Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 6816 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM Szonja Csörgo of the European Seed Association states that ESA’s position is that products obtained by essentially biological processes should not be patentable. “We are convinced that this was never the intention of the legislator and such a situation would also make the exclusion of essentially biological processes meaningless,” she says. “At the same time, we hold that patent protection should remain available for technical inventions, such as plants obtained by a process not based on crossing and selection. ESA has argued for this position in the Commission Expert Group in the past two-and-a-half years and hopes that the clarifying notice of the Commission will bring the necessary clarifications since an opening of Directive 98/44 would not be a desired way of action.” Violeta Georgieva, legal and regulatory advisor for EuropaBio, adds: “EuropaBio is of the strong opinion that the Biotech Directive should not be opened, because it defines a stable and efficient harmonized patent framework which promotes research and innovation and has greatly improved technology transfer in the European Union throughout the whole spectrum of biotechnology, including healthcare and industrial applications.” Editor’s Note: It seems that ensuring that only high-quality patents are granted is paramount combined with a high level of transparency. The limited breeder’s exemption, licensing opportunities, the PINTO database and the efforts to raise the bar on patent quality are all solutions that take care of the different concerns. In previous articles in this magazine, I have argued that a strong and robust system of intellectual property rights remains crucial to deal with the huge challenges that we are faced with. With all the various solutions as mentioned above, it seems there is much less of a need to consider changes to the European patent system than a few years ago. It will now be necessary for the seed sector to follow the development process of this Clarifying Notice as carefully as possible and continue to provide input into the drafting process. There is no guarantee that the EU Commission will take any of industry’s opinions into account, but not continuing to reach out to the Commission is in my view not an option. The efforts of various actors on the seed sector side over the past few months to align messages have led to speaking with one voice against opening the Biotech Directive. Let us hope progress towards reinforcing market-led solutions to alleviate the concerns of breeders continues. Report from the Biotech Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering: https://ec.europa. eu/growth/industry/ intellectual-property/ patents/biotechnological- inventions_en Let us do the heavy-lifting! Agronomix Software Inc. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada Phone: 1-204-487-4245 Email: info@agronomix.com www.agronomix.com AGROBASE Cloud™ powered by Software for plant breeding and variety testing, used worldwide