A "Ray of Hope" for European Stem Cell Patents or "Out of the Smog into the Fog"? An Analysis of Recent European Case Law and How it Compares to the US
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Ana Nordberg ; Timo Minssen
- 关键词：Stem cell patents ; EU ; US ; Biotechnology Directive ; Technical expertise ; General courts
- 刊名：IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：March 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：47
- 期：2
- 页码：138-177
- 全文大小：690 KB
- 参考文献：Abbot A (2011) German science organizations slam European court over stem-cell ruling. Nature News. 10.1038/nature.2011.9606
Bagley MA (2003) Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law. Wm. Mary L. Rev. 45(2/3):469
Bance S (2012) Brüstle v Greenpeace (C-34/10): The end for patents relating to human embryonic stem cells in Europe? Biotechnol Law Rep 31(1):33–38CrossRef
Bonadio E (2012a) Biotech patents and morality after Brüstle. EIPR 34(7):433–443
Bonadio E (2012b) Stem cells, patents and morality in the EU after Brüstle, presented at the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Standing Group on Regulation & Governance 4th Standing Group Biennial Conference New Perspectives on Regulation, Governance and Learning, University of Exeter, UK, 27–29 June 2012. http://regulation.upf.edu/exeter-12-papers/Paper%20080%20-%20Bonadio%202012%20-%20Stem%20Cells,%20Patents%20and%20Morality%20in%20the%20EU%20after%20Bruestle.pdf . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Bonadio E (2012c) Stem cells industry and beyond: what is the aftermath of Brüstle? Eur J Risk Regul (EJRR) 1:93–97
Brownsword R (2014) Regulatory coherence—a European challenge. In: Purnhagen K, Rott P (eds) Varieties of European economic law and regulation: liber amicorum for Hans Micklitz. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–258
Callaway E (2011) European ban on stem-cell patents has a silver lining. Nature 478:441CrossRef
Chan AWK et al (2014) A patent perspective on US stem cell research. Nat Biotechnol 32:633–637CrossRef
Chapman AR, Frankel MS, Garfinkel MS (1999) Stem cell research and applications—monitoring the frontiers of biomedical research. American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society, USA. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/stem/main.htm . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Christoffersen J (2015) Human rights and balancing the principle of proportionality. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–39
Chung Y et al (2008) Human embryonic stem cell lines generated without embryo destruction. Cell Stem Cell 2(2):113–117CrossRef
Correa CM (2007) Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights: a commentary on the trips agreement. OUP, OxfordCrossRef
Cox C et al (2012) Stem cell research & therapy: types of stem cells and their current uses. http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/stem-cell-research-therapy-types-stem-cells-and-their-current-uses#types . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Cyranoski D (2014) Stem cells: the black box of reprogramming. Nature 516(7530):162–164CrossRef
Dennis C, Check E (2005) Ethical routes to stem cells highlight political divide. Nature 437:1076–1077CrossRef
Elstner A et al (2009) The changing landscape of European and international regulation on embryonic stem cell research. Stem Cell Res 2(2):101–107CrossRef
Engelbrekt AB (2009) Institutional and jurisdictional aspects of stem cell patenting in Europe (EC and EPO): tensions and prospects. In: Plomer A, Torremans P (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents. OUP, Oxford, pp 222–269
Faeh A (2015) Judicial activism, the Biotech directive and its institutional implications—is the CJEU acting as a legislator or a court when defining the “human embryo”? EL Rev 4:613–627
Friedlander M, Hinton DR (2013) Stem cells and cellular therapy. In: Ryan SJ (ed) 5th ed. Elsevier, Holland, pp 669–688
Gaskell G et al (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. European Commission Publications, Brussels
Gaskell G et al (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change?. European Commission Publications, Brussels
Gaskell G et al (2012) How Europe’s ethical divide looms over biotech law and patents. Nature Biotech 30:392–394CrossRef
Geiger C (2015) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef
Gervais D (2003) The TRIPS agreement: drafting history and analysis. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Green JB (2011) Patenting: European stem-cell ruling is misleading. Nature 479(7371):41
Grund M, Farmer S (2012) Brüstle v Greenpeace: the end of the road for human embryonic stem cell patents. Bio Sci Law Rev 12(2):39–44
Helfer LR, Austin GW (2011) Human rights and intellectual property: mapping the global interface. CUP, CambridgeCrossRef
Hellstadius Å (2015) A quest for clarity: reconstructing standards for the patent law morality exclusion. Stockholm University, Stockholm (Doctoral Thesis)
Hitchcock J, Sousa e Brito C (2014) Should patents determine when life begins? EIPR 36(6):390–398
Højgaard L, Makarow M (2010) Human stem cell research and regenerative medicine—a European perspective on scientific, ethical and legal issues. In: Science policy briefing, vol. 38. European Science Foundation, Europe
Holzapfel H, Werner G (2009) Interpreting exceptions in intellectual property law. In: Wolrad PWP, Adelman MJ, Brauneis R, Drexl J, Nack R (eds) Patents and technological progress in a globalized world: Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus. MPI studies on intellectual property and competition law, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–115
Isasi R, Knoppers B (2009) Towards commonality? Policy approaches to human embryonic stem cell research in Europe. In: Plomer A, Anderman S (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents: European law and ethics. OUP, Oxford, pp 29–57
Mahalatchimy A et al (2015) The impact of European embryonic stem cell patent decisions on research strategies. Nature Biotechnol 33(1):41–43CrossRef
Matthews KRW, Cuchiara ML (2014) Gene patents, patenting life and the impact of court rulings on US stem cell patents and research. Regener Med 9(2):191–200. 10.2217/rme.13.93
Minssen T, Lundqvist B (2014) The “opt out” and “opt in” provisions in the Unified Patent Court Agreement—impact and strategies for European patent portfolios. NIR 83(4):340–357
Minssen T, Nilsson D (2011a) Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO—part I. QMJIP 1(3):223–247CrossRef
Minssen T, Nilsson D (2011b) Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO Part II. QMJIP 2(2):136–157CrossRef
Minssen T, Nilsson D (2012a) Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO Part III. QMJIP 2(3):225–249CrossRef
Minssen T, Nilsson D (2012b) The U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus—taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine. QMJIP 2(4):376–388
Minssen T, Nordberg A (2015a) The impact of Broccoli II & Tomatoes II on GMOs and synthetic biology: a grand finale of a juicy European patents tale? Biotechnol Law Rep 34(3):81–98CrossRef
Minssen T, Nordberg A (2015b) 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. NIR 5:493–503
Minssen T, Schindler G (2008) Zur Zulässigkeit von Feststellungsklagen im US Lizensrecht nach den Entscheidungen in MedImmune und SanDisk. Grur-Int 57(3):192–200
Minssen T, Schwartz RM (2013) Myriad reloaded & ready for the next round? QMJIP 3(1):70–80CrossRef
Minssen T, Schwartz RM (2015) Life after Myriad: the uncertain future of patenting biomedical innovation & personalized medicine in an international context. Intellect Prop Q 3:189–241. (forthcoming)
Minssen T, Nilsson D, Schwartz RM (2013) Standing on shaky ground—US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO Part IV. QMJIP 3(2):118–144CrossRef
Murdoch CJ (2010) Intraoperability problems: inconsistent stem cell IP and research regimes within nations. SJSLP 3(1):49–55
Narsinh KH et al (2011) Comparison of human induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cells: fraternal or identical twins? Mol Therapy 194:635–638CrossRef
Noonan KE (2013) The patenting landscape for human embryonic stem cells. In: Regenerative medicine ethics. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–105
O’Sullivan E (2012) Is article 53 (a) EPC still of narrow interpretation? JIPLP 7(9):680–690
Oliar D (2009) The (constitutional) convention on IP: a new reading. UCLA Law Rev 57:421–480
Paton M, Denoon A (2011) The ramifications of the advocate general’s opinion in the Oliver Brüstle case. EIPR 33(9):590–599
Petersen CS, Riis T, Schovsbo JH (2015) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) in action—how will the design of the UPC affect patent law? In: Ballardini R, Norrgård M, Bruun (eds) Transitions in European Patent Law—influences of the Unitary Patent Package. Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, pp 37–57
Pila J (2013) Pluralism. Principles and proportionality in intellectual property, OJLS, pp 1–20
Pila J, Wadlow C (eds) (2014) The unitary EU Patent System. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Pires de Carvalho N (2002) The TRIPS regime of patent rights. Kluwer Law International, London
Pires de Carvalho N (2010) The TRIPS regime of patent rights, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Plas JV (2008) Patent office upholds remaining WARF stem cell patents. Wisconsin Technology Network, Wisconsin. http://wistechnology.com/articles/4601/ . Accessed 16 November 2014
Plomer A (2009) Towards systemic legal conflict: article 6 (2) (c) of the EU directive on biotechnological inventions. In: Plomer A, Anderman S (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents: European law and ethics. OUP, Oxford, pp 173–203
Plomer A (2012) After Brüstle: EU accession to the ECHR and the future of European patent law. QMJIP 2(2):110–135CrossRef
Popper K (2005) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London
Porter G (2009) Human embryos, patents and global trade: assessing the scope and contents of the TRIPS morality exception. In: Plomer A, Torremans P (eds) Embryonic stem cell patents. OUP, Oxford, pp 343–367
Porter G et al (2008) The patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Europe. Nat Biotechnol 24(6):653–656CrossRef
Ribbons D, Lynch M (2015) The European Court of Justice refines the meaning of “Human Embryo”. Biosci Law Rev 14(3). http://see-redd.com/index.php/page/show/158 . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Rimmer M (2008) Intellectual property and biotechnology: biological inventions. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef
Schneider I (2011) Das EuGH-Urteil, Brüstle v. Greenpeace: Bedeutung und Implikationen für Europa. ZGE/IPJ 3:475–510
Siegel A (2013) Ethics of stem cell research. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Springer, Berlin. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/stem-cells/ . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Sommer T (2013) Can patent law make life (too) simple? From gene patents to the patenting of environmentally sounds technologies. DJØF, Copenhagen
Stazi P (2015) The EU court of justice revisits the patentability of processes for the production of human stem cells: the decision in International Stem Cell Corporation. IIC 6:740–749CrossRef
Sterckx S, Cockbain J (2010) Assessing the morality of the commercial exploitation of inventions concerning uses of human embryos and the relevance of moral complicity: comments on the EPO’s Warf Decision. SCRIPTed, vol 7, issues 1, pp 83–103. http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/sterckx.asp . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Sterckx S, Cockbain J (2012) Exclusions from patentability: how far has the European patent office eroded boundaries. CUP, CambridgeCrossRef
Stolberg SG (2009) Obama lifts Bush’s strict limits on stem cell research, New York Times, 9 March 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10stem.html?_r=0 . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Straus J (1995) Patenting human genes in Europe—past developments and prospects for the future. IIC 26(6):920
Straus J (2010) Zur Patentierung humaner embryonaler Stammzellen in Europa. GRUR Int 2010:911–923
Straus J (2013) Ordre public and morality issues in patent eligibility. In: Takenaka T (ed) Intellectual property in common law and civil law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–49CrossRef
Tonge PD et al (2014) Divergent reprogramming routes lead to alternative stem-cell states. Nature 516(7530):192–7. ( See also the related Corrigendum in Nature (2015) 523(7562): 626). doi:10.1038/nature14607
Van Overwalle G (2002) Study on the patenting of inventions related to human stem cell research. European Communities, Luxembourg. SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1720002 . Accessed 16 Nov 2015
Van Overwalle G (2005) Legal and ethical aspects of bio-patenting: critical analysis of the EU biotechnology directive. In: Drahos P (ed) Death of patents, perspectives on intellectual property law and policy, vol 11. Lawtext Publishing, Witney, pp 212–227
Viens AM (2009) Morality provisions in law concerning the commercialization of human embryos and stem cells. In: Plomer A, Torremans P (eds) Embryonic Stem Cell Patents. OUP, Oxford, pp 85–117
Warren-Jones A (2007) Vital parameters for patent morality—a question of form. JIPLP 2(12):832–846
Warren-Jones A (2008) Finding a “Common Morality Codex” for biotech—a question of substance. IIC 6:638
Watal J (2001) Intellectual property rights in the WTO and developing countries. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Yu PK (2015) Challenges to the development of a human rights framework for intellectual property. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht
Zimmer FJ, Quest B (2012) The European Court of Justice rules on the patentability of human embryonic stem cells: no patents for inventions relying on human embryos as source materials. Biotechnol Law Rep 31(3):271–276CrossRef - 作者单位：Ana Nordberg (1)
Timo Minssen (2)
1. Centre for Information and Innovation Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
2. Centre for Information and Innovation Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark - 刊物主题：International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law;
- 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- ISSN：2195-0237
文摘
In Case C-364/13, International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCO) v. Comptroller General of Patents (18 December 2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union distinguished its earlier ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace (Brüstle) with regard to the patent eligibility of non-fertilised human ova stimulated by parthenogenesis. The Court found that in order to be considered a human embryo – and thus to be unpatentable under the EU Biotechnology Directive – the stimulated ovum must have the “inherent capacity to develop into a human being”. This permits the patenting of innovative pluripotent parthenotes and their applications. Yet the ISCO decision also leaves considerable discretion to national courts. Hence, the full impact of the decision still depends on national implementations. Moreover, ISCO only applies to very specific human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and lacks further clarification concerning other non-totipotent hESCs, such as stem cells created through somatic cell nuclear transfer. Considering the significance of Brüstle and ISCO for regenerative medicine and cellular therapy, the persistent legal uncertainty is unfortunate. Irrespective of these flaws, however, ISCO has opened patentability doors that were previously closed and thereby reinvigorated crucial debates. Thus, this might have the “inherent capacity” of developing into a reasonable doctrine on stem cell patenting. Paradoxically, the patentability of isolated hESCs is now less certain in the US, making a brief comparison inevitable.