Abstract
This chapter scrutinizes the legal framework for research and patenting of inventions involving human embryonic stem cells in the European Union. Particular attention is given to the analysis of the relevant provisions of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology and the two cases in which questions were referred to the CJEU, concerning provisions of the Directive that affect the patentability of human embryonic stem cell inventions. The close examination of Article 6 paragraph 2 items (a) and (c) reveals that the biggest problems in the uniform application of the provisions contained therein are caused by the lack of definitions of some very important terms and concepts, such as “human embryo” and “uses of human embryos.” It is suggested that it is not legally correct to define embryos as to include organisms created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis for the purposes of the Directive because these organisms cannot complete the development of a human being, and the embryo is protected by the Directive primarily as an entity that has the capability to complete this process. Furthermore, it is put forward that the concept “uses of human embryo” should not encompass uses of human embryos in the stage of research, but it should prevent patentability only if human embryos are used when working the invention. Any wider interpretation would be in conflict with the wording of the general ordre public and morality clause from Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Directive.
Jasmina Mutabžija Ph.D., LL.M.; PAR Business School, Rijeka, Croatia.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For more information on human cloning, see, e.g., UNESCO (2005).
- 3.
For more information on parthenogenesis, see, e.g., Wilmut (2007).
- 4.
- 5.
For more on the use of stem cells for drug testing, see, e.g., DHHS (2001), pp. 17–18.
- 6.
See EGE (2000), p. 9.
- 7.
For more on the use of stem cells for treatment, see DHHS (2001), pp. 17–18 and 59–93.
- 8.
Rabesandratana (2014).
- 9.
As of 9 June 2015, the Convention was signed and ratified by the following EU member states: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain; it was signed but not ratified by the following EU member states: Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden; it was neither signed nor ratified by Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Malta, and the United Kingdom.
- 10.
As of 9 June 2015, the Protocol was signed and ratified by the following EU member states: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain; it was signed but not ratified by the following EU member states: Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden; it was neither signed nor ratified by Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Malta, and the United Kingdom.
- 11.
See EGE (1998).
- 12.
See Council of Europe (1998), paras 16–20.
- 13.
See Pattinson and Caulfield (2004).
- 14.
See ECHR (2004).
- 15.
For example, Finland, which has both signed and ratified the Convention, defines the human embryo as “a living group of cells resulting from fertilization not implanted in a woman’s body.” See Medical Research Act of Finland (1998).
- 16.
See Council of Europe (1998), para. 6.
- 17.
For information about the regulation of stem cell research in various European countries, see, e.g., EuroStemCell (2012).
- 18.
For the history of the Directive, see Porter (2010).
- 19.
- 20.
The Directive on Patents in Biotechnology came into force on 30 June 1998, whereas the EU member states had the obligation to harmonize their national legislation with its contents until 30 June 2000. However, in 2003, the European Commission had to submit claims against the seven EU member state before the European Court of Justice, namely, Sweden in case C-518/03, the Netherlands in case C-395/03, France in case C-448/03, Luxembourg in case C-450/03, and Belgium in case C-454/03, because they failed to implement the Directive in time. Subsequently, the Directive was implemented by all EU member states, the last one to do so being Luxembourg on 23 April 2006.
- 21.
This could be concluded from recital 16 of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology, which reads: “Whereas patent law must be applied so as to respect the fundamental principles safeguarding the dignity and integrity of the person; whereas it is important to assert the principle that the human body, at any stage in its formation or development, including germ cells […] cannot be patented.”
- 22.
See recital 16 of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology: “Whereas it is important to assert the principle that the human body, at any stage in its formation or development, including germ cells […] cannot be patented.”
- 23.
See, e.g., Denker (2006).
- 24.
But see Denker (2008), who claims that patenting is barred whenever cells have the potential to renew the embryo even if such potential is shown exclusively with significant human intervention. However, if that reasoning would be applied, one could also say that the nucleus of every cell in the body is totipotent since it supports embryo development if transferred to an unfertilized egg cell by means of somatic cell nucleus transfer.
- 25.
See Eisenberg (2000).
- 26.
This provision is related to Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Directive, which reads: “Biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process may be the subject of an invention even if it previously occurred in nature.”
- 27.
See recital no. 20 of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology.
- 28.
See recital no. 20 of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology.
- 29.
Recital 34 of the Directive, however, prescribes that the Directive shall be without prejudice to concepts of invention and discovery, as developed by national, European, or international patent law. About the theories concerning the distinction between inventions and discoveries in the field of human biotechnology, see Mutabžija (2014), pp. 31–41.
- 30.
See recitals 17 and 18 of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology.
- 31.
See, e.g., Denker (2008).
- 32.
- 33.
See the last part of the sentence in Article 5 paragraph 1 in the English language: “cannot constitute patentable inventions,“ in the French language: “ne peuvent constituer des inventions brevetables,” and in the German language: “können keine patentierbaren Erfindungen darstellen.”
- 34.
See the last part of the sentence in Article 5 paragraph 2 in the English language: “may constitute a patentable invention,” in the French language: “peut constituer une invention brevetable,” and in the German language: “kann eine patentierbare Erfindung sein.”
- 35.
Herdegen, for example, is of the opinion that this provision relates exclusively to reproductive cloning. See Herdegen (2002), p. 154. However, certain documents related to the history of the Directive on Patents in Biotechnology point to the conclusion that the intention of its drafters was to exclude from patentability not only reproductive but also therapeutic cloning. For instance, in drafting Article 6 paragraph 2 item (a) of the Directive, the formulation “processes for reproductive cloning of human beings” was replaced with the formulation “processes for cloning human beings” because the adjective “reproductive” was considered too restrictive. In addition, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission considers the patentability of processes for creating human embryos by cloning with the objective of isolating stem cells ethically unacceptable and calls for their unpatentability. See Saunders and Mutabžija (2004), p. 22.
- 36.
For example, United Kingdom, Belgium, Sweden, and Spain.
- 37.
For example, Denmark, Germany, Poland, and France.
- 38.
For example, Romania, and Bulgaria.
- 39.
Although the grant of a patent does not convey to the patent holder the right to implement the invention but only the right to exclude others from exploiting the invention, the historical function of patents is to reward inventors and encourage further innovations. This reward and incentive consist of the monopoly that the patent holder will enjoy in relation to the invention for a limited period of time, in which he can use the invention in any way allowed by law, including commercial exploitation or generating profits from the invention. All other motives of filing patent applications claimed by the applicants are not relevant because patent law does not envisage the possibility to limit the use of an invention in the process of granting a patent, and its holder is allowed to use it for any purpose that is not prohibited by law, including those industrial or commercial purposes. A patent holder might truly have the invention to use the patented invention for a noble purpose, which does not have to be industrial or commercial, but once the patent is granted, patent law has no means to prevent the patent holder to actually use the invention in industrial or commercial purposes. That the intention to commercially exploit an invention is necessarily connected with filing patent claims is also the position of Moufang (1994), p. 504, and Sterckx and Cockbain (2010), p. 91. See also CJEU (2011), para. 41.
- 40.
See Porter (2010), p. 20.
- 41.
See Council of the European Union (1998), para. 37.
- 42.
- 43.
This was also the position of the United Kingdom Patent Office before the CJEU’s decision in Oliver Brüstle and the EPO’s decision in G 02/06. See Porter et al. (2006), p. 654.
- 44.
CJEU (2011).
- 45.
See CJEU (2011), para. 38.
- 46.
See CJEU (2011), para. 36.
- 47.
See CJEU (2011), para. 37. In its decision that followed the CJEU’s judgement, the referring court—the Bundesgerichtshof—stated that human embryonic stem cells are patentable because they cannot lead to the development of a human being according to the state of the art, provided that a fertilized ovum was not destroyed for producing the embryonic stem cells. See Dombrowski (2012). Such a decision was expected because there aren’t any available scientific studies proving that human embryonic stem cells are capable of commencing the process of the development of a human being. Therefore, for now, they should not be considered embryos, even under the broad CJEU’s definition.
- 48.
See Article 5 of the Directive and recitals 16 and 38 of the Directive.
- 49.
See, e.g., EGE (2002), p. 13.
- 50.
See CJEU (2011), para. 43.
- 51.
See CJEU (2011), para. 52.
- 52.
See CJEU (2011), para. 49.
- 53.
See CJEU (2011), para. 50.
- 54.
See EBA (2008), paras 2–11.
- 55.
See Mutabžija (2014), pp. 150–157.
- 56.
- 57.
See CJEU (2014), para. 10.
- 58.
See CJEU (2014), paras 11 and 12.
- 59.
See CJEU (2014), paras 14 and 15.
- 60.
See CJEU (2014), para. 16.
- 61.
See CJEU (2014), paras 31, 32, and 33.
- 62.
See CJEU (2014), para. 38.
References
Council of Europe (1998) Explanatory report to the additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine on the prohibition of cloning human beings. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/168.htm. Accessed 12 June 2015
Council of the European Union (1998) Common position EC No 19/98 adopted by the Council on 26 February 1998. Official Journal of the EC, C110/17. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:51998AG0408%2802%29. Accessed 12 June 2015
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (2011) Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011. C 34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=111402&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=693037. Accessed 12 June 2015
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (2014) Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014. C 364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160936&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44741. Accessed 12 June 2015
Denker HW (2006) Potentiality of embryonic stem cells: an ethical problem even with alternative stem cell sources. J Med Ethics 32:665–671
Denker HW (2008) Totipotency/pluripotency and patentability. Stem Cells 26(6):1656–1657
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2001) Stem cells: scientific progress and future research directions. http://stemcells.nih.gov/staticresources/info/scireport/PDFs/fullrptstem.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015
Dombrowski J (2012) Bundesgerichtshof rules that patents on embryonic stem cells are partially valid. http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2012/11/de-bundesgerichtshof-rules-that-patents-on-embryonic-stem-cells-are-partially-valid-.html. Accessed 12 June 2015
Eisenberg RS (2000) Re-examining the role of patents in appropriating the value of DNA sequences. Emory Law J 49(3):783–800
Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EBA) (2008) Decision in G 0002/06 Stem Cells/WARF. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g060002ex1.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (2004) Vo versus France, 53924/00, 08.07.2004., http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-61887#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-61887%22]}. Accessed 12 June 2015
European Court of Justice (ECJ) (2001) Judgment of the Court of 9 October 2001. C-377/98 Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-377/98. Accessed 12 June 2015
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (EGE) (1998) Opinion No. 12: Ethical Aspects of Research Involving the Use of Human Embryo in the Context of the 5th Framework Programme, 23 November 1998
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (EGE) (2000) Ethical Aspects of Human Stem Cells Research and Use (opinion). 14.11.2000
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (EGE) (2002) Ethical aspects of patenting inventions involving human stem cells: Opinion no. 16. http://www.unal.edu.co/bioetica/documentos/6_4.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015
EuroStemCell (2012) Regulation of stem cell research in Europe. http://www.eurostemcell.org/. Accessed 12 June 2015
Herdegen M (2002) Patents on parts of the human body: salient issues under EC and WTO law. J World Intellect Prop 5(2):145–155
Jones JM, Thomson JA (2000) Human embryonic stem cell technology. Semin Reprod Med 18(02):219–224
Medical Research Act of Finland (1998). http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990488.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015
Minssen T, Nordberg A (2015) The evolution of the CJEU’s case law on stem cell patents: context, outcome and implications of Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation, N I R 2015;(4)
Moufang R (1994) Patenting of human genes, cells and parts of the body? – The ethical dimensions of patent law. IIC Int Rev Ind Prop Copyr Law 25(4):487–515
Mutabžija J (2014) Patentability of inventions involving human embryonic stem cells and cloning according to the European Patent Convention. Dissertation, University of Zagreb, Zagreb
National Academies (NA) (2006) Understanding stem cells: an overview of the science and issues from the national academies. http://www.annefjohnson.com/docs/stem_cells.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2009) Stem cell information: The National Institutes of Health Resource for Stem Cell Information. http://stemcells.nih.gov/staticresources/info/basics/SCprimer2009.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015
Pattinson SD, Caulfield T (2004) Variations and voids: the regulation of human cloning around the world. BMC Med Ethics 5:9
Piirman M (2011) Patentability of inventions related to human embryonic stem cells. Juridica Int 18:94–103
Porter G (2010) The drafting history of the European biotechnology directive. In: Plomer A, Torremans P (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents – European patent law and ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–26
Porter G, Denning C, Plomer A et al (2006) The patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Europe. Nat Biotechnol 24:653–655
Rabesandratana T (2014) E.U. Commission rejects plea to block stem cell research funding. http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2014/05/e-u-commission-rejects-plea-block-stem-cell-research-funding. Accessed 12 June 2015
Rathjen PD, Lake J et al (1998) Properties and uses of embryonic stem cells: prospects for application to human biology and gene therapy. Reprod Fertil Dev 10(1):31–47
Saunders E, Mutabžija J (2004) Patentability, ordre public and morality: the case of inventions involving human embryonic stem cells an EU, US and Australian perspective. Intellect Prop Forum 59:14–34
Scott A (1999) The Dutch challenge to the bio-patenting directive. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 21(4):212–215
Sterckx S, Cockbain J (2010) Assessing the morality of the commercial exploitation of the inventions concerning uses of human embryos and the relevance of moral complicity: comments on the EPO’s WARF decision. SCRIPTed 7(1):83–103
Torremans P (2010) The construction of the directive’s moral exclusions under the EPC. In: Plomer A, Torremans P (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents – European patent law and ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–171
Triller Vrtovec K, Vrtovec Vrtovec B (2007) Is totipotency of a human cell a sufficient reason to exclude its patentability under the European law? Stem Cells 25(12):3026–3028
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2005) Human cloning: ethical issues. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001359/135928e.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2015
Webber PM (2005) Patentability of human embryonic cells under the EPC. Bio-Science Law Rev 6(3):231–245
Wilmut I (2007) Embryo stem cells from parthenotes and embryos produced by nuclear transfer: the distinction between them and their potential value in cell therapy. Cloning Stem Cells 9(3):291–292
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mutabžija, J. (2016). Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Personalized Medicine in the European Union. In: Bodiroga-Vukobrat, N., Rukavina, D., Pavelić, K., Sander, G. (eds) Personalized Medicine. Europeanization and Globalization, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39349-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39349-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39347-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39349-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)