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

The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
Gift this article