Literature DB >> 21999267

Brüstle v. Greenpeace: implications for stem cell research.

Alexander Denoon1.   

Abstract

On 10 March 2011, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice for the European Union issued an Opinion, which essentially recommended that certain inventions related to human embryonic stem cells should not be patentable. Since the publication of the Opinion, the case (Brüstle v. Greenpeace Case C-34/10) has generated a lot of commentary, including numerous articles and discussion in the UK parliment. This article will seek to summarize the case and discuss its practical ramifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21999267     DOI: 10.2217/rme.11.76

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regen Med        ISSN: 1746-0751            Impact factor:   3.806


  1 in total

1.  Defining "research" in the US and EU: contrast of Sherley v. Sebelius and Brüstle v. Greenpeace rulings.

Authors:  Maude L Cuchiara; James Lawford Davies; Kirstin R W Matthews
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.739

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.