Patent policies to fine tune commercialization of government-sponsored university research

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 403-414

  Ganz Brown, Carole ^a  

^a NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIALIZATION; POLICY STRATEGY; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033493382     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154399781782194     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Goldie Blumenstyk (1997a), "High-stakes patent fight features research, politics, money", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 27 June, Money and Management, page A7.
2. Goldie Blumenstyk (1997b), "NIH rejects bid for license to technology patented by Hopkins", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 August, Money and Management, page A30.
3. Goldie Blumenstyk (1998), "Berkeley pact with a Swiss company takes technology transfer to a new level", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 December, page A56.
4. Goldie Blumenstyk (1999), "University of California patent suit puts biotech powerhouse under microscope", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 August, page A 45.
5. James Boyle (1996), Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA),
6. John Doll (1998), The patenting of DNA", Science, 280, 1 May, page 689.
7. Rebecca S Eisenberg, "Structure and function in gene patenting," Nature Genetics, 15, February, page 126.
8. Rebecca S Eisenberg (1996), "Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research", Virginia Law Review 82(1663).
9. J Merton England (1982), A Patron for Pure Science, The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945-57 (National Science Foundation, Washington DC).
10. GAO, General Accounting Office (1998), Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities (GAO/RCED-98-126, GAO, Washington, DC, 05/09/98).
11. Michael A Heller and Rebecca S Eisenberg (1998), "Can patents deter innovation? the anticommons in biomedical research", Science. 280, 1 May, pages 698-701.
12. Hybritech, Inc vs Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc 623 F.Supp.1344, 1353, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA)215, 221 (N.D.Cal. 1985, rev'd 802 F.2d 1367, 231 U.S.P.Q.(BNA)81(Fed Cir 1986).
13. John E Jankowski (1999), "Trends in academic research spending, alliances, and commercialization", Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, pages 55-68.
14. Thomas M Jorde and David J Teece (1992), "Introduction", in Jorde and Teech (1992).
15. Thomas M Jorde and David J Teech (editors) (1992), Antitrust, Innovation, and Competitiveness (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
16. Jonathan King and Doreen Stabinsky (1999), "Patents on cells, genes, and organisms undermine the exchange of scientific ideas", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 February, page B6.
17. Robert Kneller (1999), "Intellectual property rights and university-industry technology transfer in Japan", Science and Public Policy, 26(2), April, pages 113-124.
18. Linda Marsa (1997), Prescription for Profits (Scribner, New York).
19. Eliot Marshall (1997), "Snipping away at genome patenting". Science, 277, 19 September, page 1752.
20. Robert Mazzoleni and Richard R Nelson (1998), "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate". Research Policy, 27, pages 273-284.
21. Robert P Merges and Richard R Nelson (1990), "On the complex economics of patent scope", Columbia Law Review, 90.
22. Robert P Merges and Richard R Nelson (1992), "Market structure and technical advance: the role of patent scope decisions", in Jorde and Teech (1992), pages 185-232.
23. Eugene Moroz and Dorothy R Auth (1998), "The patenting challenges of gene discovery", Nature Biotechnology, 16 Supplement, 1 May.
24. National Research Council (1994), "Sharing laboratory resources: genetically altered mice", summary of a workshop held at the National Academy of Sciences, 23-24 March 1993 (National Academy Press, Washington DC).
25. National Research Council (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools (National Academy Press, Washington DC) (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/property/5.html).
26. National Science Board (1998), Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (National Science Foundation, Arlington VA).
27. Lita Nelsen (1998), "The rise of intellectual property protection in the American university". Science, 279, 6 March, page 1461.
28. Lita Nelsen (1999), "Investing in technology-based university intellectual property", in Bruce Berman (editor), Hidden Value: Profiting from the Intellectual Property Economy (Euromoney Publications, London).
29. RAFI (1993), "Control of cotton: the patenting of transgenic cotton", RAFI Communique, July/August, note 2, http://www.rafi.org/ communique/fltxt/19934.html.
30. J H Reichman and Pamela Samuelson (1997), "Intellectual property rights in data?", Vanderbilt Law Review, 50, note 34.
31. Nathan Rosenberg and Richard R Nelson (1994), "American universities and technical advance in industry", Research Policy, 23, page 339.
32. Pamela Samuelson (1997), "Letter to Representative Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, U.S., House of Representatives re: Tyson/Sherry Report", 23 October, http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/psamlet.html, page 3.
33. Parke-Davis & Co vs H K Mulford & Co, 189F.95 (CCSDNY 1911) affidavit 196F.496 (2nd circular 1912).
34. Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation vs Genentech, Inc, 666 F. Supp. 1379, 1390,3 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1481,1488 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
35. Seth Shulman (1999). Owning the Future (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston).
36. Lawrence M Sung and Don J Pelto (1998), "Bioinformatics may get boost from State Street", The National Law Journal, 19 October.
37. US Patent and Trademark Office (1999), Technology Assessment and Forecast Report, US Universities and Colleges, 1969-97 (USPTO, Washington DC)
38. Nicholas Wade (1984), "Background paper", The Science Business: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Commercialization of Scientific Research (Priority Press, New York).