Exceptions to Patentability: Nothing to do with Computer Programs and Methods of Doing Business this Time

Just a short post today, ladies and gents, as it is Sunday. One of the interesting grounds of opposition in T 0179/01 -3.3.8 Greenpeace Deutschland ev and Others v Monsanto Co.(EPO (European Patent Office) Technical Board of Appeal 6 April 2005) that one of the claims of the patent “Glyphosate tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthases” was excluded from patentability by art 53 (b) of the EPC (European Patent Convention).

Art 53 (b) EPC provides that patents shall not be granted in respect of:

“plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof.”

The claim in question was for a glyphosate tolerant plant comprising plant cells of a previous claim and that previous claim was directed to a glyphosate tolerant plant cell comprising a previously specified DNA molecule.

Relying on G1/98 Novartis , the Board held that the claim was not excluded from patentability because it was addressed to glyphosate-tolerant plants in general and not to specific plant varieties. In Novartis (OJ EPO 2000, 111) the Enlarged Board held that a claim in which specific plant varieties are not individually claimed is not excluded from patentability even though it may embrace plant varieties.

Greenpeace also wanted to adduce expert evidence on whether plant patenting was contrary to “ordre public” or morality under art 53 (a) but permission to call that evidence was denied on grounds of procedural fairness.

Two short points arise out of this. The first is that even though we don’t have antigen’s like the plant patents that are available in the USA, we do have plant varieties protection. My colleague, Dr Alex Khan, from these chambers is an expert in this area and he has written a lot of good stuff. I particularly commend his PowerPoint presentation “Progeny protection: Plant Varieties in the 21st Century.” Secondly, those who want to find a quick guide to the “judicial branch” of the EPO will find a useful introduction on the “Legislative Initiatives” page on the EPO site. Quite a few changes are planned as visitors will see.


About Jane Lambert

I am a barrister specializing in intellectual property, technology, media and entertainment and competition law. I specialize in helping SME (small and medium enterprises) protect and exploit their investment in brands, design, technology and the arts. SME require intellectual property (legal protection for their intellectual assets) at least as much as big business but their limited means restrict the way they can use it. Looking after such clients wisely requires skills and knowledge which have taken me years to learn.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s