The Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in the Brüstle case has worrying implications for some stem cell patents. Andy Sanderson looks at the landscape across Europe.
Embryonic tissue is currently the only source of totipotent stem cells (stem cells capable of differentiating into any other cell type of the body).
Hence, the finding in Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision C-34/10 (commonly referred to as the Brüstle decision) that inventions are excluded from patentability in the EU if their technical teaching: “...requires the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material, whatever the stage at which that takes place and even if the description of the technical teaching claimed does not refer to the use of human embryos” has worrying implications for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) patents.
Decision of the German courts
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Brüstle, stem cell patents, CJEU, German Federal Court of Justice