Dear all,
herewith some comments/questions in the English text.
I think it would be a good idea to insert frames telling the breeders' stories. It shouldn't be too long, but it would illustrate the points made. The latest article on De Bolser (infogm) is interesting to make our arguments more concret. We can maybe use some of it (if we ask them before, I can do it). Now we have several stories on concrete cases and it would be good to use them to show the reality of the problem. If not here, in another document?
There were also the "frequently asked questions" on the EPO website https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/fact-sheet/447625 . I had understood that we wanted to answer them, or at least to use this text to re-argue our points. Could this be part of the report? Or another document?
In the 2 cases I agree to work on documents like that, more general and written for different audiences.
Here again the article on De Boslter in englisch https://infogm.org/en/de-bolster-another-dutch-sme-under-patent-threat/
cheers,
AC
Am 19/08/2024 um 08:46 schrieb Christoph Then:
Dear all
please see draft new report in German and English.
I already got first comments which I tried to integrate.
The English version already had some editing, but yellow parts still deserve corrections by native speaker. The German version did not yet undergo any corrections.
In the table about the tomatoes, I will integrate some more information on the chromosomes, so maybe we will update the figure from the report 2022. Figure 1 can be depicted form the website of Ruth, some footnotes still need to be added.
There are some surprising issues:
KWS filed a second patent on high digestibility maize (we are in contact with the company to see if they are ready to withdraw their first patent),
In July, it was announced that Rijk Zwaan will be granted patent EP3720272 (WO2019110821) on tomatoes with resistance to the Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus (thanks to Anne Charlotte for pointing this out). This patent has a claim on the natural QTL genes without being induced by random mutagenesis or NGTs (!). I think this is in contradiction to the other case law we saw (such as on the flowers from Klemm). Furthermore, it has a claim on the production of those plants which would include the plants from crossing and selection (the Rijk Zwaan patent attorney wrote to the EPO that a claim worded on 'growing plants' is not using the term crossing and selection and can be granted. However, the examples shows that the only way to derive to these plants is crossing and selection). I adds to the confusion that another patent of Rijk Zwaan with the same trait is already in Pinto impacting 32 varieties without being granted yet.
The Rijk Zwaan patent should be granted soon and might be used a scandalous hook to present the report in public. We also should file opposition. I guess this patent can not survive and will not become 'mainstream' for the decision making at the EPO. Therefore, its impact on the political debate is likely to be limited.
Currently we plant to present the report in Brussels to impact the ongoing discussions between the member states. We already approached Poland for this purpose.
Because our target audience is Brussels, we should keep the report quite technical. I also include a suggestion for the image on the title.
To get things moving, we have to expose the role of random mutagenesis, this will remain the main entry points for granting patents. I included a table to show the differences between random mutations and targeted mutations in the context of patent law.
please send your comments till end of the week.
Cheers
Christoph
Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@lists.testbiotech.de http://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018