The European Court of Justice dealt in Case C-364/13 with the issuee of whether methods that include the use of activated via parthenogenesis human eggs can be patented. Essentially, therefore, the Court was asked to define the meaning of “human embryo”, the latter being protected by the Directive 98/44/EC. According to the Directive, it is impossible to patent the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.The European Court of Justice dealt in Case C-364/13 with the issuee of whether methods that include the use of activated via parthenogenesis human eggs can be patented. Essentially, therefore, the Court was asked to define the meaning of “human embryo”, the latter being protected by the Directive 98/44/EC. According to the Directive, it is impossible to patent the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.

The case was introduced in ECJ at a preliminary ruling from the UK Supreme Court, in order to resolve the difference between a company developing biotechnological inventions and the British Patent Office. The ECJ held that for an unfertilized human egg to be characterize as a 'human embryo', it must inherently have the ability to develop into a human being. Consequently, the beginning of a growth mechanism after the activation of the egg by parthenogenesis is not sufficient enough to characterize it as a "human embryo".

                 The decision concludes that it is up to the British court to ascertain whether the organisms included in the patent applications of the company can inherently be deployed into human beings, always in the light of sufficiently proven and validated by the international medical science and knowledge.

Source: http://www.lawnet.gr