Good news for stem cell patents in German Brüstle ruling

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Good news for stem cell patents in German Brüstle ruling

One year after the Court of Justice of the EU limited the stem cell research that can be protected by patents in Brüstle, the German Federal Court has ruled in the original case

In October 2011, Europe's highest court decided that a process that involves removal of a stem cell from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, entailing the destruction of that embryo, cannot be patented.

It was ruling in a case referred to it by a German court, which asked the judges in Luxembourg to decide what is meant by the term "human embryos" in Article 6(2) of the directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. In particular, it wanted to know whether the term embryo included all stages from the fertilisation of the ovum. It also asked what is meant by the expression "uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes".

The case stems from a challenge launched by environmental campaign group Greenpeace against an application filed by research scientist Oliver Brüstle in 1997. The application related to his research work on isolated and purified neural precursor cells produced from human embryonic stem cells used to treat neurological diseases. Greenpeace claimed the patent was invalid because it covers processes for obtaining precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells.

Following the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, it was left to the German courts to decide on the patentability of Brüstle's work.

On Tuesday, the country's Federal Court of Justice ruled that Brüstle's patent DE19756864 could be maintained in amended form, overruling the German Patent Court's finding of partial invalidity at first instance.

In particular, the Court said it was satisfied that a general disclaimer excluding the destruction of human embryos would render inventions relating to human embryonic stem cells patentable.

Paul Chapman of Marks & Clerk described the ruling as "good news for bio-medical researchers worldwide".

"According to the German Federal Court, because stem cells do not have by themselves the capability to initiate the process of developing into a human being, they cannot be treated as human embryos per se. This means that, save when stem cells are harvested by destroying human embryos, cells derived from human embryonic stem cells can be patented."

He added that the decision could prompt the EPO and the UK IPO to consider revising restrictive guidelines they drew up in the wake of the Court of Justice's decision that banned patents on stem cells derived from blastocysts altogether.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article