Defining “Research” in the US and EU: Contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace rulings

Stem Cell Reviews and Reports

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 743-751

  Cuchiara, Maude L ^a   Lawford Davies, James ^b   Matthews, Kirstin R W ^a  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Lawford Davies Denoon   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Brustle v. Greenpeace; Court case; Patent; Policy; Sherley v. Sebelius

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CYTOLOGY; ECONOMICS; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT; POLICY; STEM CELL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

COMMERCE; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; LEGISLATION AS TOPIC; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PUBLIC POLICY; STEM CELL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84899056391     PISSN: 26293269     EISSN: 26293277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12015-013-9462-3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Sherley v. Sebelius, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1. (D. D. C 2009).
2. Omnibus Appropriations Act, Division F, Title V, §509 (2009).
3. Matthews, K. R. W., & Rowland, M. L. (2011). Stem cell policy in the Obama age: UK and US perspectives. Regenerative Medicine, 6, 125-132.
4. Kaiser, J. (2010). Breakthrough of the year. Whiplash for stem cell researchers. Science, 330, 1609.
5. Wadman, M. (2011). Court quashes stem-cell lawsuit. Nature, 476, 14-15.
6. Levine, A. D. (2011). Policy uncertainty and the conduct of stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell, 8, 132-135.
7. Wadman, M. (2011). US appeals court overthrows stem cell injunction-UPDATED. Nature News Blogs. http://blogs. nature. com/news/2011/04/us_appeals_court_rules_that_lo. html. Accessed 1 November 2012.
8. Sherley v. Sebelius, 689 F. 3d 776 (D. C. Cir. 2012).
9. Wadman, M. (2012). Court upholds federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Nature News Blogs. http://blogs. nature. com/news/2012/08/court-upholds-federal-funding-of-embryonic-stemcell-research. html. Accessed 1 November 2012.
10. Goldfarb, N. (2011). Sherley v. Sebelius. Regenerative Medicine, 6, 104-105.
11. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980).
12. Iwasaka, R. M. T. (2000). From Chakrabarty to chimeras: the growing need for evolutionary biology in patent Law. Yale Law Journal, 109, 1505-1534.
13. Plomer, A., Taymor, K. S., & Scott, C. T. (2008). Challenges to human embryonic stem cell patents. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 13-17.
14. Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 09 Civ. 4515 (S. D. N. Y., Mar. 29, 2010).
15. Marshall, E. (2013). Intellectual property. Supreme Court rules out patents on "natural" genes. Science, 340, 1387-1388.
16. Bahadur, G., & Morrison, M. (2010). Patenting human pluripotent cells: balancing commercial, academic and ethical interests. Human Reproduction, 25, 14-21.
17. Golden, J. M. (2010). WARF's stem cell patents and tensions between public and private sector approaches to research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 314-331.
18. Abbott, A. (2011). Europe rules against stem-cell patents. Nature, 471, 280.
19. Thomson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., Waknitz, M. A., Swiergiel, J. J., Marshall, V. S., et al. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145-1147.
20. European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1998) OJ L 213.
21. Case C-34/10. Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV. (2011).
22. Moran, N. (2013). Brüstle patent holds up in Germany. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 94.
23. Inventions involving human embryonic stem cells. http://www. ipo. gov. uk/p-pn-stemcells-20120517. htm. Accessed 21 June 2013.
24. Denoon, A. (2011). Brüstle v. Greenpeace: implications for stem cell research. Regenerative Medicine, 6, 85-87.
25. Abbott, A. (2011). Stem cells: the cell division. Nature, 480, 310-312.
26. Wilmut, I. (2011). Consternation and confusion following EU patent judgment. Cell Stem Cell, 9, 498-499.
27. Parker, S., & England, P. (2012). Where now for stems cell patents? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7, 738-746.
28. Resnik, D. B. (2007). Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity. Health Care Analysis, 15, 211-222.
29. Vogel, G. (2011). Europe. Dismay, confusion greet human stem cell patent ban. Science, 334, 441-442.
30. Harvey, O. (2009). Human embryonic stem cell research in the United States: some policy options for industry development. Politics & Policy, 37, 51-71.
31. Matthews, K. R., Rowland, M. L., Luo, J., & Matsumoto, M. M. (2012) Stem cell research in the courts: Sherley v. Sebelius, policy report. James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy, http://www. bakerinstitute. org/publications/ST-pub-PolicyReport50-111411. pdf.
32. Callaway, E. (2011). European ban on stem-cell patents has a silver lining. Nature, 478, 441.
33. Koch, N. J., Baum, E., & Trounson, A. (2011). European court ruling on embryonic stem cells: ripple effects. Cell Stem Cell, 9, 499-500.
34. Harrison, C. (2011). EU bans embryonic stem cell patents but decision may have limited implications. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 892-893.
35. Lawford Davies, J., & Denoon, A. (2011). Brüstle decision is unhelpful, but not catastrophic. Cell Stem Cell, 9, 500-501.
36. Matthews, K. R., & Rowland, M. L. (2010) Stem cell policy in the Obama age: Texas, U. S., and U. K. Perspectives, James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy, http://www. bakerinstitute. org/publications/ST-PUB-StemCellConfReport. pdf.
37. Caulfield, T., & Ogbogu, U. (2011). Stem cell research, scientific freedom and the commodification concern. EMBO Reports, 13, 12-16.