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 2025

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

The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Law firms are integrating AI to remain competitive, and some are noticing an impact on traditional training and billing models
IP partners are among those advising on Netflix's planned $82.7bn acquisition of Warner, which has been rivalled by a $108.4bn bid by Paramount
Sheppard Mullin’s Jennifer Ayers reviews modifications to the rules of practice for IPR petitions and considers what practitioners need to know
News of the EUIPO launching a GI protection system, and WIPO publishing a review of the UDRP were also among the top talking points
A team from Addleshaw Goddard secured victory for the changing robe brand, following a trial against competitor D-Robe
Bird & Bird, Brinkhof and Bardehle Pagenberg were successful at the Court of Appeal, while there was a partial victory for Amazon in a case concerning audio recordings
Following the anniversary of Venner Shipley and AA Thornton's merger, Ian Gill recalls the initial trepidation about working for his spouse and offers tips for those who may find their personal and professional worlds colliding
Gift this article