It is not patentable a biotechnological invention involving the destruction of human embryos. Meaning and scope of the sentence CJEU in case C-34/10
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2012.26.7530Keywords:
Brüstle, Greenpeace, TJUE, patentes, biotecnologíaAbstract
Last October 18th, the European Union Court of Justice pronounced a sentence in order to answer some prejudicial questions, and concluded that a procedure in which stem cells are extracted from a human embryo, being considered so since it’s conception, it’s not patentable if this procedure itself implies the embryo’s destruction. The sentence makes a legal analysis about a series of articles of the Directive 98/44/EC, about the Law of patents in biotechnological inventions. Given the publication of the sentence has been evaluated by multiple articles criticizing or exalting the European Union Court of Justice’s resolution, the main objective of this article is to analyze accurately the legal meaning of the sentence. Key words: Brüstle, Greenpeace, TJUE, patents, biotechnology.
Downloads
How to Cite
Tatay Pérez, D. G. (2012). It is not patentable a biotechnological invention involving the destruction of human embryos. Meaning and scope of the sentence CJEU in case C-34/10. Revista De Bioética Y Derecho, (26), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2012.26.7530
Issue
Section
General section
License
The author retains the copyright and grants Revista de Bioética y Derecho the right of first publication of the article. All articles published in Revista de Bioética y Derecho are under Creative Commons licensing Recognition – Non Commercial – NoDerivedArtwork (by-nc-nd 4.0), which allows sharing the content with third parties, provided that they acknowledge its authorship, initial publication in this journal and the terms of the license. No commercial use of the original work or generation of derivative works is permitted.
