The European Commission has adopted a second report (COM(2005)312) to the Council and European Parliament covering developments and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering. The Commission is obliged to file such reports periodically under the terms of the Biotechnology Directive 98/44/EC. The Commission found as follows:
*Gene sequences – the Commission won’t take a position on whether, in choosing to take a restrictive or wide view to patenting gene sequences, the Member States’ implementations of the Biotech Directive are invalid.The IPKat thinks that, considering the controversial nature of the matter, the Commission’s cautious approach is understandable. However, if certain biotech inventions are patentable in some EU jurisdictions but not others, this forms a real barrier within trade between the Member States.
*Human DNA patenting – the Commission has launched a study on will investigate the extent of human DNA patenting in European and its effect on R&D.
*Stem cells – it is too early to reach a conclusion on whether there is a need for further harmonisation with regard to whether inventions relating to stem cells that are incapable of becoming a human being should be patentable and the matter will be kept under observation. Stem cells which are capable of becoming a human being are excluded from patentability under the terms of the Biotech Directive.
*Implementation by Member States - Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia and Lithuania have not implemented the Directive.
WHEN IN DOUBT, DO NOWT
![WHEN IN DOUBT, DO NOWT]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html