Patent Law

EPO Board concludes hearing on WARF stem cell patent application

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

After hearing the arguments, the board said it would not need to continue the hearing Wednesday [June 25] as originally planned. EPO spokesman Rainer Osterwalder said he expected the board to rule before Europe's summer holidays.

(...)

One of the main reasons for the EPO refusal was that the method used a human embryo which was destroyed in the process.
Justin Turner, the lawyer for WARF, told EPO's supreme judiciary body, the seven-member Enlarged Board of Appeal, "There are no grounds whatever to deny a patent for embryonal stem cells."

He said EPO guidelines prevented patenting human embryos themselves, but not the cells derived from them.
EPO defended its refusal, saying an embryo had clearly been used and EPO rules obliged the Munich based office to protect the human dignity of the embryo.

[Certain opponents to WARF's U.S. patents have neglected to point out this underlying reason for WARF's failure to get patents in Europe, which reason had nothing to do with the reasons put forth in the ill-fated re-examination initiated by FTCR and PubPat.]

**See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/06/epoeba-to-review-warf-stem-cell.html

****SEPARATELY

In the quirky world of California politics, a lobbying group of Robert Klein, who happens to be head of CIRM, is opposing legislation to alter CIRM (SB1565). One might have thought there was a conflict of interest somewhere here.

Californiastemcellreport writes:

The private stem cell lobbying group run by Robert Klein [Americans for Cures], who also serves as chairman of the $3 billion state stem cell agency, is formally opposing legislation aimed at ensuring that state-financed therapies are affordable and accessible to Californians.

Full post as published by IPBiz on June 25, 2008 (boomark / email).