April 2020 - Npos_2018 - lists.testbiotech.de

Re: [Npos_2018] final text elements inserted after Brams suggestions
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

Yes, it looks, something went wrong: I have to work on it again. Sorry. Am 20.04.20 um 08:58 schrieb Bram de Jonge: > Dear Christoph, > > I just checked the document you sent last weekend. Please note that the text from Rijk Zwaan is NOT including their suggestions we received last Thursday. I have included it here again for your reference, see text in blue added to our original text in red. > Best regards, > > Bram > > -----Original Message----- > From: Npos_2018 <npos_2018-bounces(a)testbiotech.de> On Behalf Of Christoph Then > Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2020 11:54 > To: npos_2018(a)testbiotech.de > Subject: [Npos_2018] final text elements inserted after Brams suggestions > > Dear all > > > please see attached the final text elements I now would insert into the report in accordance with suggestions made by Bram: > > > 1. the repsonse from Rijk: as suggested > > 2. the footnote on KWS: I had to change the wording from Bram. KWS does not comment on the decision of the AC (2017) but on the Technical Board. > Nevertheless, an interesting statement. > > 3. the co-inventor with KWS: I looked in all examples again, this seems to be the only missing co-inventor. > > In addition, Johanna made some suggestions for details in editing. I all will now forward to layout. > > > Erling can you please insert the new passages as attached into the Danish version? After that please send the final Danish version and I will try to organise the layout. Thanks a lot!! > > > Cheers > > Christoph >

1 0

short note on comments received so far and interest in our report by the EPO
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

Dear all just had a second look into the answers (while being aware that two further answers are announced). My conclusions so far: all companies are mentioning platforms where breeder can go and ask for license. We were dealing with this issue in our last reports. I think we still agree that this approach is not solving the problem because this system is based on patents, it allows for control, it might still hemper access and is not mandatory for all companies. It is also not legally binding in future. I would not open up the report to introduce this discussion. on Corteva: We do not say that there are involved in this specific patent application. However it is known, that Corteva is cooperating with the UC. The company is just mentioned to show that UC is not just basic research - many times they are acting in alliance with companies. To clarify: We could add further companies which are cooperating with UC and leave Corteva in the text - would you agree? or should we delete all names of companies and try to find a more neutral sentence giving the same information? on Keygene: I do not think we have to use this information in the report. It would not change our message, but it would need further explanations. on Rijk: we already have a short statement included, referring to their position. We could enlarge this passage to quote from their letter. This would be the only substantial change of the report I would be in favour. We announced the report to be published within next two weeks. I would be happy if we could agree to publish next week and keep the changes to a minimum. Further, we have interest for insight in the report prior to the publication from the EPO (! very good, Mr Osterwalder kindly asked... ) and from a Belgium Ministry of Agriculture (I will forward to Nina from CEO). I guess we should send something till end of the week. Cheers Christoph

3 5

final (?) version english report
by Christoph Then 20 Apr '20

20 Apr '20

did not have the time to look into it.

1 0

Final responses OTC and evaluation
by Bram de Jonge 17 Apr '20

17 Apr '20

Dear All, Now we have received all pending company responses, we can draw some interesting conclusions: Overall, none of the companies has disputed the report's main findings or conclusions such as impact of patents on monopolization in the sector or the use of technical toppings to render products of conventional breeding patentable. I think that is a good result. Obviously, some companies (especially BASF, Corteva, Bayer) have taken an effort to explain why they think that patents are necessary, but at the same time, all of them have tried to defend themselves by describing the initiatives they take for increased transparency and accessibility. Also a good sign I think, and none of these points we need to consider for the report. What we may need to consider is our presentation of those companies that seem to support the general message of the report. Rijk Zwaan is very clear on this and provides some good quotes for us to use, of which we have now incorporated one. I just received their response: they approve but made some revisions, see text in blu attached. KWS also seems to agree with (part of) our position so it may be good to be a bit less strong in our language as these are potential collaborators in the future. I therefore propose the below suggestions (in capitals) to the following original sentence: "This example illustrates the systematic way in which the company exploited the legal loopholes in the 2017 Administrative Council decision, which left random mutations open to patentability as inventions." --> DESPITE KWS CRITICAL RESPONSE TO the 2017 Administrative Council decision,[FOOTNOTE TO LINK PROVIDED BY KWS], THE ABOVE PATENT APPLICATION EXPLOITS THE SAME LEGAL LOOPHOLE THAT DECISION CREATED, which left random mutations open to patentability as inventions. Regarding the factual correctness - the key purpose of the opportunity to comment procedure, we got the response from Corteva that we have addressed by deleting reference to that company under the pepper patent. In addition, several companies (Keygene, KWS) have indicated that they are not the sole-applicant of the patent discussed in the report. This is not a mistake but it is an omission that we can probably easy correct by including the names of the respective co-applicants. A final, small 'correction' that we have received is from Bayer, indicating that it "believes that the actual number of patent applications filed by Monsanto/Seminis in 2018 and 2019 with claims directed to native traits is significantly lower than indicated with less than 10 patent applications filed". I assume we are very sure of the numbers presented in the report so I do not see a reason to change our numbers, or to refer in the report to this statement of what Bayer 'believes' to be the case. Happy to discuss the above with you via email or phone. Oxfam will reply to all responses received, and I will keep you informed about any follow-up that we may receive in that process. Best regards, Bram Bram de Jonge | Seed Policy Advisor Sowing Diversity=Harvesting Security (SD=HS) Program Oxfam Novib | The Hague, The Netherlands | +31 (0)70 342 1 717 skype: BramDeJonge | http://www.sdhsprogram.org/

3 2

slightly corrected english version
by Christoph Then 17 Apr '20

17 Apr '20

please use this version. thanks.

2 1

draft PR for patent report (DE und EN)
by Christoph Then 17 Apr '20

17 Apr '20

Dear all, I guess this PR will be especially relevant for political decision makers - maybe not so much for media... so I tried to be as precise as possible in technicalities. might need several corrections .. we did not yet decide on the day for publication, I am also in contact with FOE Germany on that. Further final corrections still have to made with the report. This will be organised as soon as we have response from Rijk (we also might leave this para it as it is and / or add a further reference to the website of KWS). I do not think that the answer from Bayer does require further changes in our report. have a nice day! Christoph

1 0

FW: Opportunity to comment regarding upcoming report
by Bram de Jonge 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

Dear all, I am in meetings now but see that I just received the response from Bayer. Haven't looked at this yet but forward it here for your consideration. Haven't heard back from Rijk Zwaan yet, will call them in case I do not hear from them by tomorrow noon. Best regards, Bram From: Tomas Zaborowski <tomas.zaborowski(a)bayer.com> Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2020 15:24 To: Bram de Jonge <Bram.de.Jonge(a)oxfamnovib.nl> Cc: Marita Wiggerthale <mwiggerthale(a)oxfam.de>; Maarten de Vuyst <Maarten.de.Vuyst(a)oxfamnovib.nl>; Jeffrey Neu <jeffrey.neu(a)bayer.com>; Naomi Stevens <naomi.stevens(a)bayer.com> Subject: Opportunity to comment regarding upcoming report Bram, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide some comments and to clarify a few points based on the excerpts from the upcoming No Patents on Seeds! report. We fully appreciate that the majority of the attached comments will not be included in the report itself; however, we hope this will help Oxfam in gaining a clearer picture of the situation at the EPO, and the benefits of the patent system to the public and to the inventor. If you are interested, once we all begin to recover from COVID-19 and the impact it has had on all of us, we'd like to continue to engage in a meaningful conversation with you about this topic and others related to agriculture, sustainability, and biodiversity. Be safe and well, Tomas //////////////////// Bayer AG Public Affairs & Sustainability Building 6100 40789 Monheim, Germany Tel: +49 2173 38-5070 Mobile: +49 152 57561340 E-mail: tomas.zaborowski(a)bayer.com<mailto:tomas.zaborowski@bayer.com> Web: http://www.bayer.com Datenschutzhinweise<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bayer…> // Data privacy information<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bayer…> /// Vorstand: Werner Baumann, Vorsitzender | Liam Condon, Wolfgang Nickl, Stefan Oelrich, Heiko Schipper /// Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Werner Wenning /// Sitz der Gesellschaft: Leverkusen | Amtsgericht Köln, HRB 48248

1 0

Response KWS
by Bram de Jonge 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

Dear all, There will be no call with KWS. In an email they write: "best will be for "No Patents on Seeds" to carefully check the facts on their own using the public record. They may thereby realize that for both patent applications, highly reputable academic institutions are co-applicants. Depending on the final version of the published report, KWS reserves its right to comment publicly or not. To better understand the KWS position related to this topic, you may find this link<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kws.c…> informative." The link contains some interesting information stating that "Patenting of such plants [i.e. conventionally bred] will make access to biological material for breeding more difficult," said Léon Broers, the member of KWS' Executive Board responsible for research, in Einbeck. "Yet breeders depend on having as much biodiversity as possible to breed new varieties with improved traits such as drought tolerance, resistance to pests, or higher yield." These statements seem to be in opposition with their patent applications as included in the report. If you want, I can ask for some extra information and explanation on this? I also expect to receive Bayer's comments today Best regards, Bram Bram de Jonge | Seed Policy Advisor Sowing Diversity=Harvesting Security (SD=HS) Program Oxfam Novib | The Hague, The Netherlands | +31 (0)70 342 1 717 skype: BramDeJonge | http://www.sdhsprogram.org/

2 1

proposed change in text of the report
by Christoph Then 15 Apr '20

15 Apr '20

I think on the pepper / UC we just delete the additional remark, to spare some time. on RiJk please see my proposal attached. It is currently page 15. If agreed, I have to check with layout if we insert with footnote (explaining our communication) or without - there is some shortage in space on that page.

1 0

report in English
by Christoph Then 15 Apr '20

15 Apr '20

still need to include the quote from Rijk Zwaan and remove Corteva in pepper patent. I also will send this version to Salvia.

1 0