Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The Evolution of the CJEU’s Case Law on Stem Cell Patents : Context, Outcome and Implications of Case C‑364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation

Minssen, Timo LU and Nordberg, Ana LU orcid (2015) In NIR: Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2015(5). p.493-503
Abstract
In its judgment in International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents (ISCO) rendered on 18th December 2014, the CJEU qualified its’ earlier ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace (Brüstle) with regard to non-fertilised human ovums stimulated by parthenogenesis. The Court held that in order to constitute a ‘human embryo’ and thus to be unpatentable under the EU Biotechnology Directive, the stimulated ovum must have the “inherent capacity to develop into a human being”. In absence of further genetic manipulation this would typically exclude parthenotes, Hence the judgment establishes a significant limitation of the extremely broad interpretation of “human embryos” in Brüstle, where the CJEU held that parthenotes are covered by... (More)
In its judgment in International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents (ISCO) rendered on 18th December 2014, the CJEU qualified its’ earlier ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace (Brüstle) with regard to non-fertilised human ovums stimulated by parthenogenesis. The Court held that in order to constitute a ‘human embryo’ and thus to be unpatentable under the EU Biotechnology Directive, the stimulated ovum must have the “inherent capacity to develop into a human being”. In absence of further genetic manipulation this would typically exclude parthenotes, Hence the judgment establishes a significant limitation of the extremely broad interpretation of “human embryos” in Brüstle, where the CJEU held that parthenotes are covered by the term “human embryo’ since they were considered to be “capable of commencing the process of development of a human being”. The ISCO decision is to be welcomed since it provides a reasonable and ethically justifiable leeway for patenting. This offers much needed support to the commercial viability of cell therapy research in Europe. Yet, ISCO only applies to certain hESC cells, and further clarifications would be helpful with regard to other non-totipotent hESCs. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Faculty of Law, patents, stem cells, biotech, innovation, Medicinsk rätt
in
NIR: Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd
volume
2015
issue
5
pages
11 pages
publisher
Föreningen för Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd
ISSN
0027-6723
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
cbf60446-4891-44fb-b408-cc2a29b63b85
date added to LUP
2018-01-11 10:09:19
date last changed
2022-05-16 11:48:26
@article{cbf60446-4891-44fb-b408-cc2a29b63b85,
  abstract     = {{In its judgment in International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents (ISCO) rendered on 18th December 2014, the CJEU qualified its’ earlier ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace (Brüstle) with regard to non-fertilised human ovums stimulated by parthenogenesis. The Court held that in order to constitute a ‘human embryo’ and thus to be unpatentable under the EU Biotechnology Directive, the stimulated ovum must have the “inherent capacity to develop into a human being”. In absence of further genetic manipulation this would typically exclude parthenotes, Hence the judgment establishes a significant limitation of the extremely broad interpretation of “human embryos” in Brüstle, where the CJEU held that parthenotes are covered by the term “human embryo’ since they were considered to be “capable of commencing the process of development of a human being”. The ISCO decision is to be welcomed since it provides a reasonable and ethically justifiable leeway for patenting. This offers much needed support to the commercial viability of cell therapy research in Europe. Yet, ISCO only applies to certain hESC cells, and further clarifications would be helpful with regard to other non-totipotent hESCs.}},
  author       = {{Minssen, Timo and Nordberg, Ana}},
  issn         = {{0027-6723}},
  keywords     = {{Faculty of Law; patents; stem cells; biotech; innovation; Medicinsk rätt}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{493--503}},
  publisher    = {{Föreningen för Nordiskt Immateriellt Rättsskydd}},
  series       = {{NIR: Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd}},
  title        = {{The Evolution of the CJEU’s Case Law on Stem Cell Patents : Context, Outcome and Implications of Case C‑364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation}},
  volume       = {{2015}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}