b'GIANT VIEWSTHE FUTURE OF IP IN THE REGULATION OF NGTSwhen the European Parliament proposedin Europe. The exemption, which applies a patent ban for NGTs, but that proposalto the use of a patented invention during was rejected. Even so, patents will remainunderlying breeding activities but not com-in focus. A patenting expert group will bemercialisation, appears in the Agreement established to review the effect of patents onon a Unified Patent Court, as well as the NGT plants, with experts from all Membernational laws of many countries, includ-States, the European Patent Office, and theing France, Germany, Switzerland, the Community Plant Variety Office. Finally,Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Italy, the Commission will publish another studyPoland, and Sweden. on the impact of patenting on innovation,Meanwhile,thefullbreeders on the availability of seeds to farmers andexemption for PVRs is not as fulsome as on the competitiveness of the EU plantit used to be, after UPOV 1991 introduced breeding sector within one year after thethe concept of essentially derived varieties entry into force of the regulation. If the(EDVs). If a new variety is deemed to be By: Jocelyn Bosse study identifies any issues, the Commissionan EDV, its commercialisation will require will then indicate what follow-up measuresauthorisation from the owner of the initial are needed or publish a legislative proposalvariety. The EDV definition contains many T here was a wave of relief with theto address those issues. terms that are ambiguous and difficult to announcement that the EU hadapply, so UPOV has sought to provide finally reached provisional agree- THE NEED FOR FAIRERclarity through Explanatory Notes that ment on a new regulation for New GenomicCOMPARISONS WITH PLANTwere informed by the views of breeders. Techniques (NGTs) in plant breeding.VARIETY RIGHTS However, these Explanatory Notes are not The full text is still under negotiation, butWhile the European Commission continuesbinding. Therefore, it will be interesting to the key features are clear. NGT plants into scrutinise the role of patents in the plantsee how the EDV concept is interpreted Category 1 will be considered equivalentbreeding and seed sectors, it is importantby national courts, especially since we are to natural or conventionally bred plantsto tackle some misconceptions that haveseeing litigation on this topic, such as the and will not be subject to the more onerousshaped the policy debate. The discussionongoing case about the Nadorcott man-requirement of the GMO regulation.about intellectual property has relied on adarin variety before the Patents Court of simplified comparison between patents asEngland and Wales.PATENTS UNDER THEstrong protection and plant variety rights MICROSCOPE (PVRs) as weak protection. Patents areMOVING FORWARDThe agreed has some key implications forseen to offer more exclusivity, but this hasThe final text of the NGT Regulation is intellectual property rights. To register analso generated controversy for hinderingyet to be published, but when it enters into NGT1 plant, the breeder or company willaccess to technology and increasing the con- force, the scrutiny of the patent system will be required to submit information on allcentration of corporate control. PVRs arecontinue. The work of the patenting expert existing or pending patents, which will beseen to offer narrower protection because ofgroup and the Commissions study on the made available in a public database. This istheir limited subject matter and generousimpact of patenting must be informed by a designed to address the serious concernsexemptions for breeders and farmers.fair comparison between patents and PVRs, about transparency and freedom to operateThe European Parliament latched ontoas well as the interplay between them. As for competitors, but in practice, it could bethese differences to justify its patent ban.we examine the role of the IP system in very difficult to navigate this obligation.Since PVRs offer a full breeders exemp- addressing important concerns like the bio-Experts have already voiced concerns thattionextending to both underlying breed- diversity crisis and food security challenges, this requirementespecially the referenceing activities and the commercialisation ofsuch issues must be approached with a fair to pending patentscould cause confusionthe new varietythe Parliament said thatand up-to-date understanding of the scope or even conflict with other measures. ThePVRs should be the only form of intellec- of protection and the role of the breeders regulation will also encourage voluntarytual property available for NGT plants. Thisexemption under both patent and PVR disclosure of the patent holders intentionlogic seems to ignore the legal developmentslaws.to licence the use of a patented NGT1 plantin PVR and patent law over the last few or product, under equitable conditions. decades.Editors Note: Jocelyn Bosse is Lecturer in Patents have been a key concernIn patent law, we have seen broadIntellectual Property Law at the Queens during the NGT debate. This was obviousuptake of a limited breeders exemptionUniversity in Belfast, Northern Ireland.40ISEED WORLD EUROPEISEEDWORLD.COM/EUROPE | FEBRUARY 2026'