Plant breeding IP is becoming central to Europe’s seed innovation debate. This article explains how plant breeders’ rights, patents, licensing platforms and transparency tools can support both investment incentives and practical access to breeding material.
The post Seed Sector 2045: Why Plant Breeding IP Matters for Europe’s Future appeared first on Seed World.
How plant breeders’ rights, patents, licensing platforms and patent transparency will shape seed innovation in Europe.
In my experience, few topics in the seed sector create more debate than intellectual property. The words patents, plant breeders’ rights, licensing and freedom to operate are often pulled into one emotional discussion, even though they refer to different legal tools, distinct rights, arrangements and concepts, with different purposes. That confusion matters, because the future of plant breeding will depend on whether Europe can protect innovation while maintaining practical access to breeding material.
The next two decades will ask more from plant breeding than any previous period. Varieties will need to contribute to climate adaptation, lower-input production, disease resistance, resource efficiency, food security and more resilient farming systems. None of that comes for free. It requires long-term research, high-risk investment, skilled people, access to genetic diversity and clear rules that allow innovators to recover part of what they invest.
The central question is not whether the seed sector should choose between plant breeders’ rights and patents. Different innovations require different forms of protection. Plant breeders’ rights protect the investment and innovation embodied in a new variety, while patents protect genuine technical inventions, including innovative traits that may be used across different varieties. Neither system can replace the other. A future-ready seed sector therefore needs both, alongside practical licensing and transparency mechanisms that keep access workable.
Different Innovations Need Different Protection
One reason the IP debate becomes heated is that different concepts are often mixed together. Plant variety protection, patents, trade secrets, contracts, licensing platforms, data rights and regulatory approvals are not the same thing. They serve different functions and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Plant breeders’ rights, or PBR, are designed to protect new plant varieties as such. In Europe, the Community Plant Variety Rights system provides a single EU-wide title, administered through the CPVO. To qualify for protection, a variety must be new, distinct, uniform and stable, and meet the applicable denomination requirements. The system also includes the breeder’s exemption as a central access mechanism: a protected variety may be used for breeding, or for discovering and developing other varieties, and an independently developed new variety may generally be commercialised without the permission of the holder of the original PBR, subject notably to the rules on essentially derived varieties.
Patents serve a different, but complementary, purpose. They protect technical inventions rather than plant varieties as such. Under the European patent system, an invention must meet requirements including novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, together with the applicable disclosure requirements. Importantly, plant varieties as such cannot be patented, and essentially biological processes for producing plants are also excluded from patentability. Patent protection may, however, apply to genuine technical inventions such as certain traits, enabling technologies, methods or biotechnological inventions.
Protection and Access Must Work Together
Protection does not mean that breeding material necessarily becomes inaccessible. The PBR system has long combined protection with access through the breeder’s exemption, allowing protected varieties to remain available as starting material for further breeding. European patent frameworks also increasingly provide a limited breeder’s exemption. Article 27(c) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provides that patent rights do not extend to the use of biological material for breeding, or for discovering and developing other plant varieties. This allows breeders to use legally available plant material containing a patented invention in their breeding programmes.
The word “limited” is important. If the resulting variety no longer falls within the scope of the patent claims, it may be commercialised without the patent holder’s consent, provided other rights such as PBR or EDV dependency do not apply. But if the new variety still contains the patented invention and remains within the scope of the patent claims, commercialisation requires the patent holder’s consent, normally through a licence. This is the approach supported by both the International Seed Federation and Euroseeds: breeders should be able to use legally available varieties and other germplasm containing patented inventions as starting material for further breeding, allowing them to benefit from the wider genetic background while developing new varieties. To me, that is an important balance: access to the germplasm for further breeding, without removing protection from the technical invention itself.
This balance becomes particularly important in the NGT context. PBR protects a new variety as such but does not provide a standalone right over a technical trait across independently developed varieties. Where a technically created trait meets the legal criteria for patentability, patent protection can therefore complement PBR. Neither system can replace the other: one protects variety innovation, the other qualifying technical inventions. The goal is not patents everywhere, but protection where there is a genuine technical invention, combined with access mechanisms that allow further breeding and commercial use under workable conditions.
Facts Matter in the Patent Debate
I often hear the patent debate framed as if patents are taking over the seed sector. The available European data tell a rather different story. The relevant question is not how many patent applications exist, but how many are granted, what they cover and how often commercial varieties actually contain patented traits.
Not every patent application becomes a granted patent. Like patents in all sectors, plant-related patent applications must pass substantive examination. Under the European patent system, plant varieties as such, essentially biological processes for producing plants, and plants exclusively obtained by such processes are excluded from patentability. Claims that are eligible for patent protection must still satisfy the usual requirements, including novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficient disclosure.
That examination is a meaningful filter. The ALTIUS-coordinated report, Report on the Intellectual Property Framework of Plant-Related Inventions Obtained by NGTs, prepared with De Clercq & Partners and Acutifolius, found that only around 30% of the European applications in the analysed dataset with claims relevant to NGT plants had resulted in granted patents at the time of the analysis, with some applications still pending. This compares with the EPO’s general estimate that around 60% of European patent applications across all technical fields ultimately lead to grant.
Plant-related inventions must meet the same core patentability requirements as inventions in other technological fields, while also navigating additional plant-specific exclusions and limitations. Whether a grant level of roughly half the EPO-wide average represents the right balance is a legitimate question in itself. What the figures do make clear, however, is that plant-related patent applications are subject to substantial examination and that patents in this field are certainly not granted lightly.
The analysis summarised in The IP Puzzle of NGTs in Europe gives useful numbers. Across the crops analysed, as of 2024, varieties containing patented traits represented an estimated 2.9% to 4.0% of registered varieties by number. Put differently, even using the upper estimate, at least 96% of registered varieties in the crops analysed did not contain patented traits and were therefore not subject to any patent restrictions linked to such traits.
When weighted by crop production value, the estimate was even lower: 1.6% to 2.1% of the total value analysed.
Those figures do not mean patent questions are unimportant. They do mean the discussion should be evidence-based. Patents on plant-related inventions exist, and they matter where specific technical inventions are involved, but the data do not support the idea that patents dominate the European variety landscape.
CPVR Is Important, But Not Universal
A similar clarification is needed for plant breeders’ rights. PBR is the core IP tool for protecting new plant varieties, but CPVR protection is far from universal across food crops. In the EUIPO/CPVO study on the impact of the Community Plant Variety Rights system, the shares of plant varieties protected by CPVRs were given as 25% for arable crops, 12% for fruit, 19% for vegetables and 97% for ornamentals.
Put differently, the large majority of food-crop varieties in those categories are outside EU-level CPVR protection: roughly 75% of arable varieties, 88% of fruit varieties and 81% of vegetable varieties are not protected by an EU PBR title.
That does not mean every one of those varieties is outside all legal frameworks. National PVRs, seed marketing rules, certification requirements, contracts or patents may still be relevant. But it is an important corrective to the perception that all varieties available to European farmers are locked behind CPVR protection. In many food crops, farmers and seed users operate in a mixed landscape of protected varieties, varieties whose protection has expired, varieties that were never protected, and varieties subject to other regulatory or commercial conditions.
To me, the fact that CPVR protection covers only part of the varietal landscape is not a weakness of the system. It is, in part, how a selective and time-limited IP right is designed to work. PBR gives breeders a period of protection for new varieties that meet the legal criteria, while other varieties may never have been protected and formerly protected varieties eventually fall outside the exclusive right when protection expires. At the same time, the breeder’s exemption ensures that protected varieties remain available for further breeding. The result is a dynamic system in which protection provides an incentive for new variety development, while breeder access, expired rights and non-protected varieties preserve a broad base for continued innovation and farmer choice.
CPVR Has Delivered Value for Europe
The same EUIPO/CPVO study also shows why effective variety protection matters. It estimated that, without the plant-breeding progress achieved between 1995 and 2019 in varieties with an EU-level PVR, EU production in 2020 would have been 6.4% lower for arable crops, 2.6% lower for fruit, 4.7% lower for vegetables and 15.1% lower for ornamentals. The study associated that breeding progress with around €13 billion in additional GDP contribution and almost 90,000 direct jobs, with much larger employment effects when upstream and downstream sectors are included.
The study also illustrates how broadly CPVR protection is used across the breeding community. SMEs and physical persons account for more than 90% of CPVR registrants and hold around 60% of all CPVRs currently in force. In the more detailed EU-based sample, they represented 93.5% of CPVR owners, held 60% of the CPVR stock, and held on average around 10 CPVRs each. These figures show that CPVR is used by a very diverse range of breeders, with considerable differences in portfolio size among right holders.
The environmental contribution is also relevant. The EUIPO/CPVO study used a counterfactual model to estimate what production and resource use would have looked like in 2020 without the plant-breeding progress achieved between 1995 and 2019 in varieties with an EU-level PVR. Lower yields would have required additional production and land use elsewhere in the world, with consequences for land conversion, greenhouse gas emissions and water use.
On that basis, the study estimated an annualised greenhouse gas effect equivalent to around 62 million tonnes of avoided emissions per year from breeding progress associated with varieties protected through the CPVR system. For water, the model found that higher EU production increased water use within Europe but reduced the need for production elsewhere: for arable crops alone, roughly 22 billion m³ of additional water use in the EU was more than offset by almost 36 billion m³ of avoided water use abroad, producing a net saving of nearly 14 billion m³.
These are modelled impacts rather than directly measured savings, but they illustrate an important point: effective variety protection is not only about legal certainty for breeders. By supporting continued breeding progress, it can form part of the innovation infrastructure behind productivity, resource efficiency and sustainability gains.
Numbers That Put the EU Debate in Perspective
Varieties containing patented traits in the EU patent analysis:
The ALTIUS coordinated analysis used varieties registered, or in application for registration, in the EU National Listings and Common Catalogue database as a proxy for commercially available varieties, with a separate limited approach for ornamentals. Across the crops analysed, varieties containing patented traits were estimated at 2.9% to 4.0% of registered varieties by number.
EU-registered varieties without patented traits in the analysed crops:
Even using the upper estimate, at least 96% of registered varieties in those analysed crops did not contain patented traits and were therefore not subject to patent restrictions linked to such traits.
EU production value represented by varieties containing patented traits:
When weighted by crop production value, varieties containing patented traits were estimated to represent 1.6% to 2.1% of the total value analysed.
EU-level CPVR-protected varieties by crop category:
In the joint EUIPO/CPVO study, Impact of the Community Plant Variety Rights System on the EU Economy and the Environment, the shares of plant varieties protected by CPVRs were estimated at 25% for arable crops, 12% for fruit, 19% for vegetables and 97% for ornamentals.
SMEs and EU CPVR ownership:
In the EUIPO/CPVO study, SMEs and individual right holders represented 93.5% of EU-based CPVR owners at the end of 2021 and held 60% of the rights, averaging around 10 rights each.
EU impact of CPVR-supported innovation:
The EUIPO/CPVO study associated breeding progress in varieties with EU-level PVRs with around €13 billion in additional GDP contribution and almost 90,000 direct jobs. It also estimated environmental gains equivalent to around 62 million tonnes of avoided annualised greenhouse gas emissions and more than 14 billion m³ in net water savings.
Access Is the Real Test
Strong IP systems do more than grant rights; they also make access workable. Part of that access is already built into the law through provisions such as the breeder’s exemption. But the seed sector has also developed its own practical tools to make access, transparency and licensing work better in the real world. These mechanisms become especially important for smaller breeders that may not have large internal IP teams.
In Europe, several tools already exist with regard to patents. The PINTO database improves transparency by linking commercial plant varieties to patent or patent-application information. The International Licensing Platform Vegetable provides a licensing route for patented traits in vegetable breeding. The Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP) has become an increasingly important mechanism for accessing patented traits in agricultural crops and has recently expanded to ornamental, fruit and forest crops.
These tools matter because they translate a general debate about patent access into practical mechanisms. They help breeders identify where patents may be relevant, make informed decisions when developing new varieties under a breeder’s exemption, request access, negotiate licences and continue breeding with greater legal certainty. Recent work on fair access to patented traits shows that the real challenge is not only whether IP rights exist, but whether they can be managed transparently and predictably.
I do not think we should brush these concerns aside. Freedom to operate, licensing costs and patent transparency are legitimate concerns, particularly in a sector with many small and medium-sized breeding companies. Given the role of well-functioning IP systems in supporting investment and innovation, it seems that these concerns are better addressed through transparency, licensing platforms, breeder’s exemptions and fair access mechanisms than through broad restrictions that could weaken incentives for technical inventions.
NGTs Changed the Debate, Not the Need for IP
The debate around new genomic techniques made IP unusually visible. During the legislative discussions, patents became a focal point for broader concerns about access, competition, corporate control and the future of breeding. Now that the EU has adopted a new NGT Regulation, the centre of gravity should shift from whether patents remain possible to how transparency, access and licensing will work in practice.
This is an important shift. The question is no longer whether Europe should have innovation or safeguards. It needs both. NGTs can contribute to climate adaptation, disease resistance and lower-input farming only if breeders and technology developers have enough confidence to invest, and if other breeders can identify and access relevant patented traits under workable conditions.
That is why transparency and licensing tools should be seen as part of the innovation framework, not as an afterthought. Europe has an opportunity to show that strong IP and practical access can coexist. If implemented well, the NGT framework can support both investment incentives and broader breeder access.
The seed sector now has an important opportunity to help shape the Union-level Code of Conduct foreseen under the NGT Regulation. Breeders, technology developers, licensing platforms and other actors in the sector have considerable practical experience to bring to that process. The seed sector will engage actively and constructively with the European Commission and other stakeholders, helping to develop solutions that strengthen transparency and confidence while preserving the incentives needed for continued innovation.
CPVR Evaluation Should Stay Focused
The ongoing evaluation of the Community Plant Variety Rights system is also highly relevant. The CPVR framework remains one of Europe’s most important innovation tools for plant breeding, because it provides a harmonised EU-wide title, legal certainty and a breeder’s exemption that supports further breeding. The evaluation is an opportunity to modernise and strengthen the system where needed.
That modernisation should focus on the CPVR system’s own objectives. Issues such as enforcement, farm-saved seed, provisional protection, EDVs, duration of protection, digitalisation and CPVO functioning all deserve careful attention.
Given the importance of a strong and predictable CPVR system for continued breeding investment, it seems to me that the evaluation should remain focused on improving the variety-protection system itself, rather than becoming a route for reopening broader patent-policy questions. Issues such as patentability, patent scope and patent exclusions are governed by a different set of legal principles and are better dealt with within patent law and the policy processes built around it. Mixing those questions into the CPVR evaluation could blur important distinctions between the two systems and risk turning a targeted review into a much longer and more complicated policy debate. Questions around transparency and access to patented traits can then be addressed through practical tools such as PINTO, ILP Vegetable and ACLP. Keeping those discussions in their appropriate frameworks should make it easier to improve both systems without creating unnecessary uncertainty for breeders and innovators.
How the IP Pieces Fit Together
Plant breeders’ rights protect varieties.
PBR, including the EU’s Community Plant Variety Rights system, protects new plant varieties that meet the legal criteria of novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability. The system includes the breeder’s exemption, allowing protected varieties to be used for further breeding. That makes PBR the central IP tool for cumulative variety innovation.
Patents protect technical inventions.
Patents do not protect plant varieties as such. They protect technical inventions that meet patentability criteria such as novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and sufficient disclosure. In plant breeding, this may include certain technical traits, methods, tools or biotechnological inventions that can be used across different varieties. The limited breeder’s exemption allows legally available germplasm containing a patented invention to be used for further breeding.
Transparency and licensing tools help connect protection with access.
PINTO helps breeders identify whether a commercial variety is linked to patent or patent-application information. ILP Vegetable and ACLP provide licensing routes for patented traits in different crop segments. These tools do not replace IP rights, but they help make freedom to operate, access and licensing more workable in practice.
Taken together, these elements show that the IP debate is not simply about protection versus access. It is about making sure that protection, transparency and licensing work together in practice.
Preparing for the Next Two Decades
For me, one lesson is clear: IP cannot remain the concern of legal departments alone. Breeders, commercial teams, regulatory experts and communications colleagues all need a basic understanding of how PBR, patents, licensing and freedom to operate fit together. As we have seen many times before, when the seed sector does not explain IP clearly, the debate can quickly be shaped by campaigning narratives, selective claims and sometimes outright misinformation.
The sector also needs to communicate more clearly that IP is not just about company rights. As the wider discussion around public trust and the social licence for plant breeding innovation shows, how innovation is explained matters as much as the technical framework around it. IP is ultimately about whether innovators are willing to disclose inventions, license technologies, enter partnerships and invest in long-term breeding.
Without predictable IP rules, more innovation may remain hidden as trade secrets, collaboration may become harder, and investment in difficult technical problems may become less attractive.
The future seed sector will need more innovation, not less. Climate change, shifting disease pressure, lower-input farming, biologicals, AI, data-driven breeding and NGTs all require investment and collaboration. As this series has already explored, the question of whether Europe remains competitive for plant breeding innovation depends on the wider environment in which breeders operate. A balanced IP system is therefore not a barrier to the future. It is part of the infrastructure that makes the future possible.
So, what does this mean for seed companies?
- Treat IP strategy as part of innovation strategy, not as a legal afterthought
- Explain clearly how PBR, patents, licensing platforms and transparency tools work together
- Use tools such as PINTO, ILP Vegetable and ACLP where relevant to support transparency, licensing and freedom to operate
- Engage in CPVR, NGT and patent-transparency discussions to keep frameworks balanced, evidence-based and workable
- Build internal IP literacy so commercial, regulatory and communications teams can explain PBR, patents, licensing and access with accuracy and consistency
For me, the question is no longer whether IP will shape the future of plant breeding. It is whether the seed sector can explain, manage and improve IP systems well enough to keep innovation moving.
The post Seed Sector 2045: Why Plant Breeding IP Matters for Europe’s Future appeared first on Seed World.