Art. 27 (c) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (AUPC) provides for a new type of exception to patent rights at European level: the breeder’s exception. This provision limits the effects of patent rights for “the use of biological material for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and developing other plant varieties”. The breeder’s exception has already been incorporated into the national patent laws of France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. When the AUPC enters into force, the exception will be mandatory for all of its contracting parties. This paper will explain the reasons for introducing the breeding exception into the patent system as well as its importance for academic and business purposes. It will also highlight how scientific developments influence legislation.


Breeder’s exception
Patent rights
Research exception
Plant breeding


Rights and Science / R&S
Vol. 0 (2017), Issue 0


ANDERSEN, B. & KONZELMANN, S. (2008). “In search of a useful theory of the productive potential of intellectual property rights”. Research Policy 37, 12-28.

CHRISTIE, A. F. (2011). “Maximising permissible exceptions to intellectual property rights”. In A. KUR & V. MIZARAS (eds.), The structure of intellectual property law: Can one size fit all?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 121-135.

CORREA, C. (2005). The international dimension of the research exception. Advancing Science, Serving Society. Available at http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/Correa_International%20Exception. pdf (accessed 12 June 2012), 10-16.

HARABI, N. (1996). Patents in theory and practice: Empirical results from Switzerland. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9606/ (accessed 15 March 2013).

KITCH, E. W. (1977). “The nature and the function of the patent system”. Journal of Law and Economics, 20 (2), 265-290.

KUR, A. (2011). “Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test – How much room to walk in the middle ground?”. In A. Kur & M. Levin (eds.). Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Proposals for Reform for TRIPS. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 239-240.

KUR, A. (2008). “Of Oceans, Islands, and Inland water – How much room for exceptions and limitations under the three step-test?” Max Planck Papers on Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research’. No. 08-04. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317707 (accessed 15 May 2013).

LEVIN, R. C., NELSON, R. R., WINTER, S. G. (1987). “Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development”. Brooking Papers Economic Activity, 3 (Special Issue on Microeconomics), 783-831.

MOSCHINI, G. C., & YEROKHIN, O. (2007). “The economic incentive to innovate in plants: Patents and plant Breeders rights”. In J. P. KESAN (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology and intellectual property: Seeds of change. CAB International, 190-203.

PRIFTI, V. (2015). The breeder’s exception to patent rights. Analysis of compliance with article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. Springer International, International Law & Economics series.

PRIFTI, V. (2013). “The breeding exemption in patent law: analysis of compliance with article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement”. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 16 (5-6), 218-239.

SCOTCHMER, S. (2004). Innovation and incentives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

SCOTCHMER, S. (1991). “Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law”. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1), 29-41.

TROJAN, C. G. (2012). Problem-solving approaches to the issue of the overlap between patent law and breeders’ rights in the plant breeding sector. Available at http://aiph.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/27428-236_engl_report_trojan.pdf (accessed 7 october 2017).

VAN EECKE, P., KELLY, J., BOLGER, P. & TRUYENS, M. (2009). Monitoring and analysis of technology transfer and intellectual property regimes and their use. Results of a study carried out on behalf of the European Commission (DG Research). Brussels-Dublin.

WÜRTENBERGER, G. (2006). “Questions on the law of evidence in plant variety infringement proceedings”. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 1 (7), 458-466.