Abstract
Because their very purpose is experimentation, applying the experimental use exemption to research tool patents requires a close analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Barton, J. Int. Rev. of Ind. Prop. And Copy. Law 26, 605, 614 (1995).
Art. 27(b), Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market (CPC). Although it never came into force, the CPC inspired several European national law-making bodies.
H.R. 4970, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. Chapter 9, Report 100-888, 51 (1988).
Lehrman, S. Nature 397, 460 (1999).
Lehrman S. & Dickson, D. Nature 375, 348 (1995).
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank John Barton from Stanford Law School and Joseph Straus from the Max-Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law for reviewing the manuscript. I also would like to thank Alex-F. Muller from the Medical Research Foundation at the University of Geneva for his support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ducor, P. Research tool patents and the experimental use exemption—a no-win situation?. Nat Biotechnol 17, 1027–1028 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/13729
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/13729
This article is cited by
-
The zinc finger nuclease monopoly
Nature Biotechnology (2005)
-
Australia experiments with 'experimental use' exemption
Nature Biotechnology (2004)
