G 0003/95 (Inadmissible referral) of 27.11.1995

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1995:G000395.19951127
Date of decision: 27 November 1995
Case number: G 0003/95
Application number: -
IPC class: -
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 665 KB)
-
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: -
Applicant name: -
Opponent name: -
Board: EBA
Headnote: 1. In Decision T 356/93 (OJ EPO 1995, 545) it was held that a claim defining genetically modified plants having a distinct, stable, herbicide-resistance genetic characteristic was not allowable under Article 53(b) EPC because the claimed genetic modification itself made the modified or transformed plant a "plant variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC.
2. This finding is not in conflict with the findings in either of Decisions T 49/83 (OJ EPO 1984, 112) or T 19/90 (OJ EPO 1990, 476).
3. Consequently, the referral of the question:
Does a claim which relates to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?"
to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 53(b)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 112(1)(b)
Keywords: Patentability of plant and animal varieties
No conflicting decisions
Inadmissible referral by the President of the EPO
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
G 0003/19
T 1054/96
T 0315/03

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g950003ex1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

10 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law