Brüstle decision is unhelpful, but not catastrophic

Cell Stem Cell

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 500-501

  Lawford Davies, James ^a,b   Denoon, Alex ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Lawford Davies Denoon   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; BLASTOCYST; CELL ISOLATION; DECISION MAKING; EMBRYO RESEARCH; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; EUROPEAN UNION; GERMANY; HUMAN; HUMAN EMBRYO; LETTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STEM CELL; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TOTIPOTENT STEM CELL;

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

EID: 82755171266     PISSN: 19345909     EISSN: 18759777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.11.007     Document Type: Letter

References (3)

1. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2011). Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011. Case C-34/10. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX: 62010CJ0034:EN:HTML.
2. Enlarged Board of Appeal. (2008). Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 25 November 2008, G 2/06. Official Journal EPO, 2009. http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj009/05-09/05-3069.pdf.
3. European Union. (1998). Directive 98/44/EC Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 213/13. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:213:0013:0021: EN:PDF.