Dignity, plurality and patentability: The unfinished story of Brüstle v Greenpeace

European Law Review

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 92-106

  Harmon, Shawn H E ^a   Laurie, Graeme ^a   Courtney, Aidan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnological inventions; Embryology; EU law; Patentability; Stem cell research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026233139     PISSN: 03075400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. S. Harmon, "From Engagement to Engagement: The Expression of Moral Values in European Patent Proceedings, Present and Future" (2006) 31 E.L. Rev 642.
2. In the United Kingdom, Genentech Inc's Patent [1989] R.P.C. 147 CA (Civ Div)
3. Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46
4. In Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2011] UKSC 51
5. EDINBURGH/Animal Transgenic Stem Cells, Patent Application No.94913174.2, July 21, 2002, Opposition Division
6. WARF/Primate Embryonic Stem Cells, Patent Application No.96903521.1-2401, July 13, 2004, Examination Division, appealed to the Technical Board of Appeal, which, by decision T-1274/04-3.3.08, dated November 18, 2005
7. Enlarged Board of Appeal, whose decision, Case G0002/06 dated November 25, 2008 is available at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g060002ep1.html [Accessed December 14, 2012].
8. Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (C-34/10) [2012] 1 C.M.L.R. 41.
9. P. Craig and G. de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
10. S. Douglas-Scott, "The European Union and Human Rights After the Treaty of Lisbon" (2011) 11 Human Rights Law Review 645.
11. In Netherlands v European Parliament & Council (C-377/98) [2001] E.C.R. I-7079
12. S. Harmon, "Emerging Technologies and Developing Countries: Stem Cell Research (and Cloning) Regulation and Argentina" (2008) 8 Developing World Bioethics 138
13. A. Siegel, "Ethics of Stem Cell Research" in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, 2008).
14. B. Farsides and R. Scott, "No Small Matter for Some: Practitioners' Views on the Moral Status and Treatment of Human Embryos" (2012) 20 Med. Law Rev. 90.
15. Vo v France (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 12.
16. Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 48 E.H.R.R. 34.
17. M. Rowlandson, "WARF/Stem Cells (G2/06): The Ordre Public and Morality Exception and its Impact on the Patentability of Human Embryonic Stem Cells" (2010) 32 Euro. I.P. Rev. 67.
18. Netherlands v European Parliament and Council (C-377/98) [2001] E.C.R. I-7079
19. Netherlands v European Parliament and Council (C-377/98) [2001] E.C.R. I-7079 at [37]-[38].
20. A point made in A. Plomer, "After Brüstle: EU Accession to the ECHR and the Future of European Patent Law" (2012) 2 Queen Mary J. I. P. 110.
21. K. Vrtovec and C. Scott, "The European Court of Justice Ruling in Brüstle v Greenpeace: The Impacts on Patenting of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Europe" (2011) 9 Cell: Stem Cell 502.
22. Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (C-36/02) [2004] E.C.R. I-9609
23. R. Macklin, "Dignity is a Useless Concept" (2003) 327 B.M.J. 1419
24. T. Caulfield and R. Brownsword, "Human Dignity: A Guide to Policymaking in the Biotechnology Era?" (2006) 7 Nature Reviews Genetics 72
25. A. Plomer, "Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive - Towards Systemic Legal Conflict" in A. Plomer and P. Torremans (eds), Embryonic Stem Cell Patents: European Law and Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 174-202.
26. As exemplified by Vo v France (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 12
27. Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 48 E.H.R.R. 34
28. A, B & C v Ireland (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 13.
29. Plomer, "After Brüstle" (2012) 2 Queen Mary J.I.P. 110, 125.
30. A. Plomer, "Human Dignity, Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the EU Directive on Biotechnological Inventions" in Embryonic Stem Cell Patents (2009), pp. 203-227.
31. R. Tijssen, "Global and Domestic Utilization of Industrial Relevant Science: Patent Citation Analysis of Science-Technology Interactions and Knowledge Flows" (2001) 30 Research Policy 35
32. Plomer, "After Brüstle" (2012) 2 Queen Mary J.I.P. 110, at 130-132.
33. Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v Netherlands (12633/87), October 4, 1990 (Commission)
34. Lenzing AG v United Kingdom (38817/97), September 9, 1998 (Commission).
35. Commission of the European Communities v Italy (C-456/03) [2005] E.C.R. I-5335.
36. G. Porter, "The Drafting History of the European Biotechnology Directive" in Embryonic Stem Cell Patents (2009), pp. 3-26.
37. S. Sterckx, "The European Patent Convention and the (Non)Patentability of Human Embryonic Stem Cells - The WARF Case" (2008) 12 I.P.Q. 478.
38. WARF/Primate Embryonic Stem Cells, Patent Application No.96903521.1-2401, Case G0002/06, November 25, 2008, Enlarged Board of Appeal, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g060002ep1.html [Accessed December 14, 2012].
39. E. Bonadio, "Stem Cells Industry and Beyond: What is the Aftermath of Brüstle?" (2012) 1 E.J.R.R. 93.
40. A. Abbott, "European Court of Justice Rejects Stem-Cell Patents", Nature News, March 10, 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110310/full/news.2011.152.html [Accessed December 14, 2012]
41. A. Smith, "'No' to Ban on Stem Cell Patents" (2011) 472 Nature 418
42. E. Callaway, "European Ban on Stem-Cell Patents has a Silver Lining" (2011) 478 Nature 441
43. A. Abbott, "Stem Cells: The Cell Division" (2012) 480 Nature 310
44. Neuro Stemcell, "European Court Bans Stem Cell Patents" (October 18, 2011), http://www.neurostemcell.org/european-court-bans-stem-cell-patents/ [Accessed December 14, 2012].
45. European Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Draft Opinion on the proposal for a regulation establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), 2011/0401(COD), p. 3.
46. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/07/science-funding-cuts-firms-charities [Accessed December 14, 2012]
47. A. Stevens et al., "The Role of Public-Sector Research in the Discovery of Drugs and Vaccines" (2011) 364
48. T. Caulfield, S. Harmon and Y. Joly, "Open Science Versus Commercialisation: A Modern Research Conflict?" (2012) 4 Genome Medicine 17
49. S. Harmon, T. Caulfield and Y. Joly, "Commercialisation v Open Science: Making Sense of the Message(s) in the Bottle" (2012) 12 Med. Law International 3.
50. Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, "Position Paper of the Secretariat of COMECE on some Ethical Aspects of Horizon 2020", http://www.comece.org/site/en/press/pressreleases/newsletter.content/1483.html [Accessed December 14, 2012].
51. A. Plomer, "Horizon 2020: EU Funding of hESC Research in the Balance" (October 24, 2012), Eutopia Law, http://eutopialaw.com/2012/10/24/horizon-2020-eu-funding-of-hesc-research-in-the-balance/#more-1529 [Accessed December 14, 2012].
52. Coalition of Funders, "Statement Supporting Funding for Stem Cell Research in Horizon 2020", http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/content/MRC008737.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2012].
53. E. Callaway, "European Court Bans Patents Based on Embryonic Stem Cells" (October 18, 2011), Nature News, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111018/full/news.2011.597.html [Accessed December 14, 2012]
54. J. Sulston, "Heritage of Humanity" (2002), http://www.mondediplo.com/2002/12/15genome.pdf [Accessed December 14, 2012].
55. This (limited) ambition is clearly stated in the Preamble to the Biotech Directive itself and is confirmed by the ECJ in Netherlands v European Parliament & Council (C-377/98) [2001] E.C.R. I-7079
56. A. Denoon, "Brüstle v Greenpeace: Implications for Stem Cell Research" (2011) 6 (6 Suppl.) Regen Med. 85-and acknowledged in the ECJ's decision itself.
57. European Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Draft Opinion on the proposal for a regulation establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), 2011/0401(COD).
58. I. Klimanskaya et al., "Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Single Blastomeres" (2006) 444 Nature 481.
59. S. Yamanaka et al., "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors" (2006) 126 Cell 663
60. J. Yu et al., "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells" (2007) 318 Science 1917.
61. M. Wernig et al., "Neurons derived from reprogrammed fibroblasts functionally integrate into the fetal brain and improve symptoms of rats with Parkinson's disease" (2008) 105 Proc. National Academy of Science 5856.
62. W. Lesser and M. Mutschler, "Lessons from Patenting of Plants" in M. Rotschild and S. Newman (eds), Intellectual Property Rights in Animal Breeding and Genetics (United Kingdom: CABI, 2002), pp. 103-118.
63. Good Tissue Practice for Blood and Biologics Companies, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Vol.8, April 1, 2009 (21 CFR 1271).
64. So noted by A. Denoon, "Brüstle v Greenpeace: Implications for Stem Cell Research" (2011) 6 (6 Suppl.) Regen Med. 85.
65. A fact noted by J. Davies and A. Denoon, "Brüstle Decision is Unhelpful, but Not Catastrophic" (2011) 9 Cell: Stem Cell 501.
66. UKSCB, Code of Practice for the Use of Human Stem Cell Lines, Version 5 (Hertfordshire: UKSCB, 2010)
67. A. Courtney et al., "Balancing Open Source Stem Cell Science with Commercialisation" (2011) 29 Nature Biotech 115.