Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40886724›Full record

ReviewGM crops & food2025

To patent or not to patent: challenges and solutions to the patent ban on new genomic techniques plant in EU.

Li Jiang, Mike Adcock, Hong Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GM crops & food, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Li JiangShanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-9094-0551
Mike AdcockSchool of Law, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Hong YangShanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0008-8824-6617

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Proposal for a new Regulation on plants produced by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) embraces the deregulation of NGT plants but introduces a patent ban on them. This move has generated significant legal uncertainties and has become the focal point of a broader debate over the patentability of NGT plants. In reviewing the rationale and challenges underlying the patent ban, this article argues that the abandonment of patents diverges from established expectations. Introducing a new complete patent ban is likely to lead to several adverse consequences, including challenges related to justification, implementation, and innovation. Instead of radically altering the NGT plant patent framework, more practical and balanced alternatives within existing patent system - such as the establishment of a patent-clearing platform, the adoption of a compulsory licensing model and the creation of a labeling and traceability system - may offer more effective solutions.

Indexed as

GenomicsPatents as TopicPlants, Genetically ModifiedEuropean UnionEUnew genomic techniquespatent banregulation

Identifiers

PMID40886724
PMCPMC12407908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.