header-logo header-logo

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cells not patentable

Totipotent cells, which carry within them the potential to evolve into complete human beings, are human embryos and therefore not patentable, according to an Advocate General’s Opinion.

Totipotent cells, which carry within them the potential to evolve into complete human beings, are human embryos and therefore not patentable, according to an Advocate General’s Opinion.

Neither can a procedure using other embryonic stem cells, known as pluripotent cells, be patented where it first requires the destruction or modification of the embryo, Advocate General Yves Bot said.

Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (C-34/10) concerned a patent held by Mr Brüstle for a stem cell treatment for neural defects, which was being developed to help patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

Interpreting Directive 98/44/EC, the “Biotech Directive”, Bot said totipotent cells must be legally classified as embryos since they appeared after fusion of the gametes and therefore had the capacity of developing into fully formed human beings.

While pluripotent cells lacked this capacity, they could not be patentable if they were obtained through the destruction or modification of an embryo.
However, Bot said that uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes could be allowed where these were therapeutic or useful to the human embryo, for example, to correct a malformation and ensure its survival.
 

Issue: 7458 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll