About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) | Main | Comparative Study on Patenting of Human Embryonic Stem Cells »

November 15, 2011


"Whether the negative effects of the ECJ's ruling outweigh those benefits cannot be predicted."

Sure it can Kev. Watch. I predict that the "negative effects" of the ruling, if they exist, will not outweigh the benefits.

On a more dour, but probably realistic, note: it seems quite unlikely that "time will tell" about the effects of the ECJ ruling. I doubt we'll ever know. There are so very many confounds in policies about hESC reearch and its applications, and patent are just one, possibly a minor one at that (compared to regulatory data exclusivity, other forms of exclusivity...). Other factors at least as important: whether stem cells actually work, level of R&D funding, whether policies about such products have higher or lower barriers to market entry due to regulatory pathways (that are not well trammeled or clearly marked), alternative cell-based methods that don't involve hESCs at any step... The odds of our being able to sort out a causal pathway of what policies mattered most are very low, even in retrospect, let alone prospectively.

"On a more dour, but probably realistic, note: it seems quite unlikely that "time will tell" about the effects of the ECJ ruling."

In other words, he agrees with me, if there are any negative effects, which there very well may not be, will not outweight the benefits.

We realists think alike.

Dear Bob:

Actually, we might be able to tell, if the effects are similar to the effects of the Bush stem cell ban. While I agree that there are confounding variables, if stem cell companies flock to more hospitable shores (to paraphrase Chief Judge Rader) we will have a good indication. But of course there is no way to predict.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31