Patents

In July 2023, alongside its proposal to deregulate new genetic modification techniques (NGTs), the European Commission promised an assessment of the impact of patents on plant breeding. The report, produced by Technopolis and published in December 2025, highlights several problems related to patents. These problems will not be resolved by the non-binding measures adopted by the Council of the European Union in April 2026. Do the European authorities really only listen to the voice of industry, even if it means ignoring the reports they commission?

In late April 2026, the French government supported the deregulation of GMOs produced using new techniques of genetic modification (GMO/NGT). A month earlier, however, the French Embassy in the United States had sent the government a memo detailing the situation in that country. Despite more than 140 marketing authorisations, only a few GMO/NGT are actually on the market there… but with significant patent-related issues. The situation described bears no resemblance to the promises made by multinational corporations or the European Commission.

As the European Parliament’s plenary vote on the deregulation of GMOs produced by new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) approaches, the issue of patents remains a key point of contention. Against this backdrop, the German delegation of the European People’s Party (EPP) has called on the European Commission. It is asking the Commission to show willingness to review Directive 98/44 on “biotechnological inventions” to ensure free access to genetic resources and prevent them from being controlled by major seed companies.

At a “Seed Sector Meeting” in February 2026, the representative of the French Ministry of Agriculture defended the proposed deregulation of numerous GMOs. However, his remarks primarily revealed tensions, misunderstandings and disagreements within the French administration regarding the issue of patents… a subject that is nonetheless central to the future of plant breeding!

Digital sequence information (DSI) has long been a source of tension between countries in the “Global North” and the ”Global South”. The latter provides the majority of the physical genetic resources containing this DSI, whilst the North, thanks to its bioinformatics capabilities, carries out most of the exploitation and financial capitalisation of this information. Thus, by linking biological functions to digitised genetic sequences, the North files numerous patent applications and captures the lion’s share of the profits, in violation of international conventions and treaties. In an attempt to legalise this new form of biopiracy, a pledge to share these benefits equitably – the Cali Fund – was formalised in 2024. It remains, however, ineffective, failing to address a major injustice.

In the field of life sciences, the scope of a patent depends not only on the invention described, but also on the way it is claimed and the legal framework governing its protection. Drafting strategy, functional claims, homology percentages… these are all tools that can considerably broaden the scope of the initial “invention”. In the context of genetic sequences and digital data associated with living organisms, these mechanisms are now of particular importance.

A patent confers the right to prevent third parties from exploiting an invention. Whilst historically it applied to specific technical objects and/or the processes for obtaining them, its extension to living organisms – and subsequently to genetic information – has transformed its scope. Between the broadening of claims, mechanisms for extending protection and growing legal uncertainties, patents now represent a threat from the biotechnology industry to fundamental economic and societal issues, particularly food sovereignty.

A dispute over patent rights to Crispr/Cas9 has been ongoing for several years between its main discoverers, universities and research institutes. To date, the outcome of this dispute and its impact on the Crispr/Cas9 economy remain unpredictable. Added to this is an ongoing dispute over Crispr applications between the parties to the main dispute and companies. Despite this, the widespread use of this tool for modifying living organisms, and the associated health, environmental and socio-economic consequences, seem inevitable.

While the deregulation of GMOs obtained through new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) is currently under review, the issue of patents continues to provoke contrasting positions within European agricultural organisations. In this context, the position of the Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), Germany’s main agricultural union, is particularly noteworthy. While in favour of the use of these NGTs, it nevertheless warns of the risks associated with patents. This is an original position among European agricultural organisations.

A proposal for a directive made by the European Commission on 16 December 2025 calls on Member States and the European Parliament to deregulate the marketing of genetically modified bacteria, yeasts, viruses and other micro-organisms, including transgenics. According to the Commission, the aim would be to allow companies to market these GMO microorganisms (GMMs) under lighter or even no rules. This would involve an “adapted” health and environmental risk assessment, an end to traceability, an end to environmental monitoring… Following the plants, the deregulation of GMOs is therefore continuing, this time with microorganisms, with perhaps the animals next in line in 2026.

On 19 December 2025, in a still provisional text, the Council of the European Union maintained the patentability of GMOs derived from new genetic techniques (NGT). To this end, it relied on existing law and called for voluntary, but non-binding, commitments, without taking into account the impact on farmers and small seed producers. This text still needs to be validated, amended or rejected by the European Parliament, which had voted against these patents in 2024 and will have to take a position in 2026 without being able to propose new amendments.

While the European Commission is attempting to deregulate new genome modification techniques (NGT), the US company Pairwise is multiplying its “partnerships” combining the Crispr/Cas tool and its Fulcrum platform. Concluded with both private and public players, these agreements anticipate the landscape following the potential deregulation of NGT. They will also influence the conditions for the dissemination of NGT and the arrival of “Pairwise-type” products on our plates.