7 December 2017
Authored and Edited by Hazel Ford, Ph.D.; Martin D. Hyden
There is currently a significant divergence in practice between Europe and the United States when considering the patentability of naturally-occurring products. Since the Myriad decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the USPTO has started to reject claims directed to naturally-occurring products under 35 USC §101. In the European Patent Office (EPO), such objections do not generally arise.
The EPO’s position is that that merely finding a previously unrecognised substance occurring in nature is an unpatentable discovery. However, if that substance can be shown to produce a technical effect, then the naturally-occurring substance may be patentable (EPO Guidelines for Examination G-II, 3.1).
This ability to patent natural products derives from the rules of the European Patent Convention (EPC), which explicitly state that biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process can be patented, even if it has previously occurred in nature (Rule 27(a) EPC). Similarly, although the human body itself cannot be patented at the EPO, elements isolated from the human body, including gene sequences, can form patentable inventions, even if they are structurally identical to a natural element (Rule 29(1) and (2) EPC).
In order to obtain a patent at the EPO to a product that occurs in nature, the claim must specify that the product is isolated from its natural environment, or it must make it clear that the product as claimed was produced by a non-natural process.
In addition, in order to be considered patentable at the EPO, the patent application must identify some kind of technical effect or purpose for the natural product. That effect must be disclosed in the patent application, but does not need to be specified in the claim (and preferably should not be specified in the claim unless needed to address some other provision of the EPC). For example:
This requirement is set out more specifically in relation to nucleic acid sequences. A nucleic acid sequence is not considered patentable if the patent application gives no indication of its function (Rule 29(3) EPC). This means that claims based on ESTs or other uncharacterised sequences are unlikely to be allowed under the EPC. However, if the application shows that a sequence encodes a useful protein, or part of such a protein, then a claim to that nucleic acid sequence may be patentable, even if it occurs in nature. Similarly, claims to vectors or plasmids containing that sequence, or to cells capable of expressing the sequence may be patentable, again even if they exist in nature. If the application shows that a nucleic acid sequence has another useful function, for example activity as a transcription promoter or enhancer, then a claim to that nucleic acid sequence, or to products comprising that sequence, may be patentable.
Contrary to current practice at the USPTO, newly-discovered natural products may therefore still be patented in the EPO, as long as the patent application makes it clear that they have a utility. The EPO’s position is consistent with the European Union (EU) Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. That Directive is binding on the EPO member states that are also EU member states and should therefore also be reflected in the national patent laws of those states. EPO member states that are not members of the EU may or may not follow this directive.
For more information on patent eligible subject matter in the United States and Europe, please see our webinar on Drafting the “Global” Patent Application.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., European Patent Office (EPO), natural products, patent-eligible, patentability
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.