Dear all
this the follow up to my previous mail.
it concerns a document prepared for patent law committee last year (CA/PL 4/20, see attached in German and English).
some findings from quick reading:
paras 28-32 deal with random mutations.
our analysis is mentioned (however, again no difference is made between trait and and any genetic alterations).
its is confirmed that patent on random mutations get granted.
To me the content of Para 31 was new: It is stated that G3/19 is confirming the need for patents on radiated plants (however radiation is definitely not the method you will use to directly derive to a new trait). This means, we have to take into account that G3/19 adds to the documents with presenting wrong interpretations of G2/07 and G1/08. This makes our standing more complicated.
In para 35-37 it seems they agree with us that living cells are not patentable if derived from relevant plants or animals. thus this problem seems to be solved to some extent: To my understanding this document is sufficient to clarify the issue which was confused by the former President. We might take as a success.
In Para 38-42 it is announced that staying for 310 patent applications, 10 oppositions and 18 appeals are lifted.
Summary: We should continue to explain the difference between traits and other genetic changes (which need crossing and selection). Since this difference was not considered so far, it might still be relevant for future interpretation. A lot of work still to do.
We might spend less emphasis on patentability of cells.
We have to continue to work on scope of patents (the disclaimer solution is also mentioned in this document, para 26/27 but without need for further discussion).
I will continue reading and maybe send a third document.
cheers
Christoph