Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Integra v. Merck: A mixed bag for research tool patents

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 1099–1101 (2003)Cite this article

Although the decision is good news for owners of patents relating to discovery tools, it is too early to predict the full impact of the case.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 2003 WL 21299492 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2003).

  2. Id. at *6.

  3. E.g., discussed infra.

  4. 35 USC § 271(e)(1).

  5. 35 USC § 273(e)(1).

  6. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 669–70, 110 S.Ct. 2683, 110 L.Ed.2d 605, 58 USLW 4838, 15 USPQ2d 1121 (1990).

  7. 169 F.Supp.2d 328 (D.Del. 2001) (allegations of patent misuse from screening method patent reach-through licensing not dismissed as failing to state claim of patent misuse).

  8. 228 F.Supp.2d 467 (D.Del. 2002). For a discussion of reach-through royalties see Kowalski et al., Reach-through licensing: A US perspective, J. Comml. Biotechnol. 6, 349–357 (2000).

  9. 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 19361 (SDNY November 27, 2001).

  10. 3 F. Supp. 2d 104, 46 USPQ2d 1906 (D. Mass. April 15, 1998).

  11. 199 F.Supp.2d 197 (D. Del. April 19, 2002).

  12. 2003 WL 21299492, *4 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2003).

  13. Id.

  14. Id.

  15. Id. at *6.

  16. Id.

  17. Id. at *5.

  18. Id.

  19. Id.

  20. Id.

  21. Id. at *10.

  22. Id. at *8.

  23. See also Kowalski et al., supra, at 352.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Charles Raubicheck, Barry S. White, Thomas J.Kowalski,Daniel G. Brown, Amy Leahy and Pamela Fekete: This article is not to be considered opinions of Frommer Lawrence & Haug or any of the firm's clients; and nothing in this article is to be considered as legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, or as positions/strategies taken/employed in, or suitable for, any particular case or set of facts.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, 10151, New York, USA

    Charles Raubicheck, Barry S White, Thomas J Kowalski, Daniel G Brown, Amy Leahy & Pamela Fekete

Authors
  1. Charles Raubicheck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barry S White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas J Kowalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel G Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amy Leahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pamela Fekete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raubicheck, C., White, B., Kowalski, T. et al. Integra v. Merck: A mixed bag for research tool patents. Nat Biotechnol 21, 1099–1101 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0903-1099

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0903-1099

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing