- Npos_2018 - lists.testbiotech.de

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

Response from Corteva
by Bram de Jonge 15 Apr '20

15 Apr '20

Dear All, Please find attached the fourth response we have received, this time from Corteva. This went through Oxfam US office. I think we need to take their response into account, copied from the attached: Corteva Agriscience (including our predecessor companies) is not a patent holder in the Pepper Plant example cited nor did we have any involvement in the breeding work described. We ask that the language in the example is reworded to make that clear or remove mention of Corteva in the context of this patent Now, you must have received the responses from BASF, Keygene, Rijk Zwaan and Corteva. KWS and Bayer will follow this week. From the other companies we did not receive any feedback so far. 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/

1 0

full German version of the report (see front page and logos)
by Christoph Then 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

Dear all please see with front page and logos the full German version. we are still working with links to glossar, I guess we will limit it to link each just one time, not through the whole text. cheers Christoph

2 1

how to go on with phone calls and answers from companies
by Christoph Then 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

Dear all maybe Bram has the time to re-collect his information about the answers from companies. There was some problem with his e-mails. I think this process is highly interesting. I do not think that no patents on seeds would have been able to receive all these answers within given time frame. For me it shows, how important Oxfam is for them. Maybe I am wrong. But in conclusion I am quite happy that Bram started this process. how to go on? Bram, Johanna and me will be in phone conference with Plantum tomorrow. I saw interest from Francois to join the phone conference with KWS. I could participate on Thursday morning - Bram can you organise? I would prefer a phone conference instead video. On the report: I still have to check if we want to integrate answers to the report or if we use it for public communication in another way. We have to be careful to keep the possibility to communicate at the time and with the content as we decided, in accordance to our agenda. On the other hand, this is an interesting process, worth considering. I will try to make a proposal tomorrow after the phone call with Plantum. Cheers Christoph

1 0

Company responses OTC
by Bram de Jonge 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

Dear all, Last week Wednesday, I sent the first 2 company responses that I received after providing all companies the Opportunity to Comment (OTC) through our email list. Apparently, this email was not well received so I try again now. We have now received 3 responses, from Keygene, Rijk Zwaan and BASF. All three are attached. We have also been invited for a meeting with the director of Rijk Zwaan to discuss the issue in more detail once F2F meetings are possible again. In addition, I received a request from Bayer, Corteva and KWS to have some extra time to send their response due to the Eastern weekend. I have set Thursday 16 April as the final deadline so that I can forward all response to you on Friday this week. KWS also asked for a phone call this week, and proposed either 2PM on Wednesday or on Thursday morning before 11AM. Please let me know in case you would like to join this call asap. In their email they write: "There seem to be several inaccuracies and omissions of information in the except provided, but further discussion would be needed to provide a satisfactory response. Moreover, the report clearly does not reflect the KWS position." I have indicated that we are, as part of this OTC, particularly interested to hear about the 'inaccuracies' they are referring to. Altogether, I am surprised with the number of responses ( I had expected fewer responses). Some responses look interesting for us to use, i.e. Rijk Zwaan. In case we want to quote any part of a response received, we will need to inform the relevant company and ask for permission. I can do that quickly if needed. Keygene's response is also interesting but I am not sure whether we want to refer to it in any kind of way (they say they value 'open innovation', whereas we support 'open source'). Generally, it may be a good idea to indicate, e.g. in a footnote, that all patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies that made use of that opportunity. We can then add a small disclaimer that any mistakes in the text remain our own. I leave it the writing team to decide what information we want/need to incorporate in the report. Keygene for example mentions that ETH Zurich is co-inventor of their patent. I am not sure whether this would count as relevant (factual) information that we need to take into account. Hope this overview is helpful, and that you will receive it this time. I will keep you informed about any other feedback I receive during the course of this week. Best regards, Bram

1 1

Fwd: Company responses OTC
by Christoph Then 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

with all attachments -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Company responses OTC Datum: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:27:50 +0000 Von: Bram de Jonge <Bram.de.Jonge(a)oxfamnovib.nl> An: Christoph Then <christoph.then(a)testbiotech.org>, Npos_2018 <npos_2018-bounces(a)testbiotech.de> Kopie (CC): francois.meienberg(a)prospecierara.ch <francois.meienberg(a)prospecierara.ch> Dear all, Last week Wednesday, I sent the first 2 company responses that I received after providing all companies the Opportunity to Comment (OTC) through our email list. Apparently, this email was not well received so I try again now. We have now received 3 responses, from Keygene, Rijk Zwaan and BASF. All three are attached. We have also been invited for a meeting with the director of Rijk Zwaan to discuss the issue in more detail once F2F meetings are possible again. In addition, I received a request from Bayer, Corteva and KWS to have some extra time to send their response due to the Eastern weekend. I have set Thursday 16 April as the final deadline so that I can forward all response to you on Friday this week. KWS also asked for a phone call this week, and proposed either 2PM on Wednesday or on Thursday morning before 11AM. Please let me know in case you would like to join this call asap. In their email they write: "There seem to be several inaccuracies and omissions of information in the except provided, but further discussion would be needed to provide a satisfactory response. Moreover, the report clearly does not reflect the KWS position." I have indicated that we are, as part of this OTC, particularly interested to hear about the 'inaccuracies' they are referring to. Altogether, I am surprised with the number of responses ( I had expected fewer responses). Some responses look interesting for us to use, i.e. Rijk Zwaan. In case we want to quote any part of a response received, we will need to inform the relevant company and ask for permission. I can do that quickly if needed. Keygene's response is also interesting but I am not sure whether we want to refer to it in any kind of way (they say they value 'open innovation', whereas we support 'open source'). Generally, it may be a good idea to indicate, e.g. in a footnote, that all patent applicants discussed in this report have been provided the Opportunity to Comment, and to mention the companies that made use of that opportunity. We can then add a small disclaimer that any mistakes in the text remain our own. I leave it the writing team to decide what information we want/need to incorporate in the report. Keygene for example mentions that ETH Zurich is co-inventor of their patent. I am not sure whether this would count as relevant (factual) information that we need to take into account. Hope this overview is helpful, and that you will receive it this time. I will keep you informed about any other feedback I receive during the course of this week. Best regards, Bram

1 0