Dear all,
I came across another
article on the ruling of the EBA. Do we know it already or
the author?
The author raises the
problem that patent protection on genome edited plants can
capture conventionally bred plants with the same traits, and
that even if the scope of the patent is restricted to plants
resulting from the specific genome editing process (he
doesn’t mention the disclaimer provision in this context)
the burden of proof lies with the alleged infringer.
However, his argument is based on the assumption that, in
some cases at least, it is not possible to differentiate
between genome edited and conventionally bred plants – we
don’t have a position on this assumption as NPOS, as far as
I know.
He also refers to Rule
26 (5) of the Implementing Regulations: “A process for the
production of plants or animals is essentially biological if
it consists entirely of natural phenomena such as crossing
or selection.”
If the option of
adopting a new interpretation of Rule 28 (2) does not seem
possible, we could instead demand a change of Rule 26 (5) to
include random mutagenesis?
Best
Katherine
Katherine Dolan
ARCHE NOAH Leitung Politik / Head of Policy
+43
(0)676 557 4408
----------------------------------------------------------
ARCHE NOAH – Gesellschaft für die Erhaltung der
Kulturpflanzenvielfalt und ihre Entwicklung / Association
for the conservation and development of crop diversity
Obere Straße 40, 3553 Schiltern
www.arche-noah.at
----------------------------------------------------------
PS:
Die Vielfalt braucht jetzt dringend Ihre Stimme!
Jetzt hier
Petition „Vielfalt säen, Gesundheit ernten“
unterschreiben.
Für
mehr Vielfalt auf Äckern und Tellern!
PPS:
Wir sind bei der Rettung der Vielfalt auf Sie angewiesen –
jetzt spenden.
_______________________________________________ Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018