title: Brüstle v. Greenpeace: implications for stem cell research.
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.
authors: Lawford Davies Denoon, 14A Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R 0DP, UK. alex@lawforddaviesdenoon.com
authors: Alexander
authors: A
authors: Denoon
mesh_terms: D018929:Cell Culture Techniques / Q000379:methods; D005062:European Union; D005104:Expert Testimony; D006801:Humans; D038622:Internationality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007603:Jurisprudence; D007883:Legislation, Medical / Q000639:trends; D009422:Nervous System Diseases / Q000628:therapy; D010330:Patents as Topic; D044968:Regenerative Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000379:methods; D057905:Stem Cell Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*