header-logo header-logo

Cells not patentable

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

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll