Does every road to commercial products derived from human embryonic stem cells run through Wisconsin?
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
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research, as made available by the White House Press Office, August 9, 2001.
California and New Jersey have passed stem cell funding and regulation laws. The Massachusetts House of Representatives passed stem cell funding legislation by a margin large enough to override an expected veto by Governor Mitt Romney. New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware have had stem cell funding and regulation bills introduced in their respective legislatures.
Investigators from ten laboratories in the US, Australia, India, Israel and Sweden initially derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts that met the President's criteria for use in federally funded hES cell research. http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp
NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry. http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/
Exemplary Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) from NIH-qualified vendors of eligible stem cells are available from the NIH web site. http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/
WiCell-NIH MOU http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/MTAs/Wicell_MOU.pdf
Miller, J. A call to legal arms: bringing embryonic stem cell therapies to market. Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 13, 555 (2003).
Wadman, M. Licensing fees slow advance of stem cells. Nature 435, 272–273, 2005.
WARF letter to Tommy Thompson, US Secretary of Health & Human Services, August 5, 2004.
Ligler, A. Egregious error or admirable advance: the memorandum of understanding that enables federally funded basic human embryonic stem cell research. 0037 Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 2001.
Gallagher, K. Foundation could tap into California spending. Milwaukee J. Sentinel. February 20, 2005.
Stem cell deal reached. News@UW-Madison; published online 9 January 2002, http://www.news.wisc.edu/6949.html.
Vidergar, C.R. Biomedical patenting: permitted, but permissible? Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 19, 253 (2002).
Gertzen, J. Stem cell patents put UW agency in spotlight: foundation seeks to share technology, protect rights. Milwaukee J. Sentinel. August 26, 2001.
35 USC § 102.
See, for example, Pluripotential embryonic stem cells and methods of making same. US Patent no. 5,453,357 (1995). This patent's relevance is controverted by Geron and WARF.
35 USC § 103.
35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph.
In 2004, the European Patent Office refused to issue a patent to WARF on the grounds its claims were applicable to hES cells, which are specifically excluded from patentability in Europe. WARF's patent application was considered contrary to morality because WARF's method would require the use of a human embryo as a starting material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rabin, S. The gatekeepers of hES cell products. Nat Biotechnol 23, 817–819 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0705-817
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0705-817
This article is cited by
-
More at stake in stem-cell patents
Nature (2011)
-
The global stem cell patent landscape: implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development
Nature Biotechnology (2007)
-
The paths around stem cell intellectual property
Nature Biotechnology (2006)
-
Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (2006)