Licensing research tool patents: Patent holders often seek royalties on the sales of products developed using their tools, but how broadly should “reach-through” claims be applied?

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 20, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 945-947

  Flattmann, Gerald J ^a   Kaplan, Jonathan M ^a  

^a Fish and Neave   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; ECONOMICS; INSTRUMENTATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; LICENSING; METHODOLOGY; PATENT; POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; LIABILITY, LEGAL; LICENSURE; PATENTS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036728491     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0902-945     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cullem, J.G. Panning for biotechnology gold: reach-through royalty damage awards for infringing uses of patented molecular sieves. Idea 39, 553 (1999).
2. USC § 112, first paragraph.
3. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk et al., 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4. Carroll, A.E. A review of recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: comment: not always the best medicine: biotechnology and the global impact of US patent law. Am. U.L. Rev. 44, 2433, 2482–2483 (1995).
5. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 US 100, 135–137 (1969).
6. Kobak, J.B. Intellectual property, competition law and hidden choices between original and sequential innovation. Va. J.L. & Tech. 3, 6 at ¶23 (citing Barton, J.H. Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation. Antitrust L.J. 65, 449, 454 (1997)).
7. Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber Co., 302 US 458, 463 (1938)
8. B. Braun Medical Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
9. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 US at 135 (1969).
10. Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
11. Harpold, M.M. & Brust, P. Assay methods and compositions useful for measuring the transduction of an intracellular signal. US patent 5,401,629 (“the ‘629 patent”).
12. Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F.3d at 1357–1359.
13. Bayer AG and Bayer Corp. v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 169 F.Supp 2d 328 (D. Del. 2001).
14. Idem at 329.
15. Idem at 331.
16. Eisenberg, R.S. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale L.J. 97, 177, 217 (1987).
17. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
18. Eisenberg, R.S. Patents and the progress of science: exclusive rights and experimental use. U. Chi. L. Rev. 56, 1017, 1078 (1989)
19. Barton, J.H. Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation. Antitrust L.J. 65, 449 (1997).
20. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120.