An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) are two decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which issued on 25 March 2015. The cases were consolidated and are contentwise identical. The cases concern the patentability of biological products through the description of the procedure for achieving that product (a product-by-process claim). The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products were patentable and not in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, which does not allow patents for "essentially biological" processes.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) are two decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which issued on 25 March 2015. The cases were consolidated and are contentwise identical. The cases concern the patentability of biological products through the description of the procedure for achieving that product (a product-by-process claim). The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products were patentable and not in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, which does not allow patents for "essentially biological" processes. The cases were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by decisions T 1242/06 (Tomatoes II, ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T124206.20120531) and T 0083/05 (Broccoli II, ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T008305.20070522) of Board 3.3.04. The referrals followed earlier referrals of the same Board of Appeal in the same case. Five years later, in 2020, the Enlarged Board of Appeal overturned in G 3/19 its previous decisions G 2/12 and G 2/13. Namely, it ruled in G 3/19 that "plants and animals exclusively obtained by essentially biological processes are not patentable". (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 50555767 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 5422 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1118016831 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:casenumber
  • G 2 /12 and G 2 /13 (en)
dbp:chamber
  • Enlarged Board of Appeal (en)
dbp:court
  • EBA (en)
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-03-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 2015 (xsd:integer)
dbp:ecli
  • ECLI:EP:BA:2015:G000212.20150325 (en)
dbp:fullname
  • State of Israel - Ministry of Agriculture v Unilever N.V. & Plant Bioscience Limited v Syngenta (en)
dbp:judge
  • I. Beckedorf (en)
  • U. Oswald (en)
  • C. Floyd (en)
  • GĂ©rard Weiss (en)
  • J. Riolo (en)
  • K. Garnett (en)
dbp:judgepresident
  • W. van der Eijk (en)
dbp:language
  • English (en)
dbp:ruling
  • The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53 EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material such as a fruit (en)
dbp:submitdate
  • 0001-05-31 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:submityear
  • 2012 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdfs:comment
  • G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) are two decisions by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which issued on 25 March 2015. The cases were consolidated and are contentwise identical. The cases concern the patentability of biological products through the description of the procedure for achieving that product (a product-by-process claim). The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that such products were patentable and not in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC, which does not allow patents for "essentially biological" processes. (en)
rdfs:label
  • G 2/12 and G 2/13 (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License