PATENTABILITY OF HUMAN STEM CELLS JURISDICTION REPORT: MEXICO
Fernando Antonio-Rincón Becerril, Coca & Becerril, S.C.
Te increased understanding of stem cells is one of the major breakthroughs in life sciences of the last decade. Stem cells have particular properties that allow them to differentiate into various types of mature cells found in all vertebrate animals, including human beings.
Tis ability to divide into identical or different types of cells is a feature of stem cells that, surprisingly, allows them to repair the necessary tissues to treat deteriorating diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and diabetes, as well as damage caused by strokes, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases and birth defects such as heart failure or congenital blindness. Tese cells are also considered as key research tools for gaining important scientific insight into embryonic development and evaluating in vitro drugs, such as anticarcinogens, for the treatment of diseases.
Traditionally, stem cells have been classified in two types: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are cells that, in humans, are isolated from the inner cell mass of a four to five-day-old embryo post-fertilisation, with the capacity of forming all cell types from an adult organism.
On the other hand, adult stem cells exist in various parts of the body, such as the brain, bone marrow, liver, skin or blood. Tese are undifferentiated cells with the capacity to differentiate into some or all the specialised cell types of the tissue or organ in which they are found.
In Mexico, claims related to human stem cells were being rejected by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) not so long ago. However, in a truly surprising and radical change on the subject, IMPI has indicated that adult stem cells can be considered patentable. Terefore, it can be concluded that IMPI rejects the patentability of embryonic stem cells, since these cells are obtained by the destruction of human embryos.
Te above stance goes in tandem with that of the European Patent Office, which has issued three decisions on the patentability of human embryonic cells. One of these rulings was from the Opposition Division to the Edinburgh Patent, in which most of the claims were interpreted as relating to the use of human embryos for the production of embryonic cells, and human embryos would be destroyed in the process; the Opposition Division found that the invention was against article 53(a) and rule 23d(c) of the European Patent Convention.
Based on experience in the prosecution of these types of cases, it is safe to point out that inventions related to human embryonic stem cells are generally contested by IMPI, based on article 4 of the Industrial Property Law, which states:
“ IN MEXICO, CLAIMS RELATED TO HUMAN STEM CELLS WERE BEING REJECTED BY THE MEXICAN INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY (IMPI) NOT SO LONG AGO. HOWEVER, IN A TRULY SURPRISING AND RADICAL CHANGE ON THE SUBJECT, IMPI HAS INDICATED THAT ADULT STEM CELLS CAN BE CONSIDERED PATENTABLE.”
“No patent, registration or authorization shall be granted, neither shall any publicity be given in the Gazette in respect of any of the legal devices or institutions regulated by this Law when their contents or form are contrary to public policy, morality or proper practice, or if they violate any legal provision.”
Tis provision is interpreted by IMPI as equivalent to the stipulations of article 327 of the General Health Law in Mexico, which states that:
“Trade of organs, tissues and cells is prohibited. Donation of the latter for transplant purposes shall be governed by principles of altruism, non- profitness and confidentiality; therefore, obtention and use thereof shall be strictly gratuitous.”
Terefore, IMPI’s decision does not merely imply that the use of human embryos for commercial purposes cannot be patentable, but that human embryonic stem cells, their therapeutic uses and processes for obtaining them will face the same fate as well.
However, the above exclusion in no way encompasses adult human stem cells that have been isolated from the human body. So unless a contrary stance emerges, IMPI will continue granting patents to those inventions, provided they meet the universal requirements of patentability.
Fernando Antonio-Rincón is a department engineer at Becerril, Coca & Becerril, S.C. He can be contacted at:
frincon@bcb.com.mx
88 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108