EBA issues decision on the patentability of plants and animals

EBA issues decision on the patentability of plants and animals

 

On 14 May 2020, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) at the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its much-awaited decision G 3/19 on the patentability of plants and animals, otherwise known as “Pepper”. This decision relates to Syngenta Participations AG’s patent application EP12756468.0, which claims new pepper plants and fruits with improved nutritional value. This is an important case because the EBA is the highest judicial authority under the European Patent Convention (EPC), and the decision concludes that plants (and animals) obtained via a biological process are excluded from patentability under the EPC – a decision that is at odds with earlier EPO decisions, but which appears to conclude a rather lengthy and confusing saga.


Article 53(b) EPC provides that European patents shall not be granted for “plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision shall not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof”. In two EBA decisions from 2015 – G 2/12 (Tomato II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) – the EBA held that plants per se were not excluded from patentability, even if they were obtained through an essentially biological process; the key word of the exclusion seemed to be varieties, which was not considered to include the products (e.g. plants per se) obtained from essentially biological processes.  (It is important to note that the exclusion does not relate to microbiological processes or the products thereof.)

The ‘Biotech Directive’ (Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions) harmonises national law on the patentability of inventions relating to biological material in the EU. Following the Tomato II and Broccoli II decisions, the European Commission took the view that the intention of the EU legislator when adopting the Biotech Directive was “… to exclude from patentability products (plants/animals and plant/animal parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes”. Subsequently, in 2017, the Administrative Council of the EPO introduced Rule 28(2) EPC which provides that, 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. This was clearly in conflict with the earlier decisions in Tomato II/Broccoli II.

Prosecution of the EP12756468.0 patent application, which was stayed until the impact of the Commission’s findings were clarified, resumed following the introduction of Rule 28(2) and the examining division of the EPO refused the application as the invention was considered to be excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC in conjunction with Rule 28(2) EPC. The applicant appealed this refusal, arguing that new Rule 28(2) EPC was in contradiction to Article 53(b), and the written decision T 1063/18 of the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) followed. However, this did not appear to clear up things very much at all, as the TBA concluded that Rule 28(2) was indeed in conflict with Article 53(b), and so we found ourselves back at square one… or maybe two… or three!

Due to the legal uncertainty caused by T 1063/18, and with the broad and overwhelming support from almost all of the Contracting States of the EPO, the President of the EPO referred the case to the EBA, and it is the issuance of the resulting decision G 3/19 that brings us up to date. In G 3/19 the EBA endorsed its earlier findings on the scope of Article 53(b) EPC. However, the EBA found that as provisions can change or evolve over time, earlier decisions in Tomato II and Broccoli II could not be used to settle the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC, and that new Rule 28(2) EPC allowed and called for a “dynamic” interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC. In view of this, the EBA abandoned its earlier interpretation in Tomato II and Broccoli II. The EBA held that since the introduction of Rule 28(2) EPC, Article 53(b) was to be interpreted to exclude from patentability plants, plant material or animals, if the claimed product is exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process or if the claimed process features define an essentially biological process. This new interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC will not have retroactive effect on European patents granted before 1 July 2017 or on European patent applications filed before that date.

While the President of the EPO has stated that the decision will bring “greater legal certainty for patent applicants, and the general public”, this will no doubt raise some concerns among those  with a stake in plant breeding and agritech, who may find that products that they believed they could protect may no longer be patentable. However, it is good news for plant breeders who felt the earlier interpretation of the provisions in light of Tomato II and Broccoli II was unfairly broad. At the very least we have a conclusion… for now! 

If you have any questions on this- or any other area of IP- then please get in touch.

Suzanne Gregson, Analytics Specialist/Trainee Patent Attorney with Dr Ian Lambert, Director & Patent Attorney

Related News

EPO Grace Period Consultation
news

EPO Grace Period Consultation

The European Patent Office (“EPO”) has recently launched a user consultation on the novelty requirement under the European Patent Convention (“EPC”), specifically focusing on the question of incorporating a general grace period into the EPC. Find out more information here...

Accident & (Patent) Emergency! What to do when you’ve disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application
news

Accident & (Patent) Emergency! What to do when you’ve disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application

One of the cornerstones of the patent system in many countries, including the UK, is the need to apply for a patent before disclosing your invention publicly. However, in the real world these things can happen. So what can you do if you’ve accidentally disclosed your invention before you’ve filed a patent application?

EPO Fee Increases 1 April 2022
news

EPO Fee Increases 1 April 2022

The EPO has announced their biennial fee increases for payments made on or after 1 April 2022, which has resulted in an average increase in fees of around 2.5%. 

Every business has intellectual property – even yours!
news

Every business has intellectual property – even yours!

For many, intellectual property (IP) is an abstract concept that seems elusive, and businesses are often surprised when they discover that not only do they have IP, but it could increase the value of their business, attract investment and be financially lucrative.

Intellectual property, return on investment and sustainability
news

Intellectual property, return on investment and sustainability

Martin Hyden looks at the challenges of developing a sustainable economy and how businesses that meet these challenges can protect the intellectual property arising from their efforts.

Wynne-Jones IP remains committed to inclusivity in the workplace
news

Wynne-Jones IP remains committed to inclusivity in the workplace

For National Inclusion Week 2021 Wynne-Jones IP reminds us of their pledge of commitment to equality and diversity in the workplace and looks at how the Covid-19 has meant more workplace challenges.

NFTs - the new way to exploit your IP
news

NFTs - the new way to exploit your IP

Non-fungible tokens are the latest fashion in the cyber world. Building on blockchain technology, NFTs may be a new way to exploit intellectual property rights.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo we offer Covid-19 testing for our staff