Is Bbayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the us experience

PLoS Biology

Volumn 6, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2078-2084

  So, Anthony D ^a   Sampat, Bhaven N ^b   Rai, Arti K ^c   Cook Deegan, Robert ^c   Reichman, Jerome H ^c   Weissman, Robert ^d   Kapczynski, Amy ^e  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Essential Action   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING COUNTRY; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LICENSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; REVIEW; ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; PATENTS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 54949130185     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Graff GD (2007) Echoes of Bayh-Dole? A survey of IP and technology transfer policies in emerging and developing economies. In: Krattiger A, Mahoney RT, Nelsen L, Thompson JA, Bennett AB, et al., editors. Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford (UK): MIHR, and Davis(CA): PIPRA. pp. 169-195.
2. Republic of South Africa (2008) Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Bill [B46B-2008]. Available: http://www.pmg.org.za/bill/20080815-intellectual-property-rightspublicly- financed-research-and-developmen-0. Accessed 16 September 2008.
3. Jishnu L (2008) Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? Patently absurd. Business Standard. Available: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage. php?autono=328187. Accessed 16 September 2008.
4. United States Code (1980) The Patent and Trademark Act of 1980. Public Law 96-517. §6(a), 94 Stat. 3015, 3019-3028.
5. Eisenberg RS (1996) Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Va Law Rev 82: 1663-1727.
6. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2004) Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after Bayh-Dole. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. 241 p.
7. Mowery DC, Sampat BN (2005) The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? J Technol Transf 30: 115-127.
8. Pathak K (2008) Varsities may soon own patent rights. Business Standard. Available: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=317122. Accessed 16 September 2008.
9. Reichman JH, Giordano Coltart J (2008) A holistic approach to patents affecting frontier science: Lessons from the seminal genomic technology studies. Paper presented to the European Patent Forum 2008; 6-7 May 2008; Ljubljana, Slovenia.
10. Mackey TM (2008) Nanobiotechnology, synthetic biology, and RNAi: Patent portfolios for maximal near-term commercialization and commons for maximal long-term medical gain. Marquette Intellect Prop Law Rev: In press.
11. [No authors listed] (2002) Innovation's golden goose. The Economist 365: 3.
12. Pitroda S (2007) Letter to Indian Prime Minister from The National Knowledge Commission. Available: http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/ recommendations/LegislationPM.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
13. Sampat BN (2006) Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Res Pol 35: 772-789.
14. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2002) Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci 48: 1-23.
15. Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manage Sci 48: 44-60.
16. Nelson RR (2004) The market economy, and the scientific commons. Res Pol 33: 455-471.
17. Mowery DC, Sampat BN (2001) University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980. Ind Corp Change 10: 781-814.
18. Colyvas J, Crow M, Gelijns A, Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR, et al (2002) How do university inventions get into practice? Manage Sci 48: 61-72.
19. Association of University Technology Managers (2007) AUTM U.S. licensing activity survey: FY2006 survey summary, Data Appendix. Available: http://www.autm.net/events/file/AUTM_06_US%20LSS_FNL.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
20. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res Pol 30: 99-119.
21. Bulut H, Moschini G (2006) U.S. universities' net returns from patenting and licensing: A quantile regression analysis. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University Working Paper 06-WP 432. Available: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/06wp432.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
22. Nelsen L (1998) The rise of intellectual property protection in the American university. Science 279: 1460-1461.
23. Feldman MP, Colaianni A, Liu CK (2007) Lessons from the commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer patents: The Stanford University licensing program. In: Krattiger A, Mahoney RT, Nelsen L, Thompson JA, Bennett AB, et al., editors. Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford (UK): MIHR, and Davis(CA): PIPRA. pp. 1797-1807.
24. United States Supreme Court (1972) Gottschalk v. Benson. 409 U.S. 63, No. 71-485. Available: http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/398051. Accessed 16 September 2008.
25. Reichman JH, Cooper Dreyfuss R (2007) Harmonization without consensus: Critical reflections on drafting a substantive patent law treaty. Duke Law J 57: 85-130.
26. Thomson JA, inventor; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, assignee (1998) Primate embryonic stem cells. US Patent 5,843,780. Available: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5843780.html. Accessed 16 September 2008.
27. Thomson JA, inventor; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, assignee (2001) Primate embryonic stem cells. US Patent 6,200,806. Available: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6200806.html. Accessed 16 September 2008.
28. Thomson JA, inventor; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, assignee (2006) Primate embryonic stem cells. US Patent 7,029,913. Available: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7029913.html. Accessed 16 September 2008.
29. Holden C (2007) U.S. Patent office casts doubt on Wisconsin stem cell patents. Science 316: 812.
30. Rai AK, Eisenberg RS (2003) Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law Contemp Probl 66: 289-314.
31. Abrams I (2006) Human embryonic stem cells: A review of the intellectual property landscape. J Assoc Univ Technol Manag 8: 1-14.
32. Reimers N (1998) Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing and the Cohen/Boyer cloning patents: An oral history conducted in 1997 by Sally Smith Hughes, Ph.D. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Available: http://tinyurl.com/53olgt. Accessed 16 September 2008.
33. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280: 698-701.
34. Lemley MA (2008) Are universities patent trolls? Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 18: 611-631.
35. Kumar S, Rai A (2007) Synthetic biology: The intellectual property puzzle. Tex Law Rev 85: 1745-1768.
36. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM (2003) Working through the patent problem. Science 299: 1021.
37. Rai AK (2007) The role of federally-funded university research in the patent system. Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 110th Congress. Available: http://www.law.duke.edu/news/pdf/ rai_testimony.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
38. Johnson W (2007) Bayh-Dole: The next 25 years. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science & Technology. Available: http://science.house.gov/publications/Testimony.aspx?TID=7129. Accessed 16 September 2008.
39. Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing university innovations: A better way. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. Available: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/05_innovations_litan.aspx?rssid= education. Accessed 16 September 2008.
40. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (1999) Principles and guidelines for recipients of NIH research grants and contracts on obtaining and disseminating biomedical research resources: Final notice. Fed Regist 64: 72090-72096. Available: http://ott.od.nih.gov/policy/ rt_guide_final.html. Accessed 16 September 2008.
41. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (2005) Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions: Final notice. Fed Regist 70: 18413-18415. Available: http://ott.od.nih.gov/policy/ genomic_invention.html. Accessed 16 September 2008.
42. Stanford News Service (2007) In public interest: Nine points to consider in licensing university technology. Available: http://news-service.stanford.edu/ news/2007/march7/gifs/whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
43. Reichman JH (2004) Testimony before the NIH Public Hearing on March-In Rights under the Bayh-Dole Act, National Institutes of Health. Available: http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/meeting/Jerome-Reichman-Duke-Univ.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
44. US Office of Technology Assessment (1992) Federal and private roles in the development and provision of alglucerase therapy for Gaucher disease. Publication OTA-.BP-H-104. Available: http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/ 9214/9214.PDF. Accessed 16 September 2008.
45. United States General Accounting Office (2003) Technology transfer: NIH-Private sector partnership in the development of Taxol. Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden, GAO-03-829. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03829. pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
46. Love J, Flynn S (2004) Petition to use authority under Bah-Dole Act to promote access to Latanoprost. Letter to Thomas Thompson, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services. Available: http://www. essentialinventions.org/legal/xalatan/xalatan-29jan04petition.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
47. Love J, Flynn S (2004) Petition to use authority under Bah-Dole Act to promote access to Norvir. Letter to Thomas Thompson, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services. Available: http://www. essentialinventions.org/legal/norvir/norvir-29jan04petition.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2008.
48. Washburn J (2005) University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books. 352 p.
49. Greenberg DS (2007) Science for sale: The perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 288 p.
50. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell E, Louis KS (1996) Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: An industry survey. New Engl J Med 334: 368-374.
51. Campbell EG, Louis KS, Blumenthal D (1998) Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA 279: 995-999.
52. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, et al. (2002) Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287: 473-480.
53. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Causino N, Blumenthal D (2000) Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Res Pol 29: 303-312.
54. Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR (2007) Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Res Pol 36: 1512-1528.
55. Mowery DC, Sampat BN (2005) Universities in national innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR, editors. The Oxford handbook on innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 209-239.
56. Marshall E (2001) Bermuda Rules: Community spirit, with teeth. Science 291: 1192.
57. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (2007) An interview with Dennis Burton. IAVI Report 11. Available: http://www.iavireport.org/Issues/Issue11-1/ Burton.asp. Accessed 16 September 2008.
58. Atkinson RC, Beachy RN, Conway G, Cordova FA, Fox MA, et al. (2003) Public sector collaboration for agriculture IP management. Science 301: 174-175.
59. von Hippel E, von Krogh G, editors (2003) Open source software development. Res Pol 32: 1149-1291. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00054-4
60. Reichman J, Uhlir P (2003) A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law Contemp Probl 66: 315-462.
61. Maskus KE, Reichman JH (2003) The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. In: Maskus KE, Reichman JH, editors. International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-45.
62. Dreyfuss R (2004) Protecting the public domain of science: Has the time for experimental use defense arrived? Arizona Law Rev 458: 457-472.
63. Bar-Shalom A, Cook-Deegan R (2002) Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: Lessons from CellPro. Milbank Q 80: 637-76.
64. McGarey BM, Levey AC (1999) Patents, products, and public health analysis of the CellPro march-in petition. Berkeley Technol Law J 14: 1095-1116.
65. United States Patent and Trademark Office (1980) March-in rights. US Code title 35, part II, chapter 18, §203. Available: http://uspto.gov/web/ offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_203.htm#usu35s20.3. Accessed 16 September 2008.
66. Reichman JH, Hasenzahl C (2002) Nonvoluntary licensing of patented inventions: Historical perspective, legal framework under TRIPS, and an overview of the practice in Canada and the USA. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development Series. Available: http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ ictsd_series/iprs/CS_reichman_hasenzahl.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2008.
67. Abbott FM, Reichman JH (2007) The Doha Round's public health legacy: Strategies for the production and diffusion of patented medicines under the amended TRIPS provisions. J Int Econ Law 10: 921-987.
68. Outterson K (2006) Patent buy-outs for global disease innovations for low-and middle-income countries. Am J Law Med 32:159-161.
69. Kapczynski A, Chaifetz S, Katz Z, Benkler Y (2005) Addressing global health inequities: An open licensing approach for university innovations. Berkeley Technol Law J 20: 1031.