Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV
An invention cannot be patented if it requires the prior destruction of human embryos, because the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes is excluded.
Facts
Professor Brüstle held a German patent for neural precursor cells produced from human embryonic stem cells, and processes for producing them, which could be used to treat neurological diseases. The process of obtaining the stem cells required the destruction of human embryos. Greenpeace sought to have the patent revoked, on the ground that it was contrary to the EU Biotechnology Directive, which excludes uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the concept of a human embryo must be understood in a wide sense, covering any human ovum after fertilisation and certain other cells capable of developing into a human being. An invention is excluded from patentability where the technical teaching which is the subject matter of the patent application requires the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material, whatever the stage at which that takes place. The exclusion also covers use for scientific research, except where the use is for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes that are applied to the human embryo and useful to it.
Related cases on patents: patentability and validity
- Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan's Application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, [2007] RPC 7
- Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1
- Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc [2008] UKHL 49, [2008] RPC 28
- Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2024] EWCA Civ 825
- Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12, [2009] RPC 13
- Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly & Co [2011] UKSC 51, [2012] RPC 6
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76
- Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588, [2007] FSR 37
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
