SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case

    Published on 13 June 2012 @ 12:30 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Catherine Saez

    While the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office is reviewing the so-called “tomato case,” collateral questions are being raised about the consequences on plant innovation of the non-patentability of some processes.

    The EPO press release is here.

    The tomato case concerns a patent granted in November 2003 by the European Patent Office (EPO) to the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, and challenged later by the Unilever company on the grounds that the patent relates to an essentially biological process for the production of plants. The patent was maintained, but not in its entirety, and the EPO’s decision was appealed by the patent holder (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 8 February 2012).

    According to an EPO representative, the questions [pdf] sent to the Enlarged Board of Appeal seek to determine if a plant obtained with an essentially biological process, which is not patentable, would itself be patentable.

    Essentially biological processes are defined in Rule 23b (5) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as follows: “A process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomena such as crossing or selection.”

    The questions refer to Article 53(b) of the EPC on exceptions to patentability.

    The interim decision of 31 May [pdf], details the decision to forward the questions, and the points of law specifically raised. In November, Unilever made the request that the board refer additional questions of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, according to the decision document.

     

    Comments

    1. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth « www.olympia.gr says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    2. ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP – ONCE AGAIN MONSANTO VERSUS MOTHER EARTH | Radovi U Toku says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch)http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    3. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth | Bridgend Green Party says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    4. Can Mother | images on concrete words on paper says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    5. Власть над продовольствием — власть над Миром | Блог Федоренко Евгени says:

      [...] Вопросы патентования усложнились при рассмотрении европейским патентным ведомством дела по патенту на томаты (IP Watch, на английском) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    6. Avaaz petition rhetoric | Human/Nature says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    7. Concerned Garden Advocate says:

      http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/melon.html
      Q: What is the “melon patent” case about?
      A: “The patent relates to melon plants resistant to a virus – cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus (CYSDV) – that attacks melons, turning them yellow and reducing fruit yield. The plants are made resistant by the introduction of a gene from another melon plant by way of a conventional breeding method involving the use of a genetic marker (“marker-assisted breeding”). The gene which is responsible for the resistance was first found in a melon plant in India and catalogued in 1961. It has been publicly available since 1966.

      “The patent covers the modified plant, parts of the plant and its fruits and seeds, but not the breeding process for obtaining the plant.

      “The patent application was filed with the EPO on 21 December 2006 and the grant of the patent became effective on 4 May 2011. The patent is owned by Monsanto Invest B.V.”

    8. Haagsallerlei » Blog Archive » Over voedsel en Monsanto says:

      [...] De Tomaten Patent Zaak van het Europees Octrooibureau verdiept vragen over octrooien op planten (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    9. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth‏ | Time for Action says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    10. Monsanto is not just patenting corn, but tomatoes–you name it: STOP THEM OR SEIZE OWNERSHIP ! | Eslkevin's Blog says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch)http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    11. Adoptafarm – Monsanto and Co. are at it again. says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    12. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth | Bloggers unite says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    13. THIS ONE Monsanto vs. Mother Earth- Nadia | says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    14. Chciwe MONSANTO | Wszystko o miodzie i Pszczołach says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    15. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth | Welcome to my blog says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    16. Monsanto vs. Mother Earth | People's Union for Civil Liberties says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    17. Monsanto e outras empresas deram as caras novamente. | dornas2525 says:

      [...] Questões de patente de plantas aprofundam o caso de patentes EPO de tomate (em inglês) (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ Patente do tomate de volta antes do apelo da EPO (em inglês) (Europolitics) [...]

    18. EARTH PEOPLES Blog » Blog Archive » Monsanto vs Mãe Terra says:

      [...] Questões de patente de plantas aprofundam o caso de patentes EPO de tomate (em inglês) (IP Watch) [...]

    19. Monsanto versus Mother Earth | Vancouver Animal Rights Campaigns (VARK) says:

      [...] http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    20. April 12—-Monsanto V/S Mother Earth — AVAZZ Petition « bearspawprint says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ Tomato patent back before EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (Europolitics) [...]

    21. Monsanto and Co. are at it again | images on concrete words on paper says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    22. Настольный космос » Подпишите! says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    23. Did you know greedy biotech companies are trying to Patent common Vegetable & Fruit Seeds – Sign the Petition « Wyre Forest Labour Blog says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    24. Anonymous says:

      [...] [...]

    25. Stop Monsanto from patenting everyday fruit and veg - Around The Table With Karen says:

      [...] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ [...]

    26. EPO Still Granting Patents On Conventional Vegetables; ‘Just Following Rules’ | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] No patents on seeds said this case relates to pepper plants, such as chili, derived from conventional breeding and follows two precedent cases challenged at the EPO (for tomatoes and broccoli) for which decisions are still pending (IPW, IP-Watch briefs, 13 June 2012). [...]

    27. The Evil of Monsanto | The Poison Apple of the World says:

      […] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ […]

    28. What Should or Should not have a Patent on it | Adrienne Franklin's Blog says:

      […] http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ […]

    29. Avaaz Petition To Prevent Corporate Ownership Of Our Food | My Blog says:

      […] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ […]

    30. Stop Corporate Monopoly Of Our Food And Seeds Sign Avaaz Petition | My Blog says:

      […] Plant Patentability Questions Deepen In EPO Tomato Patent Case (IP Watch) http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/13/plant-patentability-questions-deepen-in-epo-tomato-patent-case/ […]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 107.20.37.62