Costs and benefits of genomics patents

American Journal of PharmacoGenomics

Volumn 4, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 277-292

  Putnam, Jonathan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

BUDGET; COMPETITION; CONSUMER; COST; ETHICS; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENOME; GENOMICS; GOVERNMENT; LAW; PATENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFIT; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; PATENTS;

EID: 7544221650     PISSN: 11752203     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00129785-200404050-00001     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Human Genome Project information: gentetics and patenting [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents. html [Accessed 2004 Mar 23]
2. Hanson M. Religious voices in biotechnology: the case of gene patenting. Hastings Cent Rep 1997; 27 (6): 1-21
3. Resnik D. DNA patents and human dignity. J Law Med Ethics 2001; 29: 152-65
4. Ossorio P. Common heritage arguments and the patenting of human DNA. In: Chapman A, editor. Perspectives on gene patenting. Washington, DC: AAAS, 2001: 89-110
5. Rai A. Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwest Univ Law Rev 1999; 94: 77-151
6. Demaine L, Fellmeth AX. Reinventing the double helix: a novel and nonobvious reconceptualization of the biotechnology patent. Stanford Law Rev 2002; 55: 303-462
7. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280 (5364): 698-701
8. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980)
9. Resnik D. DNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: assessing benefits and risks. Sci Eng Ethics 2001; 7: 29-62
10. Eisenberg R. Structure and function in DNA patenting. Nat Genet 1997; 15 (2): 125-30
11. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The ethics of patenting DNA. 2002: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting of higher life forms. 2002. In: Chapman A, editor. Perspectives on genetic patenting: science, religion and industry in dialogue. Washington. DC; AAAS, 2001
12. Machlup F. An economic review of the patent system. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1958
13. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 1990; 78: 1661-707
14. Schiff E. Industrialization without national patents: the Netherlands 1869-1919, Switzerland 1850-1907. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1971
15. Levin RC, Klevorick A, Nelson RR, et al. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econ Activity 1987; 3: 783-820
16. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J. Appropriability conditions and why firms patent and why they do not in the American manufacturing sector (working paper]. Pittsburgh (PA): Carnegie-Mellon University, 1997
17. Nelson RR. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J Polit Econ 1959; 67: 297-306
18. Congressional Budget Office. How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry [online]. 1998 Jul. Available from URL: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?.index=655&sequence= 0 [Accessed 2004 Mar 23]
19. Reinganum J. A dynamic game of R&D; patent protection and competitive behavior. Econometrica 1982; 50: 671
20. Scotchmer S. Standing on the shoulders of giants. J Econ Perspect 1991; 5 (1): 29-41
21. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. In: Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, editors. Innovation policy and the economy. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003
22. Lanjouw JO, Lerner J. Tilting the table? The predatory use of preliminary injunctions, J Law Econ 2001; 44 (2): 573-603
23. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280: 698-701
24. Jaffe AB. The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Res Policy 2000; 29: 531
25. Grindley PC, Teece D. Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif Manage Rev 1997; 39 (2): 1-34
26. Title 35, United States Code, §101
27. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, supra n. 2. 447 United States Code, §303 (1980)
28. Fed Regist 2001 Jan 5; 66: 1092
29. Guidelines for examination of applications for compliance with the utility requirement [online]. Available from URL: http://www.uspto.gov/web/ offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
30. Stanton BR. Final examination guidelines released for utility and written description. US PTO Today 2001 Mar; 2 (3): 6-9
31. Lemley M. Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwest Univ Law Rev 2001; 95: 1495
32. Genome patent fight erupts. Science 1991; 254: 184
33. NIH gene patents, round two. Science 1992; 255: 912
34. Genome project goes commercial. Science 1993; 259: 300
35. NIH drops bid for gene patents. Science 1994; 265: 909
36. Jensen R, Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing [working paper no. 6698; online]. Available from URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6698 [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
37. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, et al. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res Policy 2001; 30: 99
38. Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988, Rev Econ Stat 1998 Feb; 80 (1): 119-27
39. Burt DL, Lemley MA. Is patent law technology-specific? Berkeley Technol Law J 2002 Fall; 17(4): 1155-206
40. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Boston (MA): Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, 2002
41. DiMasi JA. Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the United States. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 1
42. Hall B, Ziedonis R. The determinants of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1980-1994. Rand J Econ 2001; 32: 101
43. Borson DB. The Human Genome project: patenting human genes and biotechnology. Is the human genome patentable? Idea 1995 Summer; 35 (4): 461
44. Bradshaw J. Gene patent policy: does issuing gene patents accord with the purposes of the U.S. patent system? Willamette Law R 2001 Fall; 37: 637
45. Gitter DM. International conflicts over patenting human DNA sequences in the United States and European Union: an argument for compulsory licensing and a fair-use exception. NY Univ Law Rev 2001; 76: 1623
46. Title 7 U.S. Code, §2543
47. Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §2.
48. Looney B. Should genes be patented? The gene patenting controversy: legal, ethical and policy foundations of an international agreement. Int Prop Law Rev 1996; 28: 101
49. Draper EA. Social issues of genome innovation and intellectual property. Risk 1996 Summer; 7 (3): 201-29
50. Ossorio P. Common heritage arguments and the patenting of human DNA. In: Chapman A, editor. Perspectives on gene patenting. Washington, DC: AAAS, 2001: 89-110
51. Smith N, The right to genetic privacy? Are we unlocking the secrets of the human genome only to risk insurance and employment discrimination? Utah Law Rev 2000; 2000: 705-58
52. Leventhal D. The human genome project: the road to our improved health or the new civil rights movement. Hofstra Labor Employ L J 1997; 15: 207
53. Cunningham BC. Impact of the human genome project at the interface between patent and FDA laws. Risk 1996 Summer; 7 (3): 253
54. Magill G. The ethics weave in human genomics, embryonic stem cell research, and therapeutic cloning: promoting and protecting society's interests. Albany Law Rev 2002; 65 (3): 701
55. Mehlman MJ. The law of above averages: leveling the new genetic enhancement playing field. Iowa L R 2000; 85: 517
56. Mehlman MJ. The human genome project and the courts: gene therapy and beyond. Judicature 1999; 83 (3): 124
57. Food and Drug Act. Title 21. United States Code [online]. Available from URL: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
58. Benson JC. Resuscitating the patent utility requirement again: a return to Brenner v. Manson. Univ Cal Davis Law Rev 2002; 36: 267
59. Zuhn DL. DNA patentability: shutting the door to the utility requirement. John Marshall Law Rev 2001; 34: 973
60. Dastgheib-Vinarov S. A higher non-obvious standard for gene patents: protecting biomedical research from the big chill. Marquette Int Prop Law Rev 2000; 4: 143
61. Vacchiano E. It's a wonderful genome: the written description requirement protects the human genome from overly-broad patents. John Marshall Law Rev 1999; 32 (3): 805-32
62. Varma A, Abraham D. DNA is different: legal obviousness and the balance between biotech inventors and the market. Harv J Law Tech 1996; 9: 53
63. Andrews LB. The gene patent dilemma: balancing commercial incentives with health needs. Houston J Health Law Pol 2002; 2: 65-106
64. Harrington A. Gene patents stifle basic research: an economic analysis. Harv Health Pol Rev 2002 Fall; 3 (2): epub
65. Gluck ME. Federal policies affecting the cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002
66. Henderson RM, Cockburn IM. Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry. In: Jaffe A, Lerner J, Stern S, editors. Innovation policy and the economy. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003
67. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the "Hatch-Waxman Act"), Pub. L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585
68. Cooper-Dreyfuss R. Taking stock: the law and economics of intellectual property rights - games economists play. Vand Law Rev 2000; 53: 1821
69. Rai AK. The information revolution reaches pharmaceuticals: balancing innovation incentives, cost, and access in the post-genomics era. Univ III Law Rev 2001; 1: 173
70. Bresnahan TF, Gordon RJ, editors. The economics of new goods. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 1996
71. Erramouspe M. Staking patent claims on the human blueprint: rewards and rent-dissipating races. UCLA Law Rev 1996; 43: 961
72. Barnett JM. Cultivating the genetic commons: imperfect patent protection and the network model of innovation. San Diego Law Rev 2000 Fall; 37: 987
73. Mueller JM. No dilettante affair: rethinking the experimental use exception to patent infringement for biomedical research tools. Wash Law Rev 2001 Jan; 76: 1
74. Lanjouw JO, Lerner J. Preliminary injunctive relief: theory and evidence from patent litigation [working paper no. 5689; online). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996 Jul. Available from URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?.abstract_id=4328 [Accessed 2004 Mar 23]
75. Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors. J L Econ 1995; 38: 463
76. Henry MR, Cho MK, Weaver MA, et al. DNA patenting and licensing. Science 2002; 297: 1279
77. Cockburn IM, Henderson RM, Stern S. Balancing incentives: the tension between basic and applied research [NBER working paper no. 6882; online]. Available from URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6882 [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
78. Clark J, Piccolo J, Stanton B, et al. Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents? Washington, DC: US Patent Trademark Office, 2000 Dec
79. Resnik D. A biotechnology patent pool: an idea whose time has come? J Phil Sci Law 2003; 3: epub
80. Letter of June 26, 1997 to Sullivan & Cromwell from the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division [online]. Available from URL: hitp://www.usdoj.gov/ atr/public/busreview/1170.htm [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
81. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Pharmaceutical customer partnership conferences [online]. Available from URL: http://www.uspto.gov/web/ patents/biochempharm/[Accessed 2004 Mar 23]
82. US Department of Justice [online]. Available from URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/1170.wpd [Accessed 2004 Jul 15]
83. Boller PF. Presidential anecdotes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
84. Kortum S, Eaton J. Technology, geography and trade. Econometrica 2002; 70 (5): 1741-79
85. Kortum S, Eaton J. Trade in ideas: patenting and productivity in the OECD. J Int Econ 1996; 40: 251-78