Before the fertilisation watchdog announced it was to challenge the High Court ruling, widow Beth Warren had told ITV News she was "elated" at a judge saying she could preserve her late husband's sperm.
She said: "It's absolutely amazing. I knew it could go either way. I am elated.
"Warren's family and friends have told me how proud he would have been of me, and that means a lot.
"Warren was such a fighter, he fought the brain tumor as hard as he possibly could, he stayed positive. We tried and he taught me how to be a fighter."
Speaking during the verdict, Judge Mrs Justice Hogg said: "I have held that Mrs Warren has the right to decide to become a parent by her deceased husband.
"She fell in love with a man, cared for him and loved him. I wish her and Mr Brewster's parent well, and ultimately whatever her decision may be I wish her and the family much happiness after such a difficult and sad time".
The High Court will decide if a widow fighting to stop the destruction of late husband's sperm can keep it in storage for longer than the limit set by the UK fertility regulator.
Physiotherapist Beth Warren, 28, from Birmingham, lost her husband to Warren to cancer two years ago, and placed his sperm in storage.
Mrs Warren, who uses her late husband's first name as her surname, has asked a High Court judge to rule that the sperm could stay in storage for a longer period.
"I have absolutely no idea what the ruling will be," said Mrs Warren. "I think the judge understood that my husband had signed every form he had to. It's all about whether she can find a lawful way to allow it."
The Attorney General's decision to block public disclosure of letters the Prince of Wales wrote to Government ministers was upheld by the High Court today.
Guardian newspaper journalist Rob Evans accused Dominic Grieve of going wrong in law and "overriding an independent and impartial tribunal".
But today the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Globe, refused to overturn Mr Grieve's veto last October on the release of correspondence between Charles and seven Government departments.
They ruled that it was "an exceptional case meriting use of the ministerial veto to prevent disclosure and to safeguard the public interest".
Mr Grieve, the Government's principal legal adviser, said his decision was based on his view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince's "preparation for becoming king".
Making the letters public could potentially damage the principle of the heir to the throne being politically neutral, and so undermine his ability to fulfil his duties when king, said Mr Grieve.