Source: https://www.slwip.com/resources/decision-of-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-sexual-crossing-and-selection-of-plants-is-not-patentable-even-when-using-dna-markers/
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 19:00:31
Document Index: 333042650

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 53', 'Art 53', 'Art 53', 'Art 53', 'Art 53', 'Art 53']

Decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal - Sexual Crossing and Selection of Plants is Not Patentable Even When Using DNA Markers | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner
Home | Blogs | Decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal – Sexual Crossing and Selection of Plants is Not Patentable Even When Using DNA Markers
Decision of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal - Sexual Crossing and Selection of Plants is Not Patentable Even When Using DNA Markers
2. Such a process does not escape the exclusion of Article 53(b) EPC merely because it contains, as a further step or as part of any of the steps of crossing and selection, a step of a technical nature which serves to enable or assist the performance of the steps of sexually crossing the whole genome of plants or of subsequently selecting plants.
How do Art 53b EPC and Rule 26(5) EPC define non-patentable biological processes?
Art 53EPC states that “European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
“(b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals;”
Rule 26(5) EPC states that:
“A process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomenon such as crossing and selection.”
Rule 26(5) EPC2000 (inserted as Rule 23b in EPC1973; coming into force in 01.09.1999) serves to implement the EU Biotechnology Directive, whose purpose is to harmonize the protection of biotechnology inventions throughout the EU. The implementing regulations (Rule 26 EPC) and supplementary guidance provided by the Bio Directive is also applicable to pending applications, filed before 01.09.1999 (G2/06).
What are “natural phenomena” in the context of Rule 26(5) EPC?
The wording of Rule 26(5) EPC has been a source of diverse opinion, because it seems to be a contradiction of terms to define an “entirely natural phenomenon” as one that involves “crossing and selection”. A process for producing plants that involves “crossing and selection” is traditionally an activity carried out by plant breeders. This suggests that the “natural phenomena” in Rule 26(5) EPC was intended to relate to classical breeding requiring human intervention, as against purely natural events occurring in nature. Accordingly, the “essentially biological processes for producing plants” that are excluded from patentability under Art 53b EPC should be understood to involve human activity. Classical breeding aims at producing new plant varieties, which are themselves also excluded for patentability, since they are protected by Breeder’s Rights under UPOV. Purely natural processes would, in any event, not need to be excluded, since their lack of technical teaching makes them inherently non-patentable.
What type of human intervention in a process for producing a plant escapes exclusion under Art 53(b) EPC?
So long as the characteristics of a plant resulting from a process of crossing and selection, are solely the result of an essentially biological process, then a process for its production is excluded from patentability. The use of technical steps to facilitate the crossing and selection process (such as the use of DNA markers) does not make the process patentable, so long as their use has no impact on the outcome of the biological process. Such technical steps or tools for plant breeding could, however, i n themselves qualify as patentable inventions*.
However, a process involving human intervention where the plant genome is modified by genetic engineering, where the GMO plant product is not solely the result of plant crossing and selection, is not excluded by Art 53(b) EPC.
How would this decision impact the allowability of the amended claims in the opposed patent (T 83/05)?
In light of this decision, the amended claims in the opposed EP1 069 816 would fall within the Art 53(b) EPC exclusion on the grounds that the claimed method for producing the “Brassica oleracea with elevated levels of glucosinolates” involves the steps of classical crossing and selection, and that the use of a technical step (using DNA markers for selection) does not exempt the claim from this exclusion.
*Note: Although DNA markers are valuable tools for breeding, their use can neither be protected in a process for breeding a plant, according to this Decision, nor are can they be protected as DNA sequences in a plant, if they are too short to be attributed any biological function.