The patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Europe

Porter, Gerard; Denning, Chris; Plomer, Aurora; Sinden, John D.; Torremans, Paul

doi:10.1038/nbt0606-653

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, there continues to be national and international debate regarding the appropriateness of biotechnology patents, particularly in the areas of genetics and stem cells [15][16][17][18][19]101]. While the evidence remains less than robust, some commentators have speculated that patents hurt the research environment by increasing secrecy and costs [7,10,[20][21][22].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: There has been a great deal of discussion in relevant literature on the adverse impact of commercialization agendas and the patenting regime on research in emerging fields. We sought to assess the perceived impact of these factors on the stem cell research community in Canada. Materials & methods: We surveyed 283 researchers from Canada’s Stem Cell Network using a survey instrument informed by relevant literature and systematic consultations with Canadian and international regulators, stem cell researchers and research ethics experts designed to identify pressing ethical, legal and social issues relevant to stem cell research. A total of 108 researchers responded to the survey. Results & conclusions: Results indicate that although many researchers believe that patents may have adverse effects on research, very few have encountered any such effects in practice. The researchers admitted to withholding data to protect patenting opportunities, while also maintaining that patents did not contribute to publication delays. The pressure to commercialize their research was largely held to be reasonable by researchers.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The European Patent Office (EPO) has refused to grant hESC patents based on its interpretation of the “European Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions”, which holds unpatentable inventions concerning products of human stem cell cultures that can only be obtained by the use, involving their destruction, of human embryos [14, 21-25]. The EPO regards patents on hESCs as illegal because they are patents on a human body or human body part, offend human dignity, or involve commercial or industrial uses of embryos [14, 21-25]. However, in spite of controversy surrounding the ownership of hESCs, the number of patent applications related to hESCs is growing rapidly in the last 5 years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Parsons¹,

Teng²,

Moore³

et al. 2011

RPGM

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are genetically stable with unlimited expansion ability and unrestricted plasticity, proffering a pluripotent reservoir for in vitro derivation of a large supply of disease-targeted human somatic cells that are restricted to the lineage in need of repair. There is a large healthcare need to develop hESC-based therapeutic solutions to provide optimal regeneration and reconstruction treatment options for the damaged or lost tissue or organ that have been lacking. In spite of controversy surrounding the ownership of hESCs, the number of patent applications related to hESCs is growing rapidly. This review gives an overview of different patent applications on technologies of derivation, maintenance, differentiation, and manipulation of hESCs for therapies. Many of the published patent applications have been based on previously established methods in the animal systems and multi-lineage inclination of pluripotent cells through spontaneous germ-layer differentiation. Innovative human stem cell technologies that are safe and effective for human tissue and organ regeneration in the clinical setting remain to be developed. Our overall view on the current patent situation of hESC technologies suggests a trend towards hESC patent filings on novel therapeutic strategies of direct control and modulation of hESC pluripotent fate, particularly in a 3-dimensional context, when deriving clinically-relevant lineages for regenerative therapies.

show abstract

“…The United Kingdom, for example, will grant patents on pluripotent and multipotent human embryonic stem cells but not on totipotent embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into human beings [45]. Sweden, which has some of the most liberal embryonic stem cell research laws in Europe, also allows patents on human embryonic stem cells [20,33]. It is also worth noting that Canada has so far refused to grant patents on human embryonic stem cells [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lawsuit filed by Plurion in 2003 may have a major impact on the human embryonic stem cell patenting in the United States. To date, the US has granted 41 patents on embryonic stem cells or process for isolating, purifying, or culturing embryonic stem cells [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The net effect of these different policies is that the EPO regards patents on human embryonic stem cells as illegal because they are (1) patents on a human body or human body part, or (2) they offend human dignity, or (3) they involve commercial or industrial uses of embryos. Not all European countries have followed the EPO's moratorium, however [33]. The United Kingdom, for example, will grant patents on pluripotent and multipotent human embryonic stem cells but not on totipotent embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into human beings [45].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity

Resnik

2007

Health Care Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the assertion that human embryonic stem cells patents are immoral because they violate human dignity. After analyzing the concept of human dignity and its role in bioethics debates, this article argues that patents on human embryos or totipotent embryonic stem cells violate human dignity, but that patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells do not. Since patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells may still threaten human dignity by encouraging people to treat embryos as property, patent agencies should carefully monitor and control these patents to ensure that patents are not inadvertently awarded on embryos or totipotent stem cells.

show abstract

The patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Europe

Abstract: Applicants in Europe are left with few options for the patent protection of hES cell-related technology.

Cited by 22 publications

References 3 publications

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About