UK: Patenting Genetically Engineered Plants

Last Updated: 14 November 2002

The US perspective

It has been a long-standing practice in the US to allow the grant of utility patents for plants. The large biotech companies have sought to patent their genetically engineered ("GE") hybrids or lines in order to protect and exploit their investment in the technology. The outcome of the recent case of Pioneer1 has therefore provided reassurance to the agri-bio industry after the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed its earlier decision in Chakrabarty (supra) that utility patents are available for plants.

Pioneer Hi-Bred International ("Pioneer"), a subsidiary of DuPont, and the world’s largest producer of seed corn, had obtained 17 utility patents for its inbred and hybrid corn seed products under the US Code at 35 U.S.C. Section 101 (1994 ed) ("Section 101")2. Pioneer sells its patented hybrid seeds to merchants and growers under a limited licence, the terms of which only permit the production of grain and/or forage from that seed and prohibits re-sale and use of that seed for propagation, seed multiplication or the production or development of a new hybrid or variety.

J.E.M. Ag Supply (trading as "Farm Advantage") bought patented seed from Pioneer under the above licence and then resold it. Pioneer bought proceedings against Farm Advantage alleging patent infringement by Farm Advantage in selling or offering for sale the patented seed outside the scope of the licence agreement. In reply, Farm Advantage counterclaimed, arguing that Pioneer’s patents were invalid, because sexually reproducing plants were not patentable subject-matter within the scope of Section 101. In particular, Farm Advantage argued that the exclusive statutory means for the protection of plant life were set out in the Plant Patent Act 1930 ("PPA") and the Plant Variety Protection Act 1970 ("PVPA"): in effect, there was no residual discretion for the grant of plant patents under Section 101. Farm Advantage sought this restrictive ruling on the basis that the PVPA’s coverage is generally less extensive (for example, it allows exemptions for research and also for a farmer replanting farm saved seed) and also for the tactical reason that Pioneer had not obtained protection for the hybrid seed under the PVPA.

The District Court granted Pioneer summary judgment relying upon the broad construction of Section 101 in Diamond v. Chakrabarty3 in finding that Section 101 covered plant life and that in enacting the PPA and PVPA, Congress had not expressly or impliedly removed plants from Section 101’s ambit. In fact, it found that there was no conflict between the two statutes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this decision. Farm Advantage then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The majority decision of the Supreme Court referred to its previous decision in Chakrabarty that: "Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given broad scope" by casting the provisions in broad terms to fulfil the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting the progress of science, and the associated social and economic benefits envisaged by Jefferson. The Supreme Court had in its earlier decision found nothing in the PPA or PVPA to limit the application of Section 101 to living things. Similarly, the fact that Congress could not have foreseen genetic engineering did not mean that the wide language of the provision could not embrace living things, without the need for further express authorisation from Congress.

The Supreme Court then went on to examine the relevant sections of the PPA and PVPA. It saw no reason why these various forms of protection for plants should not co-exist.

The PPA4 expressly allows protection for the asexual reproduction of a variety of plant (i.e. a clone produced, such as by grafting, budding or the like)5. Less stringent requirements are provided than for Section 101 utility patents, in that no plant patent can be declared invalid on the basis of non-compliance with the section, provided the description is made as complete as reasonably possible. The Supreme Court concluded its analysis by finding that nowhere did it state that plant patents are the exclusive means of granting intellectual property protection to plants.

In 1970, Congress expressly authorised limited patent-like protection for certain sexually reproduced plants under the PVPA6. Akin to UK The Plant Varieties Act 1997 (and driven by UPOV7) a plant variety certificate will be granted if the variety is new, distinct, uniform and stable (as opposed to the higher hurdles required for a utility patent of being useful and non-obvious). The PVPA is also subject to exemptions (such as research). A utility patent for a plant requires the plant to be described with sufficient specificity to enable others to make use of the invention after the patent expires, including a deposit of biological material which is available to the public, whereas the PVPA merely requires the deposit of seed in a public depository.

Accordingly, Justice Clarence Thomas found for the majority that neither the PPA nor the PVPA limited the scope of Section 101 to protect newly developed plant breeds. The Supreme Court saw no reason to upset the unbroken practice of the US PTO in having issued some 1800 utility patents for plants over the last 20 years.

The European perspective - the EPO Novartis Decision8

In 19959, the Technical Board of Appeal ("TBA") revoked the claims for individual plant varieties from a patent issued to Plant Genetics Systems BV of Belgium for the production of a herbicide-resistant plant on the grounds that the EU already had a system for protecting plant varieties (by granting Community plant breeders’ rights10) and the effect of Article 53(b)11 of the European Patent Convention ("EPC") was to prohibit the grant of patents on plant varieties. This decision appeared to conflict with the decision of the TBA in the earlier Oncomouse12 case where a literal interpretation of Article 53(b) allowed the TBA to uphold claims provided they did not claim protection for specific animal or plant varieties.

In the Novartis13 case, the Technical Board referred several questions to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning claims in European Patent EP0448511, relating to certain plant varieties that were the result of a process to create transgenic plants by the insertion of the genes for lytic peptides and other hydrolytic enzymes in order to confer a pathogen resistant phenotype on the resultant organisms.

The main question considered by the Enlarged Board in case G01/98 was whether or not Article 53(b) EPC prohibited the protection of plant varieties through the patent system (and therefore whether the correct and only intellectual property right with which to protect plant varieties was the plant variety right).

The Enlarged Board commented that they thought it would be an odd anomaly, and a concept alien to patent law in general, if the application of the EPC were to prevent the patenting of specific embodiments of an invention (i.e. individual plant varieties), whilst allowing a broad claim to plants, the scope of which would include many such varieties. The Enlarged Board charted the development of Article 53(b) EPC through its drafting stages and concluded that its aim corresponded to that of Article 2(b) of the Strasbourg Convention14. The reason that the drafting of the two Articles differed was that the EPC draftsmen were working within in the constraints of the old UPOV ban on dual protection of plant varieties (which was abandoned in UPOV 1991), the desire to unify patent law throughout the EPC contracting states and the varying availability of plant variety right protection in the various EPC contracting states.

Significantly, between the time that the TBA in Novartis referred its questions to the Enlarged Board, and the Enlarged Board’s decision in G01/98, the EC adopted the EC Biotechnology Directive15. This Directive expressly allowed for the patenting of inventions concerning animal and plant life (Article 4) and the products of inventions concerning procedures, by which novel animals and plants (e.g. GE organisms) could be created (Articles 8 and 9). The Appellant in these proceedings (Novartis), naturally, submitted that the interpretation of the EPC (and, in particular, Article 53(b)) should be brought into line with this Directive.

The Enlarged Board ruled that a plant variety produced by genetic modification was a plant variety for the purposes of Article 53(b) and ultimately came to the conclusion that true purpose of Article 53(b) EPC was to define the partition between plant variety right protection and the patent system, i.e. a plant variety that qualified for plant variety right protection could not be patented, although if such a plant variety were an embodiment of a patentable invention, then the plant variety was also protected via the patent.

Therefore, the present position in Europe is that, a plant variety, or a group of plants that could be defined as a variety, cannot form the subject matter of a patent application no matter how they are generated, but can be patent protected if they are embodiments of inventions that independently qualify for patent protection.

Indeed, there is recognition of this overlap in Europe between patents and plant variety rights in Article 12 of the EC Biotechnology Directive (ante). That article provides for compulsory licensing of plant breeders’ rights and patent rights where the existence of one right hinders the acquisition or exploitation of the other right. Implementation of that objective is to be achieved in each Member State via a new regulatory framework for compulsory licences and cross-licences between holders of patents and plant breeders’ rights. In the UK, for example, implementation will be by means of the Patents and Plant Variety Rights Compulsory Licensing Regulations 2002, intended (at the time of writing) to take effect from 28 February 200216.

EU/US Dialogue

The joint EU/US Biotechnology Consultative Forum was launched at the Quelez Summit in May 2000 and delivered its report to the following EU/US Summit in Washington in December of that year17.

The report centred on suggestions for improvements in the regulation of the introduction of genetically modified crops. It also addressed the issue of how better to accommodate the concerns of the consumer, whilst satisfying the need to increase yields in general to feed a rising world population and alleviate the poverty suffered by millions in the world at present. The report recognised the concern that was felt in a number of quarters concerning the application of the patents system to the protection of plant varieties (both directly in the USA and indirectly in the EU as embodiments of patentable biotechnological inventions) and the potential conflict that exists between offering sufficient reward to the inventor or researcher by the grant of intellectual property rights and, what is seen by some as, the erosion of food security for the world’s poor.

The report made three recommendations and suggested a global dialogue be established concerning the creation of a new regime that could sufficiently reward inventors, whilst maintaining food security in poorer areas of the world. Those recommendations included:

  1. the protection of the farmer and research privileges;
  2. the rewarding of traditional or indigenous medical/agricultural knowledge utilised in any inventions; and
  3. the provision of incentives in developed countries for private companies to engage in research beneficial to developing countries.

The report is still under consideration by the European Commission and the recent Goteborg Conference suggested that areas are being identified in the report upon which are EU and US parties wish to work further.

Commercial, consumer and public perspectives

The large agri-bio companies face a dilemma in exploiting the advent of new GE plants in the global arena. Whilst the US permits agri-bio companies to file for (and obtain) patent protection for newly-developed hybrid or inbred plants or GE cell lines for introduction into conventionally-bred plant varieties, the position in Europe remains confused.

Similarly, whilst the US regulatory authorities have backed the wholescale introduction and commercialisation of GE crops, the regulatory authorities in the EU remain nervous in the face of considerable public opposition and consumer indifference as to the benefits which GE crops have to offer. In the UK, whilst the Government in partnership with industry (SCIMAC18) nears the end of the program for limited farm-scale plantings of certain GE crops, it is unclear whether the moratorium on the commercialisation of GE crops will be lifted. The "log-jam" of applications caught up in the EU regulatory approval process under Directive 90/220/EC and its successor, Directive 2001/18/EC for a Part C marketing consent has caused many agri-bio players to pause and think whether further investment in GE plants is warranted.

On the global stage, relations between large US agri-bio players and the developing world remain strained. In 1999, Larry Proctor obtained a US patent19 for an Enola bean described as: "a new field bean variety that produces distinctly coloured yellow-seed which remain relatively unchanged by season". It is reported that Mr. Proctor (through his seed company) then demanded royalties upon the import of all Mexican beans into the US. Such was the outrage by Mexican bean farmers, that the Mexican Government announced that it would contest the grant of the US patent. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has sought re-examination of the patent on the basis that it lacks novelty and obviousness, the subject-matter being, it is claimed, merely derived from material of the native dry bean imported from Mexico20. CIAT holds the germplasm for over 27,000 samples of dry bean seed in its genebank as part of efforts to safeguard resources for the world’s farming community and to preserve biodiversity.

The developing nations regard such attempts to patent material, of crops they see as part of their cultural heritage, as "biopiracy"21. A similar outcry occurred last year in relation to the registration by US company RiceTech, Inc. of JASMATI as a US trade mark for a Texas-grown version of jasmine rice from Thailand. RiceTech, Inc. also obtained US patent protection in the form of a plant variety protection certificate under the PVPA. Although, the hybrid is in fact derived a cross of the American "della" and Italian "bertone" varieties, evidence has been produced that over half the US consumers bought Jasmati believing it to be a cross-breed of jasmine rice from Thailand and basmati rice from India/Pakistan. The Thai Government are reported as being extremely concerned at the potential damage to the Thai rice industry. Various legal moves have been made. Whilst this episode concerns the adoption of a name suggestive of a geographical indication, the depth of feeling is clear amongst developing countries which are heavily dependent upon farming communities for valuable export revenue.

In practice, the issue of whether GE plants should be patentable and, therefore, whether growers should be required to pay a technology licence fee for access to the new generation of crops is linked to the public’s perceived suspicion of GE plants and the technology in general. The other side of the equation is that without investigating the advances in food production, which biotechnology could bring, poverty and malnutrition can only increase as the global population swells. These issues should not be lost in the sensationalised media coverage of this area: there is a continued need for sensible, informed debate upon these issues drawing together the views of industry, consumers, environmental organisations and the governmental authorities.

What is clear is that there are still some large policy decisions for the EU Commission and Member States to address in order to clarify the position on patenting plant life (and, indeed, other forms of biotechnology). As with many things, this side of the transatlantic pond continues to be fringed with "weed" whilst the shore appears clearer in the US.

This article was first published in European Intellectual Property Review in June 2002.

1 J.E.M. AG Supply, Inc., dba Farm Advantage, Inc. et al v. Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, 10 December 2001, No. 99-1996, reported at

2 Section 101 (inventions patentable) provides that: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

3 447 U.S. 303. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property not possessed by naturally occurring bacteria. The Patent Office refused protection (and that decision was upheld by the Board of Appeals) on the basis that living things are not patentable within Section 101. In 1980, the US Supreme Court held that a live, human-made micro-organism was patentable as it constituted a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the Statute. A broad construction of Section 101 was consistent with the enactment by Congress.

4 The PPA amended the general utility patent provision, Rev. Stat. §4886, to provide that: "Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, or who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced any distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber-propagated plant, not known or used by others in this country, before his invention or discovery thereof, … may … obtain a patent therefor." Act of May 23, 1930, §1, 46 Stat. 376.

5 Further information can be found at

6 "The breeder of any sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant variety (other than fungi or bacteria) who has so reproduced the variety … ." 7 U.S.C. 2402(a).

7 The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva 1991.

8 Decision G01/98 20.12.1999 (OJ EPO 3/2000 pp 111-171).

9 T 356/93 Plant cells/Plant Genetics Systems OJ EPO 1995, 354.

10 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1.9.94 No L227/1).

11 Article 53(b) EPC reads: "European 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."

12 T19/90 Oncomouse/Harvard, OJ EPO, 1990, 476.

13 T 1054/96 Transgenic Plant/Novartis, OJ EPO, 1998 511.

14 Strasbourg Patent Convention 1963

15 Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

16 On writing this article, the Working Draft of these regulations could be found at

17 The text of the report can be found at

18 The Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops – a cross-industry grouping in the UK.

19 US Patent No. 5,894,079 which can be located on the US PTO’s website at

20 For more information, please refer to the Rural Advancement Foundation International at

21 For further information, please see "Intellectual Property Rights and Food Security" by Michael Blakeney, [2000/2001] 3 BSLR 1

© Herbert Smith 2002

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.