Click the case name for better results:

International Stem Cell Corporation (Patent): IPO 16 Aug 2012

IPO Patent applications GB0621068.6 and GB0621069.4 relate to methods where parthenogenesis is used to activate a human oocyte (i.e. stimulation of a human oocyte, without fertilisation by a sperm cell) to produce a parthenogenetically-activated oocyte or ‘parthenote’. GB0621068.6 concerns the production of human stem cells from such parthenotes, whilst GB0621069.4 concerns human synthetic corneas and … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation (Patent): IPO 16 Aug 2012

International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ECJ 18 Dec 2014

ECJ Grand Chamber – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 98/44/EC – Article 6(2)(c) – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Parthenogenetic activation of oocytes – Production of human embryonic stem cells – Patentability – Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ – Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘organism capable … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ECJ 18 Dec 2014

Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Intervener in support of the defendant: Argentine State: ECJ 6 Jul 2010

Europa Industrial and commercial property – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Directive 98/44/EC – Article 9 – Patent protecting a product containing or consisting of genetic information – Material incorporating the product – Protection – Conditions. Citations: [2010] EUECJ C-428/08 Links: Bailii Statutes: Directive 98/44/EC 9 Citing: See Also – Monsanto Technology (Industrial Policy) … Continue reading Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH, Intervener in support of the defendant: Argentine State: ECJ 6 Jul 2010

Commission v Italy C-456/03: ECJ 16 Jun 2005

EU (Industrial Policy) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/44/EC – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Admissibility – Failure to transpose – Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12. Citations: [2005] EUECJ C-456/03 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Intellectual Property Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226962

International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 17 Apr 2013

The company appealed against refusal of patentunder the provision restricting such for ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ Held: The matter was referred to the ECJ. Henry Carr QC [2013] EWHC 807 (Ch), [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2, BL O/316/12, [2013] 3 CMLR 14, [2014] RPC 2 Bailii Patents Act … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 17 Apr 2013

Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace eV: ECJ 18 Oct 2011

ECJ Directive 98/44/EC – Article 6(2)(c) – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Extraction of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells – Patentability – Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ – Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘use for industrial or commercial purposes V Skouris, P [2011] EUECJ C-34/10, [2012] … Continue reading Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace eV: ECJ 18 Oct 2011

International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ECJ 17 Jul 2014

ECJ (Advocate General’s Opinion) – Directive 98/44/EC – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Patentability – Stem cells – Stimulation by parthenogenesis of unfertilised human ova to create stem cells – Parthenotes – List of inventions excluded from patentability – Non-exhaustive character of the list – Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or … Continue reading International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents: ECJ 17 Jul 2014

Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace eV: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

brustle_greenpeaceECJ11 ECJ Directive 98/44/EC – Legal protection of biotechnological inventions – Obtaining cell precursors from human embryonic stem cells – Patentability – Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial’ – Concepts of human embryo’ and of ‘Use and for industrial or commercial’ – Respect the principle of human dignity. (Opinion of Attorney … Continue reading Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace eV: ECJ 10 Mar 2011