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
mailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org
NO PATENTS ON SEEDS!
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/ www.no-patents-on-seeds.org
http://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds
http://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed 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. This would be in line what they grant on bacteria (which are not relevant for Article 53(b)). 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.
* 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'). 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.
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
