G 2/06
cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="1" align="right" style="margin-left: 0.5em" width=300px
! bgcolor="6699FF" | G 2/06 |
align="center" | Image:Scale of justice.png Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office |
bgcolor="6699FF" | Issued November 25, 2008 |
---|
bgcolor="6699FF" | Board composition |
{| align="center" |
Chairman: Peter Messerli |
Members: S. Perryman, P. Alting van Geusau, U. Kinkeldey, M. Scuffi, J.-P. Seitz, O. Spineanu-Matel |
|-
! bgcolor="6699FF" | Headword
|-
|
align="center" |
Use of embryos/WARF |
|-
|}
G 2/06 is a decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which issued on 25 November 2008. In its answer to question 2, the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that "{{EPC Rule|28|c}} (formerly [{{EPC 1973 Rule|23d|c}}]) forbids the patenting of claims directed to products which – as described in the application – at the filing date could be prepared exclusively by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of the human embryos from which the said products are derived, even if the said method is not part of the claims." In short, a patent under the European Patent Convention (EPC) cannot be granted for an invention which necessarily involves the use and destruction of human embryos.[http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20081127.html No European patent for WARF/Thomson stem cell application] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203111315/http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20081127.html |date=2008-12-03 }}, EPO web site, News, November 27, 2008. Consulted on November 28, 2008.Stephanie Bodoni, [http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/wisconsin-stem-cell-patent-refused-by-european-agency-1556282.html Wisconsin stem cell patent refused by European agency], Independent.ie, November 28, 2008. Consulted on November 28, 2008. The decision notably refers to the provisions of EU Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, referred to in {{EPC Rule|26|1}}.
The reactions to the decision were mixed. According to Reuters, the decision could stifle research by stem cell companies for commercial purposes.[https://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSLR13349220081127 UPDATE 1-European agency rules against stem cell patents], Reuters, November 27, 2008. Consulted on November 28, 2008. In contrast, according to the Guardian, "some experts believe this will provide a boost for European companies developing technologies based on human embryonic stem cells".James Randerson, [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/nov/27/embryonic-stem-cells-patent Europe rejects patent governing use of embryonic stem cells], guardian.co.uk, November 27, 2008. Consulted on November 28, 2008.
References
{{reflist|30em}}
External links
- [http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g060002ex1.html Decision G 2/06], Official Journal EPO 5/2009, 306 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EP:BA:2008:G000206.20081125}})
- [https://web.archive.org/web/20081203111315/http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20081127.html No European patent for WARF/Thomson stem cell application], EPO web site, News, 27 November 2008.
- {{EPO Register|appno=96903521|patno=0770125}}, entitled "Primate Embryonic Stem Cells", applied for by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and which was the subject of the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
{{Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:G 2 06}}