news

Videoconferencing: the future of oral proceedings at the EPO?

The European Patent Office has announced that videoconferencing will become the norm for oral proceedings before examination and opposition divisions until at least 15 September 2021. But is this a taste of what the future holds for oral proceedings at the EPO?

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search
news

EPO-CNIPA pilot for International Search

On 12 November 2019, the EPO and CNIPA agreed to enhance their bilateral co-operation to give patent applicants filing an international patent application in English at the CNIPA, the choice to opt for the EPO as their ISA. A two year pilot programme launched on 1 December 2020, offers applicants filing international applications with the CNIPA or the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) the opportunity to select the EPO as their ISA and as their International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA), rather than CNIPA.

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar
news

Changes to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar

In October 2020, the UK Government declared that the territorial effect of five important IP treaties would be extended to cover Gibraltar from 1 January 2021.  These treaties are the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid Protocol (on International trade marks), the Nice Agreement (on trade mark classification), and the Berne Convention (on copyright). Following on from this, a bill was passed in on 11 December 2020, making some amendments to trade mark and patent law in Gibraltar.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo