We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Your Basket
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

EU Court of Justice settles debate about patentability of inventions using parthenotes

Sidley Austin LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

European Union December 22 2014

On December 18, 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU (Court) opened the door for more stem cell patents by fine-tuning its definition of a “human embryo” (Case C-364/13, availablehere). The Court ruled that an unfertilized human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis (i.e., without paternal DNA) does not constitute a human embryo if it does not have the inherent capacity, in itself, of developing into a human being.

The interpretation of the concept “human embryo” is pivotal for the patentability of inventions using human ova, because Article 6(2)(c) of the Biotechnology Directive 98/44/EC stipulates that an invention for which a human embryo was used is not patentable, since such an invention would breach ordre public and morality.

In 2011, the Court’s landmark judgment in Brüstle v Greenpeace (available here) defined a human embryo broadly as cells having the capability to commence the process of development of a human being. Based on that judgment, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) refused two patent applications for the production of pluripotent stem cells from parthenotes. The applicant, however, argued that no embryos were involved, since the parthenotes used could not develop into a human being due to the absence of paternal DNA.

The Court has now established that the decisive factor of what constitutes an embryo is theinherent capacity of developing into a human being. By adding the term “inherent”, the Court accepts patentability for inventions using parthenotes which, in themselves, would never be able to develop into a human being, unlike defected fertilized ova which do have such inherent capacity.

While this decision is a breakthrough in many ways, it does not guarantee that patents will be granted for inventions using parthenotes. Member States retain a wide margin of discretion to refuse patents which, in their view, breach ordre public and morality.

Sidley Austin LLP - Maurits J.F. Lugard, Maarten Meulenbelt, Vincenzo Salvatore and Sarah Panis
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later

Filed under

  • European Union
  • Healthcare & Life Sciences
  • Litigation
  • Patents
  • Sidley Austin LLP

Tagged with

  • Patentability
  • Fertilisation
  • Embryo
  • Egg cell

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Hong Kong Issues EU Data Privacy Law Guidance on the upcoming GDPR *
  2. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Issues New Frequently Asked Questions on Customer Due Diligence Requirement *
  3. Court of Appeals sides with industry on definition of solid waste rule *
  4. Top Ten Data Protection and Privacy Issues to Watch in 2016 *
  5. Far-Reaching EU Consumer Class Action Proposal *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. European Union
  2. Healthcare & Life Sciences
  3. Litigation

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions: Patents

  1. Hungary
  2. France
  3. Indonesia
  4. More...
Ian Anderson
In-house Counsel
Legal Delivery, Support & Partners
What our clients say

"Lexology is a valuable, trustworthy and informative source for domestic and International legal developments within a business related framework. The newsfeeds deliver high quality summaries from leading experts in a user-friendly format. Keep up the good work, it's most appreciated!."

Back to Top
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2018 Globe Business Media Group