Science and the law: Patent swords and shields

Science

Volumn 299, Issue 5609, 2003, Pages 1018-1019

  Eisenberg, Rebecca S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAW ENFORCEMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

ACCIDENT; CALCULATION; COURT; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRON; LABORATORY; LASER; LAW; LAW SUIT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PHYSICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SHORT SURVEY; UNIVERSITY;

COMMERCE; PATENTS; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 0037436107     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1081790     Document Type: Short Survey

References (23)

1. Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (3 October 2002).
2. Act of 12 December 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, Section 6(a), 94 Stat. 3015, 3019-28 (1980) [codified as amended at 35 U.S. Code § 200-212 (1994)].
3. Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community Patent, art. 9 (1 August 2000), Off. J. Eur. Communities 43 (C 337E), p. 278 (28 November 2000); available at europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/ce337/ce33720001128en02780290.pdf.
4. J. Mueller, Wash. Law Rev. 76, 1 (2001).
5. 35 U.S.C. § 271 (e).
6. 9 F. Cases 1120 (D. Mass. 1813).
7. For example, Radio Corp. of Am. v. Andrea, 15 F. Supp. 685, 687 (E.D.N.Y. 1936), modified on other grounds, 90 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1937) (assembling parts of patented combination to test them was infringement where assembly was "not a scientific research or an engineering inquiry" but rather "a step which the defendants apparently deemed necessary in the manufacture and sale of their product").
8. 13 F. Supp. 697 (D. Colo. 1935).
9. (8) at 703.
10. R. Hantman, Experimental Use as an Exception to Patent Infringement, J. Pat. Off. Soc. 67, 617 (1985).
11. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Colleges and Universities - Utility Patent Grants, Calendar Years 1969-2000 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC, accessed 15 December 2002); available at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/asgn/table_1.htm.
12. M. Barinaga, Science 286, 1655 (1999).
13. Univ. of Minnesota, "Fact sheet on Glaxo-Wellcome AIDS discovery settlement" (5 October 1999); available at www1.umn.edu/urelate/newsservice/newsreleases/99_10glaxo facts.html.
14. M. Fisk, National Law Journal 26 August 2002, p. A1.
15. "Some senators cry foul over inclusion of patent extension rider in spending bills," Daily Report for Executives 23 June 2000 (no. 122), p.A-41 (Bureau of National Affairs, www.bna.com, accessed 23 June 2000).
16. 35 U.S.C. § 202(d).
17. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25 [codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. sections 41 et seq. (1982)].
18. 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
19. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e).
20. 216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
21. 216 F.3d at 13S2-53 (J. Rader, concurring).
22. 307 F. 3d 1351, at n.7.
23. I am grateful to A. Rai, M. Van Houweling, and M. Adelman for helpful comments on an earlier draft.