• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Patentability reopened for biopatents

7. December 2018

Patents on plants and animals from conventional breeding have become more likely since this week. In a hearing before the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on the Syngenta patent on wild pepper, a far-reaching decision war announced.

Syngenta paprikaOn Wednesday, the controversial Syngenta patent on wild pepper (EP2753168) was discussed in oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The Board of Appeal is of the opinion that Rule 28 of the European Patent Convention, as amended by the Administrative Council in 2017, infringes Article 53 EPC. Syngenta’s application for registration of “new pepper plants and fruits with improved nutritional value” should therefore not have been rejected by the EPO on the basis of Rule 28 (T 1063/18).

The Board of Appeal referred to Article 164.2 EPC which provides that the provisions of the Convention shall prevail in the event of an opposition to the Implementing Regulations. The contested decision should be annulled.

Are essentially biological processes patentable?

Article 53 is based on the Biotechnology Directive 98/44/EC. At that time it was left open whether the products of essentially biological processes were patentable.

In order to patent genetically modified plants, patent claims were therefore gladly formulated in such a way that they did not contain any reference to essentially biological processes. This practice was also found admissible by the Enlarged Board of Appeal and thus offers a loophole in patent law for plants and animals.

This was politically controversial for a long time and ultimately led to the amended EU Patent Directive on Life in 2017. Article 28 was amended, with the result that the products of essentially biological processes are no longer patentable. The fact that Rule 28 of the European Patent Convention, as amended by the EU Council in 2017, infringes Article 53 EPC, as stated in the present decision, is a legal confusion.

Political spicy – and legal chaos for EPO

Following this present decision, it is now necessary to amend Article 53.b of the Biotechnology Directive in order to exclude products from essentially biological processes from patenting. The relevant decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal also referred to this article. See also Biopatents: EPO strengthens Monsantos patent on soybeans, October 2017. However, this can take a long time, as all 38 EPC states would have to be consulted for such an adaptation.

Otherwise Article 28 and the laboriously reached consensus on the limited patentability of plants and animals would have to be abandoned – thinking this right to the end.

It is also unclear how the ruling will decide on applications for biopatents without changing the Biotechnology Directive. The legal clarity on issues relating to biopatents, which was politically intended and finally laboriously found in 2017, is now a waste of time with the current ruling. It would be desirable if a binding and legally sound regulation for biological processes could be reached quickly. The more, as just a few weeks ago Bayer’s biopatent on broccoli was revoked by EPA.

Do you need support in patent protection for biotechnological, genetic or chemical processes?

We would be pleased to support you with the necessary research and correct registration of your trademark. Please take your chance and contact us.

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

Sources:

Decision in case T 1063/18 on the patentability of plants

Picture:

Divily /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  International Intellectual Property,  Patent Law Tag iconbiological,  Biological Patent,  Biopatent,  Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office,  EPO,  Paprika,  revised regulation on biopatents,  Syngenta,  wild pepper

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

7. March 2022
BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.