Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:14:05.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Patents on Seeds Files an Opposition against Monsanto's Patent EP 2 134 870 B1 Covering the Selection of Soybean Plants and Seeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emanuela Gambini
Emanuela Gambini*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary – University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On 25th November, 2014, the coalition “No Patents on Seeds” filed an opposition against the European patent EP 2 134 870 B1, held by the U.S. Company Monsanto Technology. The patent, granted on 26th February, 2014, by the European Patent Office, covers “utility of SNP [single nucleotide polimorfism] markers associated with major soybean plant maturity and growth habit genomic regions” and includes “methods for screening plants and seeds from the genus Glycine withmarkers associated with genomic regions that are related to the plant maturity and growth habit of Glycine plants”.

“No Patents on Seeds” claims that the patent should be completely revoked, as it falls within the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants from patentability under art. 53(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC2000) and is not a patentable invention according to art. 52(2)(a) EPC. This case note gives an overview of the opposition and discusses its implications.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 134 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See information on EP 2 134 870, available on the Internet at <https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08742297> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

2 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, 25 November, 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/no_patent_on_seeds_opposition_soybean_patent_monsanto.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

3 See About No Patents on Seeds, available on the Internet at <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/about-us/about-no-patents-seeds> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

4 See About No Patents on Seeds, supra note 3.

5 Chris Then and Ruth Tippe – No Patents on Seeds, European Patents on Plants and Animals – Is the Patent Industry Taking Control of Our Food?”, available on the Internet at <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/european_patents_on_plants_and_animals_2014.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015), at p. 19.

6 Single nucleotide polimorfisms (SNPs) “are substitutions of one base at a precise location within the genome”. Wilson, Keith and Walker, John, Principles and Techniques of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), at p. 146.Google Scholar SNPs constitute the most abundant type of DNA sequence variations in individuals and are used as markers. See Lodish, Harvey, Berk, Arnold, Kaiser, Chris A., Krieger, Monty et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 7th ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2013), at p. 208.Google Scholar

7 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, available on the Internet at <https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document?pn=2134870&ki=B1&cc=EP> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

8 Art. 52 EPC2000 Patentable inventions provides: “(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information. (3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject–matter or activity as such”. Art. 52 EPC, available on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

9 See No Patents on Seeds, Background Information: Opposition against Monsanto Patent EP2134870 on the Selection of Soybeans, available on the Internet at <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/background_opposition_soybean_patent_monsanto.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015), at p. 1.

10 No Patents on Seeds, Background Information: Opposition against Monsanto Patent EP2134870 on the Selection of Soybeans, Ibid., at p. 1.

11 No Patents on Seeds, Background Information: Opposition against Monsanto Patent EP2134870 on the Selection of Soybeans, Ibid., at p. 1.

12 No Patents on Seeds, Background Information: Opposition against Monsanto Patent EP2134870 on the Selection of Soybeans, Ibid., at p. 1.

13 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, supra note 7, at p. 3.

14 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, Ibid., at p. 3.

15 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, Ibid., at p. 3.

16 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, supra note 7, at p. 39.

17 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, Ibid., at p. 39.

18 EP 2 1324870 B1 European Patent Specification, supra note 7, at pp. 4 and 140.

19 Art. 53 EPC2000, available on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar53.html> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

20 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ L 213/18, 30/07/1998, also available on the Internet at <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998L0044&from=EN> (last accessed on 25 January 2015), at p. 18.

21 Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, supra note 20.

22 Rule 26(5) EPC2000, available on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/r26.html> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

23 Case G/2, Use of embryos/WARF, decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal 24 November 2008, OJ EPO, 2009, 306, available also on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g060002ep1.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

24 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, submitted on 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 4.

25 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, submitted on 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 4.

26 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, submitted on 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 5.

27 Case G1/08, Tomatoes/State of Israel, decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeals de dato 9 December 2010, OJ EPO, 2012, 206. See Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 4.

28 Case G1/98, Transgenic plant/Novartis II, Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeals de dato,20 December 1999, OJ EPO, 2000, p. 111 et seq.

29 Case G1/98, Transgenic plant/Novartis II, Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeals de dato 20 December 1999, supra note 28, at p. 141.

30 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, submitted on 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 6.

31 Art. 52 EPC2000 Patentable inventions provides: “(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. (2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: (a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; (b) aesthetic creations; (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; (d) presentations of information. (3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subjectmatter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject–matter or activity as such”. Art. 52 EPC, available on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar52.html> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

32 See Supreme Court of the United States, Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., 13 June 2013, 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013), available on the Internet at <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

33 See Supreme Court of the United States, Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., 13 June 2013, supra note 32, at p. 2.

34 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 8.

35 Art. 56 EPC2000, available on the Internet at <http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar56.html> (last accessed on 25 January 2015).

36 Einspruch (Opposition) to EP 2 134 870 B1, 25 November, 2014, supra note 2, at p. 10.

37 Bostyn, Sven, “The Unbearable Complications of Patenting Plants”, in Fernando Leonini, Mariachiara Tallacchini and Matteo Ferrari (eds.), Innovating Food, Innovating the Law (Tricase: Libellula Edizioni, 2014), at pp. 313–314.Google Scholar

38 Rule 26(5) EPC2000, supra note 22.

39 Case G2/07, Broccoli/Plant Bioscience, decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal de dato 9 December 2010, OJ EPO, 2012, 130.

40 Benjamin Quest and Franz-Joseph Zimmer, “When is a Process for the Production of Plants ‘Essentially Biological’? Decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/08 and G2/07)”, available on the Internet at <http://www.grunecker.de/files/essentially_biological.pdf> (last accessed on 25 January 2015), at p. 3.

41 Benjamin Quest and Franz–Joseph Zimmer, “When is a Process for the Production of Plants ‘Essentially Biological’? Decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/08 and G2/07)”, Ibid., at p. 3.

42 Bostyn, “The Unbearable Complications of Patenting Plants”, supra note 37, at p. 313.

43 G 2/07, Broccoli/Plant Bioscience, decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal de dato 9 December 2010, supra note 39, at 6.4.2.3 of the reasons.

44 Chris Then and Ruth Tippe – No Patents on Seeds, European Patents on Plants and Animals – Is the Patent Industry Taking Control of Our Food?”, supra note 5, at p. 4.

45 Chris Then and Ruth Tippe – No Patents on Seeds, European Patents on Plants and Animals – Is the Patent Industry Taking Control of Our Food?”, supra note 5, at p. 5.

46 Chris Then and Ruth Tippe – No Patents on Seeds, European Patents on Plants and Animals – Is the Patent Industry Taking Control of Our Food?”, supra note 5, at p. 24.

47 Boophati, Narayanan Manikanda, Genetic Mapping and Marker Assisted Selection. Basics, Practice and Benefits, (New Delhi: Springer India, 2013), at p. 173.Google Scholar

48 On the advantages of MAS, see Narayanan Manikanda Boophati, Genetic Mapping and Marker Assisted Selection. Basics, Practice and Benefits, supra note 47, at pp. 173-174.

49 European Parliament Resolution of 10 May 2012 on the patenting of essential biological processes (2012/2613 (RSP)), available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P7-TA-2012-0202+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN (last accessed on 25 January 2015), at p. 3.

50 European Parliament Resolution of 10 May 2012 on the patenting of essential biological processes (2012/2613 (RSP)), Ibid., at p. 3.

51 European Parliament Resolution of 10 May 2012 on the patenting of essential biological processes (2012/2613 (RSP)), Ibid., at p. 3.