Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Research, Exploitation and Patenting in the Area of Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Europe – A Case of Concern Causing Inconsistency

  • Joseph Straus (a1)

Abstract

Research on human embryonic stem cells, their exploitation and patenting is a highly controversial issue. This contribution provides for some basic understanding of technologies involved. It discusses ethical issues and legal rules dealing with the research and exploitation of stem cells in Europe. Moreover, it presents and analyses in some detail the statutory provisions of the EU in dealing with the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and the interpretation and application of those rules by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally, the resulting inconsistencies of the system as applied are critically analysed and a suggestion how to resolve them offered.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Thompson, J.A., et al. (1998) Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, pp. 11451147.
2. Fox, J.L. (2008) FDA scrutinizes human stem cell therapies. Nature Biotechnology, 26, pp. 598599.
3. Bianco, P., et al. (2013) Regulation of stem cell therapies under attack in Europe: for whom the bell tolls. The EMBO Journal, 32, pp. 14891495.
4. Giebel, L.B. (2005) Stem cells – a hard cell to investors. Nature Biotechnology, 23, pp. 798800.
5. Normile, D., Vogel, G. and Couzin, J. (2006) South Korean team’s remaining human stem cell claim demolished. Science, 311, pp. 153157.
6. Baker, M. (2005) Stem cell therapy or snake oil? Nature Biotechnology, 23, pp. 14671469 ; cf. also M. Enserink (2006) Selling the stem cell dream. Science, 313, pp. 160–163.
7. Holden, C. (2006) Scientists create human stem cell lines from ‘dead’ embryos. Science, 313, p. 1869.
8. Hochedlinger, K. and Jaenisch, R. (2006) Nuclear reprogramming and pluripotency. Nature, 44, pp. 10611067.
9. Vogel, G. (2006) Scientists derive line from single embryo cell. Science, 313, p. 1031.
10. Mai, Q., et al. (2007) Derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines from parthenogenetic blastocysts. Cell Research, 17(12), pp. 10081019.
11. Chung, Y. et al. (2008) Human embryonic stem cell lines generated without embryo destruction. Stem Cell, 2, 113117, http: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(07)00330-X
12. Takahashi, K., et al. (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell, 131, 861872.
13. Webb, S. (2009) Burgeoning stem cell product market lures major suppliers. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 535536; S. Webb (2009) The gold rush for induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 977–979.
15. Gruss, P. (2003) Science, 301, 117 (22 August 2003).
16. Plomer, A. and Torremans, P. (2009) Towards commonality? Policy approaches to human embryonic stem cell research in Europe. In: A. Plomer and P. Torremans (Eds), Embryonic Stem Cell Patents, European Law and Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 2956.
17. Beier, F.K. and Straus, J. (1986) Genetic engineering and industrial property. Industrial Property, 447 (at 448).
18. Correa, C. (2007) Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights – a commentary on the TRIPS agreement. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 291.
19. Pires de Carvalho, N. (2010) The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights (3rd edn) (Austin, Boston, Chicago, New York; the Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business), p. 289.
20.European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgment in Case C-377/98 – Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by Italian Republic and by Kingdom of Norway v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by Commission of the European Communities [2001] ECR I-7079 at para. 70.
21.ECJ Judgment in Case C-377/98 at paras. 37 and 38.
22.ECJ Judgment in Case C-456/03 – Commission of the European Community v. Italian Republic, [2005] ECR I-5335 at para. 78.
23.In the case Evans v. United Kingdom, ECHR explicitly found: ‘… in the absence of any European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life, the issue of when the right to life begins comes within the margin of appreciation which the Court generally considers that States should enjoy in this sphere. Under English law … an embryo does not have independent rights or interests and cannot claim – or have claimed on its behalf – a right to life under Article 2’ Judgment of 7 March 2006, application No. 6339/05, confirmed by decision of the Grand Chamber of 10 April 2010 (No. 46). Cf. A. Plomer, Human Dignity, Human Rights and Article 6 (1) of the EU Directive on Biotechnological Inventions, in: A. Plomer and P. Torremans (Eds.) (2009) Towards commonality? Policy approaches to human embryonic stem cell research in Europe. In: Embryonic Stem Cell Patents, European Law and Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 203 (at 222–223).
24.For the sake of completeness only, it should be noted that CJEU in its judgment, by and large, followed the line of arguments, which the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in applying the Rules of Implementing Regulations to the EPC, which correspond to the respective provisions of the Directive, laid down in 2008 in its decision Use of Embryos/WARF (OJ EPO 2009, 306), by which the 1998 pioneering invention of James Thompson from the University of Wisconsin was rejected.
25. 447 US 303, at 308310 (1980) – Diamond v. Chakrabarty.
26. Whittaker, P. (2007) Human embryonic stem cell patents: a European perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 20, pp. 3037.
27.ECJ Judgment in Case C-377/98 at para. 79.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed