Az emberi embrió védelme a biotechnológiai találmányok szabadalmaztatása során

Absztrakt

The Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions provides that uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes are not patentable. In 2011 the Court of Justice ruled in the Brüstle Case that a non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by chemical and electrical techniques must also be classified as a human embryo as it is capable of commencing the process of development of a human being. As a result, scientific solutions implying the use of organisms resulting from such ova got also excluded from the circle of patentable inventions.

The Brüstle judgment was heavily criticised by the scientific world in Europe since it saw in it an obstacle to medical research on the Old Continent. European scientists highlighted that this ruling had deprived them from the possibility to enjoy the fruits of their work, whilst their peers in the US and Asia could seek legal protection for their inventions. They also recalled that the use of organisms created by the artificial stimulation of a human ovum seemed to be inevitable in the treatment of patients suffering from neurological diseases such as the Parkinson’s disease.

However, it turned out that the Brüstle judgment had been based on imprecise scientific data and the Court was asked to deliver a new ruling to dispel any doubts resulting from the Brüstle decision. In its judgment given in December 2014 in the International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCC) Case, the Court pointed out that the human embryo, as interpreted in the Brüstle judgment, is limited to organisms capable of commencing the process of development which actually leads to a human being.

The Court’s new approach employed in the ISCC Case took account of the fact that, according to current scientific knowledge, human ova stimulated by chemical and electrical techniques can never develop to term because they do not contain any paternal DNA, which is required for the development of extra-embryonic tissue.

In the light of scientific research aimed at finding a solution so that non-fertilised, artificially stimulated human ova could develop into a human being, the Court emphasised that processes using organisms resulting from such ova may be patented only on the condition that these organisms are not capable of developing to term.