The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation

Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Pharma-Biotech

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 277-326

  Walsh, John P ^a   Arora, Ashish ^b   Cohen, Wesley M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928619337     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511493232.010     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. American Intellectual Property Law Association (1995), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
2. American Intellectual Property Law Association (1997), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
3. American Intellectual Property Law Association (2001), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
4. Arora, A. A., M. Ceccagnoli, and W. M. Cohen (2002), R&D and the Patent Premium, working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
5. Arora, A. A., A. Fosfuri, and A. Gambardella (2001), Markets for Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
6. Association of University Technology Managers (2000), AUTM Licensing Survey FY1999 Survey Summary, Association of University Technology Managers, Northbrook, IL.
7. Bar-Shalom, A., and R. M. Cook-Deegan (2002), “Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lessons from CellPro,” Milbank Quarterly, 80, 637–76.
8. Barton, J. (2000), “Intellectual property rights: reforming the patent system,” Science, 287, 1933–4.
9. Beck, S. (1998), “Do you have a license? Products licensed for PCR in research applications,” The Scientist, 12 (12), 21.
10. Blanton, K. (2002), “Corporate takeover,” Boston Globe, Magazine, online edition, 24 February.
11. Bunk, S. (1999), “Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents,” The Scientist, 13 (20), 7.
12. Cho, M. K., S. Illangasekare, M. A. Weaver, D. G. B. Leonard, and J. F. Merz (2003), “Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services,” Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 5 (1), 3–8.
13. Cockburn, I., and R. M. Henderson (2000), “Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry,” in A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1–34.
14. Cockburn, I., R. Henderson, L. Orsenigo, and G. P. Pisano (2000), “Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology,” in D. C. Mowery (ed.), U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 363–98.
15. Cockburn, I., S. Kortum, and S. Stern (2003), “Are all patent examiners equal? Examiners, patent characteristics, and litigation outcomes,” in W. Cohen and S. Merrill (eds.), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 17–53.
16. Cohen, J. (1999), “Chiron stakes out its territory,” Science, 285, 28.
17. Cohen, W. M., A. Goto, A. Nagata, R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh (2002), “R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States,” Research Policy, 31, 1349–67.
18. Cohen, W.M., and S. Klepper (1992), “The tradeoff between firm size and diversity for technological progress,” Journal of Small Business Economics, 4, 1–14.
19. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), Working Paper no. 7522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
20. Cook-Deegan, R. M., and S. J. McCormack (2001), “Patents, secrecy, and DNA,” Science, 293, 217.
21. Doll, J. J. (1998), “The patenting of DNA,” Science, 280, 689–90.
22. Drews, J. (2000), “Drug discovery: a historical perspective,” Science, 287, 1960–2.
23. Ducor, P. (1997), “Are patents and research compatible?,” Nature, 387, 13–14.
24. Ducor, P. (1999), “Research tool patents and the experimental use exemption,” Nature Biotechnology, 17, 1027–8.
25. Eisenberg, R. S. (2001), “Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools: is this market failing or emerging?,” in R. C. Dreyfuss, D. L. Zimmerman, and H. First (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 223–50.
26. Evenson, R., and Y. Kislev (1973), “Research and productivity in wheat and maize,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 1309–29.
27. Gambardella, A. (1995), Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Hall, B. H., and R. H. Ziedonis (2001), “The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979– 1995,” RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (1), 101–28.
29. Hamilton, J. O. (1997), “Stanford’s DNA patent ‘enforcer’ Grolle closes the $200m book on Cohen–Boyer,” Signals Magazine, online edition, 25 November.
30. Heller, M. A. (1998), “The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets,” Harvard Law Review, 111, 621–81.
31. Heller, M. A., and R. S. Eisenberg (1998), “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons tragedy in biomedical research,” Science, 280, 698–701.
32. Henderson, R. M., L. Orsenigo, and G. Pisano (1999), “The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: exploring the interactions between scientific, institutional, and organizational change,” in D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 267–311.
33. Hicks, D., T. Breitzman, D. Olivastro, and K. Hamilton (2001), “The changing composition of innovative activity in the US – a portrait based on patent analysis,” Research Policy, 30 (4), 681–704.
34. Henry, M.R., M.K Cho, M.A. Weaver, and J. F. Merz (2002), “DNA patenting and licensing,” Science, 297, 1279.
35. Jewkes, J., D. Sawers, and R. Stillerman (1958), The Sources of Invention, Macmillan, London.
36. Kornberg, A. (1995), The Golden Helix, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA.
37. Lanjouw, J. O., and M. Schankerman (2001), Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, Working Paper no. 8656, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
38. Levin, R. (1982), “The semiconductor industry,” in R.R.Nelson (ed.), Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis, Pergamon Press, New York, 9–100.
39. Levin, R., A. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter (1987), “Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.
40. Maebius, S., and H. Wegner (2001), “Research methods patents: a territoriality loophole,” National Law Journal, 24 December, C3–C4.
41. Malakoff, D., and R. F. Service (2001), “Genomania meets the bottom line,” Science, 291, 1193–203.
42. Mansfield, E. (1986), “Patents and innovation: an empirical study,” Management Science, 32, 173–81.
43. Marshall, E. (1999a), “Drug firms to create public database of genetic mutations,” Science, 284, 406–7.
44. Marshall, E. (1999b), “Do-it-yourself gene watching,” Science, 286, 444–7.
45. Marshall, E. (2000a), “Patent on HIV receptor provokes an outcry,” Science, 287, 1375–7.
46. Marshall, E. (2000b), “Property claims: a deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research,” Science, 288, 255–7.
47. Marshall, E. (2001), “Bermuda rules: community spirit, with teeth,” Science, 291, 1192.
48. Marx, J. (2002), “Chromosome end game draws a crowd,” Science, 295, 2348–51.
49. Merges, R. P. (1994), “Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents,” Tennessee Law Review, 62 (1), 74–106.
50. Merges, R. P., and R. R. Nelson (1990), “On the complex economics of patent scope,” Columbia Law Review, 90 (4), 839–916.
51. Merges, R. P., and R. R. Nelson (1994), “On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: the effect of patent scope decisions,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 1–24.
52. Merz, J. F., D. G. Kriss, D. D. G. Leonard, and M. K. Cho (2002), “Diagnostic testing fails the test,” Nature, 415, 577–9.
53. Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis (2001), “The growth of patents and licensing by U.S. universities,” Research Policy, 30, 99–119.
54. National Research Council (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
55. National Science Foundation (1998), Science and Engineering Indicators, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
56. Neighbour, A. (2002), “Presentation to the National Cancer Policy Board,” Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, 23 April.
57. Nelson, R. R. (1961), “Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development efforts,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 351–64.
58. Nelson, R. R. (1982), “The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97, 453–70.
59. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002), Genetic Inventions, IPRS and Licensing Practices, report by the Working Party on Biotechnology, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
60. Rai, A. K. (1999), “Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science,” Northwestern University Law Review, 94 (1), 77–152.
61. Scherer, F. M. (2002), “The economics of human gene patents,” Academic Medicine, 77, 1348–66.
62. Scherer, F. M., S. Herzstein, A. Dreyfoos, W. Whitney, O. Bachmann, C. Pesek, C. Scott, T. Kelly, and J. Galvin (1959), Patents and the Corporation: A Report on Industrial Technology Under Changing Public Policy, 2nd edn., Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston.
63. Science (1997), “Genomics’ wheelers and dealers,” 275, 774–5.
64. Science (2000), “A cheaper way to buy genomic data,” Science, 288, 223.
65. Scotchmer, S. (1991), “Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 29–41.
66. Seide, R. K., and J. M. MacLeod (1998), “Comment on Heller and Eisenberg,” Science Online, http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/980465/seide.shl.
67. Service, R. F. (2001), “Can data banks tally profits?,” Science, 291, 1203.
68. Shapiro, C. (2000), “Navigating the patent thicket: cross-licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting,” in A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 119–50.
69. Thursby, J. G., and M. C. Thursby (1999), Purdue Licensing Survey: A Summary of Results, unpublished manuscript, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
70. Uzzi, B. (1996), “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect,” American Sociological Review, 61 (4), 674–98.
71. Wall Street Journal (2001), “IBM and others are financing a public database on proteins,” online edition, 30 May.
72. Walsh, J. P., and T. Bayma (1996), “Computer networks and scientific work,” Social Studies of Science, 26, 661–703.
73. Wegner, H. C. (2002), The Right to Experiment with a Patented Invention, paper presented to a meeting of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section, Washington, DC, 10 December.
74. Whyte, W. F. (1984), Learning from the Field, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.