Intellectual property: Turning patent swords into shares

Science

Volumn 330, Issue 6011, 2010, Pages 1630-1631

  Van Overwalle, Geertrui ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 ASSOCIATED RING DOMAIN PROTEIN 1;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CANCER; DECISION MAKING; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; LEGISLATION; MUTATION;

CLINICAL RESEARCH; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; LAW; LICENCE; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EUROPE; GENES; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650331613     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1189592     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Southern District of New York (29 March 2010).
2. As cited in ( 4) from In re Bilski (39): "[a] claimed process is surely patent-eligible under §101 if: ( 1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or ( 2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."
3. The notice of appeal was filed on 16 June 2010.
4. Bilski v. Kappos, U.S. Supreme Court (28 June 2010).
5. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, re (1) (29 October 2010).
6. SACGHS, Revised Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests (SACGHS, NIH, Bethesda, MD, 2010).
7. I. Huys, N. Berthels, G. Matthijs, G. Van Overwalle, Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 903 (2009).
8. In some empirical studies, a negative impact of patents could not be found [e.g., ( 38)]. However, these studies focused on biomedical research, not downstream product development.
9. E. R. Gold, J. Carbone, Genet. Med. 12 (suppl.), S39 (2010).
10. M. K. Cho, S. Illangasekare, M. A. Weaver, D. G. Leonard, J. F. Merz, J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3 (2003).
11. Patently Complicated: Case Studies on the Impact of Patenting and Licensing on Clinical Access to Genetic Testing in the United States. Genet. Med. 12 (4 suppl.), S1-S211 (2010).
12. C. Shapiro, in Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1, A. B. Jaffe et al., Eds. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001), pp. 119-150.
13. M. A. Heller, R. S. Eisenberg, Science 280, 698 (1998).
14. M. M. Hopkins et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 185 (2007).
15. K. Jensen, F. Murray, Science 310, 239 (2005).
16. J. H. Barton, Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 939 (2006).
17. L. H. Hoffmann, in Kirin-Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, House of Lords (21 October 2004).
18. "Sword" refers to use of patents to obtain royalties or damages ( 39).
19. E. van Zimmeren, G. Van Overwalle, http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1717974.
20. G. Van Overwalle, E. van Zimmeren, B. Verbeure, G. Matthijs, Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 143 (2006).
21. C. H. Holman, Biotech Brief. 5, 1 (2008); www.abanet.org/scitech/ genepatents.html.
22. K. Rai, R. S. Eisenberg, Law Contemp. Probl. 66, 289 (2003).
23. Monsanto v. Cefetra (6 July 2010).
24. Article 53 (c) of the European Patent Convention.
25. Such a restrictive approach has been reinforced by the European Patent Office in its recent case law (G 1/04, Enlarged Board of Appeal, 16 December 2005).
26. Mirroring article 27 ( 3) (a) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (World Trade Organization, Geneva, 1994).
27. D. L. Burk, M. A. Lemley, The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009).
28. G. Van Overwalle, Ed., Gene Patents and Collaborative Licensing Models: Patent Pools, Clearing Houses, Open Source Models, and Liability Regimes (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009).
29. MPEG LA, news release, 8 April 2010; www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/Media. aspx.
30. And to ascertain that they do not merely create "markets for lemons" ( 31).
31. G. Akerlof, Q. J. Econ. 84, 488 (1970).
32. R. P. Merges, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, R. Dreyfuss et al. Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001), pp. 123-166.
33. G. Calabresi, A. D. Melamed, Harv. Law Rev. 85, 1089 (1972).
34. R. P. Merges, Calif. Law Rev. 84, 1293 (1996).
35. J. H. Reichman, Va. Law Rev. 53, 1743 (2000).
36. T. Caulfield, E. Einsiedel, J. F. Merz, D. Nicol, Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1352 (2006).
37. P. Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Dartmouth Publishing, Sudbury, MA, 1996).
38. J. P. Walsh, C. Cho, W. M. Cohen, Science 309, 2002 (2005).
39. In re Bilski, 545 F 3d 943, 959-60 and n. 19 (CA Fed 2008).
40. The author thanks the Vancraesbeeck Fund for support and I. Huys and E. van Zimmeren for comments.