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

Cookies Settings

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

Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Gift this article