- Npos_2018 - lists.testbiotech.de

final draft Report EN
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

Dear all please see final draft, including the full changes form Rijk. It looks like Johanna found some minor edits which will be included in the final final version. If needed, you can use this version to inform media (I guess Bram had some idea) or others you think are very important (I will inform the EPO and Belgium Ministry which asked us to do so). Cheers Christoph

1 0

final PR
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

dear all, Please see attached. Katherine and Martha still have to send their contact details. Johanna hopefully will render final versions, the English version will undergo final edits by native speaker. hope this is ok for everybody. Let us try for Thursday. I hope we also will have the Danish (full report) and French (part report) versions till then. In the Danish and French version of the PR (if prepared), please take the first quote by Erling and Anne Charlotte and also include contact details. Cheers, Christoph

1 0

new version of the media release de und en
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

Dear all, please see attached new draft versions of the PR for Thursday. I would need final comments till Monday evening, if possible. thanks to te good suggestions from Katherine and Daniela (FOE Germany) I found a way to shorten it and two include two quotes. After having read the proposals made by Katherine, I think it is important to not have to many details in the PR. We might draft a letter to the EPO where we can include further details, but anyway they are in the report. So I used mostly used the the more simplified version of Daniela. Hope everybody can agree. You also can use the draft for preparing your own PR, but I guess most of yow will wait for the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Short notice: I again asked the EPO and they again responded that they do not know the date. But we will get informed (we still have to prepare a PR in two versions for that day). I will approach the German media agency (dpa) if they are interested to get the report before hand. Cheers Christoph

3 3

the fulls statement of Rijk in en and de
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

thanks from Bram for checking it. the version as attached is now meant to go to the report.

1 0

final text elements inserted after Brams suggestions
by Christoph Then 21 Apr '20

21 Apr '20

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

3 4

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