Australia experiments with 'experimental use' exemption

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1023-1025

  McBratney, Amanda ^a   Nielsen, Katherine ^b   McMillan, Fiona ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b IMBcom Pty Ltd   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EXPERIMENT; LAW; LICENSING; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; SHORT SURVEY;

AUSTRALIA; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DISCLOSURE; LIABILITY, LEGAL; LICENSURE; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3543011971     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0804-1023     Document Type: Short Survey

References (24)

1. Ducor, P. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 1027-1028 (1999).
2. 307 F3d 1351 (2002). The US Supreme Court refused an appeal in June 2003.
3. See for example section 60(5)(b), Patents Act 1977 (UK); Article 11.2 Patent Act (Germany), in force since 1981.
4. Section 55.2(6), Patent Act 1985 (Canada).
5. See Monsanto Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. (NZ) [1984] FSR 559; Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v. Attorney-General (NZ) [1991] 2 NZLR 560.
6. Australian Law Reform Commission. Issues Paper 27, December 2002 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/issues/27) at 226.
7. ALRC. Discussion Paper 68, February 2004 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ other/alrc/publications/dp/68).
8. Advisory Council on Intellectual Property. Patents and Experimental Use Issues Paper, February 2004 (http://www.acip.gov.au/library/patentsexpuse.PDF).
9. Dwyer, J.W., Dufty, A., Lahore, J. & Garnsey, J. Patents, Trade Marks & Related Rights (Butterworths, Sydney; 1996).
10. Discussion Paper 68, at 408.
11. Ludwig, S.P. & Chumney, J.C. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 453 (2003).
12. Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation, in Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (eds Cohen, W.M. & Merrill, S.) 285-340 (National Academy Press, Washington; 2003).
13. Walsh, J.P., Arora, A. & Cohen, W.M. Science 299, 1021 (14 February 2003).
14. Lanjouw, J.O. & Schankerman M. Enforcement of patent rights in the United States, in Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (eds. Cohen, W.M. & Merrill, S.) 143-179 (National Academy Press, Washington, 2003).
15. See for example the arguments on sections 9 and 13 of the Patents Act in the ALRC Discussion Paper, 378-389; and in the ACIP Issues Paper, 1.
16. 9 ChD 48 (1876).
17. Anaesthetic Supplies Pty Ltd v. Rescare Ltd (1994) 28 IPR 383 at 399 per Lockhart J. Emphasis added.
18. See Michel, S. 7 High Technol. L.J. 369-398 (1992). See also Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Science 280, 698-700 (1998); Eisenberg R. 56 Univ. Chicago L.R. 1056 (1989).
19. See Michel, S. 7 High Technol. L.J. 369-398 (1992). See also Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Science 280, 698-700 (1998); Eisenberg R. 56 Univ. Chicago L.R. 1056 (1989).
20. See Michel, S. 7 High Technol. L.J. 369-398 (1992). See also Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Science 280, 698-700 (1998); Eisenberg R. 56 Univ. Chicago L.R. 1056 (1989).
21. Issues Paper 27, at 224. Emphasis in original.
22. Discussion Paper 68, at 398, 400, 412.
23. Id. at 408.
24. Id. at 409-410.