By Julián Ricardo Díaz
September 8, 2026
Natural extracts are an important source of active agents that are widely used in a vast number of industries such as cosmetic, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, dietary supplements, etc. We encounter natural extracts in everyday use such as skincare and hair formulations, essential oils, feed supplements, etc. Therefore, given the commercial and technological importance of natural extracts in different industries, there is a need to protect innovations involving natural extracts by means of patents. However, ¿can natural extracts isolated from matter as found in nature be considered as patentable subject matter under Colombian patent law?
To answer this question, we first have to understand that matter as found in nature or naturally occurring substances is not patentable subject matter under Colombian patent law. Therefore, is the mere act of isolating an extract sufficient to constitute evidence of human intervention capable of transforming biological material into patentable subject matter?
Article 15(b) of Decision 486 establishes that biological material existing in nature, including material that may be isolated from nature, is not considered an invention. This is an important distinction since matter as found in nature is not even considered a patentability exception, rather, it falls outside the concept of an invention altogether. Our patent law establishes that biological material as found in nature is not an invention because it is not a product of the inventive activity of a human being since the steps of isolating, purifying and identification of biological material as found in nature does not constitute acts that involve inventive activity. At the same time, our patent law recognizes that biological material may become an invention when it is further modified through human intervention to achieve a technical effect. More particularly, when an inventor modifies biological material with the aim of solving a technical problem, the resulting subject matter may be considered an invention. Therefore, biological material as found in nature must first be transformed into an invention before considering further considerations regarding the compliance of patentability requirements.
In line with the above, what steps, changes or modifications are needed to transform a natural extract into an invention that solves a technical problem? To what extent does human intervention represent a substantial contribution to make matter as found in nature as an invention and therefore patentable subject matter? ¿Has the intervention resulted in something that is technically and patentably different from what exists in nature?
For instance, ¿does a skin cream incorporating a natural extract become patentable just because it is incorporated into a pharmaceutical vehicle or dosage form? To answer this, we also need to consider whether the intervention has resulted in a product or process with technical features that can be regarded as an invention and whether a technical problem has been solved. For instance, is a new and inventive formulation containing a natural extract patentable because the formulation produces a demonstrated technical effect?
A good example of how a natural extract was turned into an invention and therefore patentable subject matter is a topical cosmetic composition comprising salicylic acid, a zinc salt of pyrrolidone carboxylic acid, and a Candida saitoana extract. In this case, we can observe that the formulation not only comprised the natural extract but it was also combined with another active agents and excipients to provide a topical formulation with the outstanding properties of removing the accumulation of impurities in cells, maintaining physiological pH, significant reduction of skin oiliness in the short and long term as well as the reduction in the size of skin pores. In this case, what we can observe is that the formulation distinguishes itself from that found in nature in that it is a topical formulation comprising other non-natural active agents as well as the presence of other excipients with unexpected effects resulting from said particular combination.
By contrast, a composition comprising a mixture of a blackcurrant extract; uncaria tomentosa extract; and oolong tea extract was denied because the formulation did not comprise additional non-natural active agents and excipients that demonstrated sufficient human intervention and that also lacked unexpected effects beyond the properties natural to the extracts themselves. We can therefore observe that simply combining natural extracts into a composition does not necessarily result in an invention involving significant human intervention. There must be a sufficient human contribution to transform biological material as found in nature into a technical solution that may qualify as an invention and potentially meet the applicable patentability requirements.
In conclusion, what we can learn from the above cases is that natural extracts may become patentable subject matter as long as the extracts are combined with other non-natural active compounds and excipients that provide unexpected effects that go beyond those that are inherent to the extracts themselves. Therefore, discovering or merely isolating biological material as found in nature is not the same as creating a technical solution using that material. This approach is also consistent with Colombian patent law, which recognizes that biological material may be considered an invention when it has been further modified through human intervention to solve a technical problem.
