Dear all,
the EPO is asking for comments in regard to the Guidelines for Examination until 15 April 2020 following its commitment to include users feedback: EPO homepage https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2020/20200302.html .
The guidelines have last been modified in Nov. 2019 and can be found here https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/guidelines.html .
In an article https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1851744e-6a30-4c71-b6ce-c197 a8292661 the changes are briefly summarized as follows:
Plant and animal varieties (G-II, 5.4)
Further information has been included in the Guidelines relating to the patentability of plant and animal varieties. Specifically, the Guidelines state that for living matter to be patentable, it must be reproducible in a way that has exactly the same technical features. Reproducibility can be assured by:
* Deposit of the living matter (this must be publically available and the skilled person must be able to reproduce the invention starting from it). * Disclosing in the application the gene sequence responsible for the claimed trait and instructions on introducing altered sequence in a target organism.
Additional information has also been included regarding exclusions from patentability. Controlled hybrids with inbred parents are excluded from patentability as they define either a seed or a plant which necessarily belongs to a particular plant grouping within the meaning of plant variety pursuant to Rule 26(4). Plant varieties are excluded under Article 53(b) EPC and this exclusion cannot be avoided by drafting a claim to a large number of varieties. If a claim comprises at least one embodiment which does not constitute a variety, it is allowable under Article 53(b) EPC.
Here is a comment by Christoph (in German): Das ist tatsächlich interessant. Ich hatte damit gerechnet, dass man die die für eher vorteilhaften Passagen abschwächen würde. Das ist nicht der Fall. Im Gegenteil.
Die neuen Präzisierungen bezüglich Hinterlegbarkeit besagen im Ergebnis, dass man tatsächlich die DNA Sequenz kennen muss, weil die gewünschten Merkmale sonst auch auf mehrere DNA Sequenzen verteilt sein können, die sich dann in den nachfolgenden Generationen auch wieder aufspalten können und die Eigenschaft nicht erhalten bleibt.
Auch die Definierung der Sorte im Hinblick auf Linien, die bei der Hybridzucht eingesetzt werden, scheint hilfreich.
Welche Auswirkungen das auf die Praxis / unsere Fälle haben wird, müssen noch sehen. Ich denke aber, zumindest der Punkt mit der Hinterlegbarkeit ist für uns relevant.
-----
Here is the direct link <https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_5_4.htm
to the part that is relevant for us (Part G Patentability / Chapter II
Inventions / 5. Exclusions and exceptions for biotechnological inventions / 5.4. Plant and animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals p.743 in pdf with track changes http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/8654640290C2DBE7C125 84A4004D2D9A/$File/epo_guidelines_for_examination_2019_hyperlinked_showing_m odifications_en.pdf ).
Here is the version including track changes http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/8654640290C2DBE7C125 84A4004D2D9A/$File/epo_guidelines_for_examination_2019_hyperlinked_showing_m odifications_en.pdf from 2019.
The so-called Disclaimer is still in the guidelines (p.658 in pdf with track changes http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/8654640290C2DBE7C125 84A4004D2D9A/$File/epo_guidelines_for_examination_2019_hyperlinked_showing_m odifications_en.pdf ):
4.12 Product-by-process claim
A claim defining a product in terms of a process is to be construed as a claim to the product as such. The technical content of the invention lies not in the process per se, but rather in the technical properties imparted to the product by the process. Claims defining plants or animals produced by a method including a technical step which imparts a technical feature to a product constitute an exception in so far as the requirements of Article 53(b) are concerned.
If a technical feature of a claimed plant or animal, e.g. a single nucleotide exchange in the genome, might be the result of either a technical intervention (e.g. directed mutagenesis) or an essentially biological process (a natural allele), a disclaimer is necessary to delimit the claimed subject-matter to the technically produced product (see examples in G-II, 5.4.2.1, and G-II, 5.4). For the general principles governing disclaimers see H-V, 3.5, and H-V, 4. [...]
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
