Abstract
The lack of consensus on a common definition of the term 'embryo' has resulted in legal uncertainty affecting the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and the commercialisation prospects and patenting of inventions of hESC origin in the EU. The Brüstle v. Greenpeace case, which by providing a very broad definition of a human embryo restricts the patentability of hESC-based inventions, aims at harmonising the patenting practices regarding interpretation of Article 6.2.c of Directive 98/44/ EC. It fills the gaps in national laws by providing binding interpretation guidelines for national courts. As currently no marketing authorisations have been granted to hESC-based products, implications of this judgment for translational hESC research together with other barriers to commercialisation of such research need to be analysed. In addition, whether the main obstacles relate to patenting restrictions or whether something else in the innovation system is impeding the market entry of these innovative products is discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
