Patient advocacy group collaboration in genetic research and the scope of joint inventorship under US patent law

International Journal of Intellectual Property Management

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 97-109

  Paradise, Jordan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative research; Genetics; Intellectual property; Inventor; Ownership; Patent law; Patient advocacy; Policy; United States Patent Trademark Office; USA; USPTO

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878890636     PISSN: 14789647     EISSN: 14789655     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJIPM.2009.023258     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. 35 U.S.C. §101.
2. 35 U.S.C. §102.
3. 35 U.S.C. §103.
4. 35 U.S.C. §112.
5. 35 U.S.C. §115.
6. 35 U.S.C. §116.
7. 35 U.S.C. §154.
8. 35 U.S.C. §256.
9. 35 U.S.C. §261.
10. 35 U.S.C. §262.
11. 35 U.S.C. §282.
12. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
13. Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979).
14. Brunswick Corp. v. U.S., 34 Fed. Cl. 532 (1995).
15. Burroughs Wellcome v. Barr, 40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
16. Canavan Foundation, National Tay-Sachs & Allied Diseases Association Joint Press Release, September 23, 2003.
17. Catalona v. Washington University, 128 S.Ct. 1122 (2008).
18. Correa, C.M. (2006) 'Pharmaceutical inventions: when is the granting of a patent justified?', Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol. 1-2, pp.4-21.
19. Ethicon Inc. v. United Stated Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
20. Ex parte Smernoff, 215 USPQ 545, 1982 Pat. App. LEXIS 16 (Bd. App. 1982).
21. Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
22. Greenberg, et al. v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute et al., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
23. Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 106 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
24. Ho, C.M. (2004) 'Who deserves the patent pot of gold? An inquiry into the proper inventorship of patient-based discoveries', 7 Depaul J. Health Care L, Vol. 185, p.216.
25. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
26. In re Hardee, 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1122, 1123 (U.S. Patent & Trademark Office of the Commissioner 1984).
27. Le Saux, O. et al. (2000) 'Mutations in a gene encoding an ABC transporter cause pseudoxanthoma elasticum', NAT. GENET., Vol. 25, pp.223-226.
28. Marlo Brown v. Regents of the University of California, 866 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
29. Marshall, E. (2004) 'Patient advocate named co-inventor on patent for the PXE disease gene', SCI., Vol. 305, p.1226. (Pubitemid 39129204)
30. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (Cal. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 936 (1991).
31. Morin, J-F. (2006) 'Tripping up TRIPS debates IP and health in bilaterial agreements', Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol. 1-2, pp.37-53.
32. Oh, C. (2006) 'Compulsory licenses: recent experiences in developing countries', Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol. 1-2, pp.22-36.
33. Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
34. Ringpfeil, F. et al. (2000) 'Pseudosanthoma elasticum: mutations in the MRP6 gene encoding a transmember ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter', Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol. 97, pp.6001-6006. (Pubitemid 30367513)
35. Ritchie Development v. Curtis Roys, 330 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D. La. 2002).
36. Roffe, P. and Spennemann, C. (2006) 'The impact of FTAs on public health policies and TRIPS flexibilities', Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol. 1-2, pp.75-93.
37. Rossi, F. (2006) 'Free trade agreements and TRIPS-plus measures', Int. J. Intellectual Property Management, Vol. 1-2, pp.150-172.
38. Rushton, B. (2003) 'Gland of opportunity', Riverfront Times, St. Louis, Missouri, November 19, 2003.
39. Schering Corporation v. Roussell-UCLAF SA, 104 F.3d 341 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
40. Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, 119 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
41. Terry, S. et al. (2007) 'Advocacy groups as research organisations: the PXE International example', Nat. Rev. Genet, Vol. 8, pp.157-164. (Pubitemid 46122844)
42. University of California v. Synbiotics Corp., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1463, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20222 (S.D. Cal. 1993).
43. University of California v. Synbiotics Corp., 849 F. Supp. 740 (S.D. Cal. 1994).
44. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1987) New Developments in Biotechnology: Ownership of Human Tissues and Cells.
45. US Patent No. 6,780,587, Methods for diagnosing Pseudoxanthoma elasticum.
46. US Pat. App. No. 20080050837 (filed October 10, 2007; published February 28, 2008).
47. Washington University v. William Catalona, 437 F. Supp. 2d 985 (E.D. Mo. 2006).
48. Washington University v. William Catalona, 490 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007).