The biotechnology sector and US gene patents: Legal challenges to intellectual property rights and the impact on basic research and development

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 815-826

  Hemphill, Thomas A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FLINT   (United States)

Author keywords

Anticommons; Biotechnology sector; Gene patents; Patent invalidation; Patent policy

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENE; GENOME; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; PROTEIN; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883016334     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs051     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abbott, A. (2008) 'Europe to Pay Royalties for Cancer Gene', Nature News, 456: 556.
2. Albainy-Jenei, S. (2010) 'The Patent Reform Act of 2010: A Substitute S. 515', , Patent Baristas, 5 March. http://www .patentbaristas.com/archives/2010/03/05/the-patent-reformact- of-2010-a-substitute=s=515/ accessed 24 April 2010.
3. American Intellectual Property Law Association. (2010) 'Brief for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of reversal, but in support of neither party', United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1406. October 29.
4. Association of University Technology Managers. (2010) 'Brief for the Biotechnology Industry Organization and the Association of University Technology Managers as Amici Curiae Supporting Reversal', No. 2010-1406, October 29.
5. Association of University Technology Managers. (2011) 'About AUTM', http://www.autm.net.About .htm accessed 4 April 2011.
6. Audretsch, D. and Stephen, P. (1996) 'Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology', American Economic Review, 86: 641-52.
7. Bailey, R. (2007) 'The tragedy of the anticommons: do patents actually impede innovation?' Reason, 2 October. http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/02/the-tragedy-of-theanticommons/ print accessed 17 April 2010.
8. Barfield, C. and Calfee, J. E. (2007) Biotechnology and the Patent System: Balancing Innovation and Property Rights. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
9. Barton, J. H. (2006) 'Emerging Patent Issues in Genomic Diagnostics', Nature Biotechnology, 24: 939-41.
10. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2008) Technology, Talent and Capital: State Bioscience Initiatives 2008. Washington, DC: Battelle Technology Partnership Practice.
11. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2010a) Biotechnology Industry Facts, http://www.bio .org/speeches/pubs/er/statistices.asp accessed 9 July 2010.
12. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2010b) Brief for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of reversal, but in support of neither party, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1406. October 29.
13. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (2011) 'About BIO', http://www.bio.org/aboutbio/ accessed 4 April 2011.
14. Buchanan, J. M. and Yoon, Y. J. (2000) 'Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons', Journal of Law and Economics, 43: 1-13.
15. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16. Conley, J. and Vorhaus, D. (2010) 'Federal court invalidates Myriad's patent claims', Genomics Law Report. Charlotte, NC: Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, http://www .genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/pigs-flyfederal- court-invalidates-myriads-patent-claims/ accessed 2 May 2010.
17. Cook-Deegan, R. (2008) 'Gene Patents'. In: Crowley, M (ed.) From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, pp. 69-72. Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center.
18. Davis, K. (2010) The $1000 Genome. New York, NY: Free Press.
19. Decker, S. and Weidlich, T. (2010) 'Myriad Loses Ruling Over Breast Cancer-Gene Patents (update3)', BloombergBusinessweek, 29 March. http://www .businessweek.com/news/2010-03-29/myriad-loses-ruling-overbreast- cancer-gene-patents-update1-.html accessed 2 May 2010.
20. Denton, F. R. (2009) 'Rolling Equilibriums at the Pre-Commons Frontier: Identifying Patently Efficient Royalties for Complex Products', Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, 14: 48-99.
21. Driscoll, C. (2007) 'Federal sector role. National Institutes of Health Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society Meeting transcript (26-27 March)', http://oba .od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/meetings/Mar2007/transcripts/ fullday3-27.pdf accessed 29 April 2010.
22. Dutfield, G. (2006) 'DNA Patenting: Implications for Public Health Research', Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84: 388-92.
23. Eisenberg, R. S. (2006) 'Patents and Data Sharing in Public Science', Industrial and Corporate Change, 15: 1013-31. Ernst & Young. (2009) Beyond Borders: Global Biotechnology Report, http://www.techvision.com/bpn/pdf/ErnstYoung- General-BeyondBordersGlobalBiotechnologyReport2009. pdf accessed 23 April 2011.
24. Ernst & Young. (2009) Beyond Borders: Global Biotechnology Report, http://www.techvision.com/bpn/pdf/ErnstYoung- General-BeyondBordersGlobalBiotechnologyReport2009. pdf accessed 23 April 2011.
25. Fan, J. (2010) 'Taking a New Legal Direction: Genes are not Patentable', The Tech, 130: 14.
26. Golden, J. M. (2001) 'Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System', Emory Law Journal, 50: 101-91.
27. Grabowski, H. (2008) 'Follow-on Biologics: Data Exclusivity and the Balance Between Innovation and Competition', Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 7: 479-88.
28. Grabowski, H., Cocburn, I. and Long, G. (2006) 'The Market for Follow-on Biologics', Health Affairs, 25: 1291-301.
29. Graham, S. J. H., Merges, R. P., Samuelson, P. et al. (2009) 'High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey', Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24: 1255-327.
30. Hadzima, J., Bockman, B. and Butler, A. (2010) 'IP in Early-Stage Commercial and Investment Success', Intellectual Asset Magazine, March-April: 49-54.
31. Hardin, G. (1968) 'The Tragedy of the Commons', Science, 162: 1243-8.
32. Harvey, T. (2009) 'Myriad Genetics says Gene Patents Beneficial to Research', The Salt Lake Tribune, 31 December. http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-proceduresuits- claims/13691585-1.html accessed 1 May 2010.
33. Heller, M. A. (1998) 'The Tragedy of the Anticommons', Harvard Law Review, 111: 621-88.
34. Heller, M. A. and Eisenberg, R. S. (1998) 'Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research', Science, 280: 698-701.
35. Holman, C. H. (2007) 'The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation', University of Missouri - Kansas City Law Review, 76: 295-361.
36. Holman, C. H. and Cook-Deegan, R. (2010) 'Brief of amici curae Christopher M. Holman and Robert Cook-Deegan in support of neither party', United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1406, October 28.
37. Huang, K. G. and Murray, F. E. (2009) 'Does Patent Strategy Shape the Long-Run Supply of Public Knowledge? Evidence from Human Genetics', Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1193-221.
38. Huys, I., Berthels, N., Matthijis, G. et al. (2009) 'Legal Uncertainty in the Area of Genetic Diagnostic Testing', Nature Biotechnology, 27: 903-9.
39. Jensen, K. and Murray, F. (2005) 'The Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome', Science, 310: 239-40.
40. Kendall, B. and Clark, D. (2010) 'Justices Limit Some Patents', The Wall Street Journal, 29: A5.
41. Lovgren, S. (2005) 'One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals', National Geographic News, 13 October. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/ 220644243.html accessed 19 May 2010.
42. Marcus, A. D. (2010) 'Licences Drive Gene Debate', The Wall Street Journal, 15 April. http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB100001424052702303348504575184103022053956.html accessed 21 March 2011.
43. Merges, R. and Nelson, R. R. (1990) 'On the Complex Economies Economics of Patent Scope', Columbia Law Review, 90: 839-916.
44. Michelman, F. I. (1982) 'Ethics, Economics and the Law of Property'. In: Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (eds) Ethics, Economics, and the Law. New York, NY: New York University Press.
45. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2010) 'Federal district court rules isolated DNA claims are not patentable', Press Release, 30 March. http://investor.myriad.com/releaseddetail.cfm? ReleaseID-455348 accessed 2 May 2010.
46. National Research Council. (2006) Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
47. National Science Board. (2010) Science and Engineering Board. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01). Nature. (2010) 'Testing Time for Gene Patents (Editorial)', Nature, 464: 957.
48. Paugh, J. and Lafrance, J. C. (1997) Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Industry Faces the 21st Century (The U.S. Biotechnology Industry), July. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association. (2011) About PhRMA, http://www.phrma.org/about/ phrma accessed 4 April 2011.
49. Pressman, L., Burgess, R., Cook-Deegan, R. M. et al. (2006) 'The Licensing of DNA Patents by US Academic Institutions: An Empirical Survey', Nature Biotechnology, 24: 31-9. Prevezer, M. (2001) 'Ingredients in the Early Developments of the U.S. Biotechnology Industry', Small Business Economics, 17: 17-29.
50. Prevezer, M. (2001) 'Ingredients in the Early Developments of the U.S. Biotechnology Industry', Small Business Economics, 17: 17-29.
51. Rose, C. M. (1986) 'The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom and Inherently Public Property', University of Chicago Law Review, 53: 711-81.
52. Sarnoff, J. D. and Holman, C. M. (2008) 'Recent Developments Affecting the Enforcement, Procurement, and Licensing of Research Tool Patents', Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 23: 1299-366.
53. Scherer, F. M. (2002) 'The Economics of Human Gene Patents', Academic Medicine, 77: 1348-67.
54. Schwartz, J. and Pollack, A. (2010) 'Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent', The New York Times, 29 March. http://www. nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?pagewantedprint accessed 17 April 2010.
55. Scotchmer, S. (1991) 'Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 29-41.
56. Stiglitz, J. and Sulston, J. (2010) 'The Case Against Gene Patents', The Wall Street Journal, 16: A19.
57. Swann, P., Prevezer, M. and Stout, D. (1998) The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering: International Comparisons in Computing and Biotechnology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58. Tenenbaum, J. S. (2002) 'Association membership restrictions: a practical guide to avoiding the antitrust & tax pitfalls', ASEA & The Center for Association Leadership, June. http://www.aseacenter.org/PublicationsResources/white paperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12219 accessed 10 July 2010.
59. The Economist. (2010) More Harm Than Good? Patenting Genes is Bad for Diagnosis, The Economist, 395: 90.
60. Tsukayama, H. (2011) 'Senate Debates Reforms More Voices Weigh in. Post Tech', 1 March. http://voices.washington post.com/posttech/2011/03/senate_debates_patentreform. html accessed 6 March 2011.
61. US Department of Energy. (2010) 'Genetics and Patenting'. In: Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program, 7 July, Washington, DC. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/ patents.shtml accessed 6 March 2011.
62. US Department of Justice. (2010) 'Brief for the United States as amicus curiae in support of neither party', United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1406, October 29.
63. US Federal Trade Commission. (2009) 'Emerging healthcare issues: follow-on biologic drug competition', Federal Trade Commission Report, June, Washington, DC.
64. US Secretary of Health and Human Services. (2010) 'Revised Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests', Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, 5 February. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
65. Wang, S. S., Koppel, N. and Naik, G. (2010) 'Gene Ruling Could Have Broad Reach', The Wall Street Journal, 31 March. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303 601504575154172950757694.html accessed 2 May 2010.
66. Walsh, J. P., Arora, A. and Cohen, W. M. (2003) 'Effects of Research Tool Patents and Licensing on Biomedical Innovation'. In: Cohen, W. M. and Merrill, S. A. (eds) Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy, pp. 285-340. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
67. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C. and Cohen, W. M. (2005a) 'Patents, Materials Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research', Final report to the National Academy of Science, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Research Inventions, 20 September, Washington, DC.
68. Walsh, J. P. (2005b) 'The View from the Bench: Patents, Material Transfers and Biomedical Research', Science, 309: 2002-3.
69. Walsh, J. P. (2007) 'Where Excludability Matters; Material Versus Intellectual Property in Academic Biomedical Research', Research Policy, 36: 1184-203.
70. Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont. (2008) 'Research Tool Patents After Integra v. Merck - Have They Reached a Safe Harbor?', Michigan Telecommunications Technology Law Review, 14: 367-446.
71. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2010) 'About patents', accessed 26 April 2010.
72. Zucker, L., Darby, M. and Brewer, M. (1994) 'Intellectual capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises', National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper (No. 4653), Cambridge, MA.