Hi All,

I added a view interpretations from my side in Christophs’ list below in red.

Several issues were clarified during the call and I hope we can continue this useful process.

I agree with Christoph’s conclusions that we should continue with our approach, although I keep some doubts about our chance to succeed. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to drop a question (e.g. by email) on the issue of reproducibility in order to see whether/to what extent that argument could strengthen our case. Let me know your thoughts on this.

Best regards,

Bram

From: Npos_2018 <npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de> On Behalf Of Johanna Eckhardt no-patents-seeds.org
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2020 15:03
To: 'Christoph Then' <info@no-patents-on-seeds.org>; npos_2018@testbiotech.de
Subject: Re: [Npos_2018] short summary of the meeting with EPO

Dear Christoph, dear all,

the 6 page document was not meant to be the minutes – I just sent you my very rough notes directly after the meeting since my notebook got repaired/replaced right after the meeting and I didn’t know if I would have access to my email in the next hours/days. :-) But luckily the repair went much better than expected and I now have a fully working notebook again :-)

But I believe you summed up the meeting perfectly. Thank you! I guess there is no further need for minutes. If otherwise, please let me know.

Best,

Johanna

Johanna ECKHARDT

Project Coordination

Tel. +43 680 21 26 343

johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org

NO PATENTS ON SEEDS!

www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds

www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed

From: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] On Behalf Of Christoph Then
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:07 PM
To: npos_2018@testbiotech.de
Subject: [Npos_2018] short summary of the meeting with EPO

Dear all

we just had a meeting with EPO as announced.

it took around one hour. Johanna prepared some minutes which are however six pages - might take some time to check it (thanks a lot to Johanna, this was really very very fast!)

So in short my quick take away. Please do not spread, we agreed not to run to detailed public communication, but to apply 'something like' chatam house rules (not so cleary defined)):

• on essentially biological processes, they confirmed that they grant patents on plants derived from physico-chemical mutagenes. They indicated that they do not consider it relevant whether the process is random. They consider physio-chemical mutagenesis a technical process. This would be in line what they grant on bacteria (which are not relevant for Article 53(b)). They also considered this to be in line with G2/07 and G1/08. They agreed that there is room for interpretation whether this practice is in line with G2/07 and G1/08. They see some possibility for the Administrative Council to deal with this issue again and take decision. However they do not see a lot of interest among its members (lot of work for us). They think that most agree on current practice. Also because no discussion on this point was held before.

• on cells: They try to find out if there is unclarity and how to deal with it. We agreed there might be a difference between living cells and products like sugar extracted from the plants. The EPO grants patent on cells cultured in-vitro (which can be used to create whole plants). They are currently assessing this practice.

• on scope: They agreed that disclaimers are just an intermediary solution ('it allows the EPO to go on'). Indeed, the said the disclaimer is the best solution for the moment as it is accepted by the various stakeholders and therefore allows them to move on. As time goes by this practice may be reviewed but they did not have a plan or timeline for this, which can imply that this solution may stay in existence for quite some time. They could not tell us whether (in theory) in might be possible to exclude patents on products under Article 53 (b). But they might be interested to check.

• on legal biding effect of G3/19 on pending applications: They can not change the decision of G3/19.. They mentioned it would be possible to run patent oppositions in national courts.

• on participation in AC meeting: they see our point, there might be further discussions.

There seems to be interest for further meetings for exchange of opinion between EPO and Npos after summer break. They also invited us to send our questions or perspectives (e.g. on the patentability of cells) for their consideration. I raised the issue of reproducibility but there was no time to discuss this anymore. They invited us to send the question by email.

So my conclusions: We have a good strategy, our points are valid. We will need more support from the governments. We might choose Austria to take the lead. We should double our efforts in Germany and Netherlands. We should discuss whether the Swiss groups can give us more support by aligning with our strategy. We also should take a closer look on Belgium, Portugal and Denmark.

next activity: another letter to German government, travel to Austria. Read the minutes from Johanna.

cheers

Christoph