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:

Keeping score, strengthening policy and fighting bad actors over access to research tools

Nature Biotechnology volume 33, pages 143–147 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

A mix of policy options that enhances access to research tools is available to courts, legislators and government bureaucracies, including research agencies and patent offices.

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. Caulfield, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mishra, A. & Bubela, T. OMICS 18, 254–273 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).

  4. Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

  5. Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, no. 35, sched. 2 (Austl.).

  6. U.S. Patent Act 35 USC (1952).

  7. Riesenfeld, S.A. Univ. PA Law Rev. 102, 291–322 (1954).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980, codified at 35 USC §§200–12 (2014).

  9. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure of 1948, 28 USC § 1498 (2011).

  10. Cahoy, D.R. Am. Bus. Law. J. 40, 125–175 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Australian Government, Productivity Commission. Compulsory Licensing of Patents. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/patents/report (27 May 2013).

  12. US Patent and Trademark Office. 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf (16 December 2014).

  13. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S.Ct. 1747 (2013).

  14. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Lab., 131 S.Ct. 3027 (2012).

  15. Bilski v. Kappos, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2010).

  16. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al. 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).

  17. D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. [2014] FCAFC 115.

  18. Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. WL 5507637 (D. Del. 2014).

  19. Rimmer M. U. Ottawa Law & Tech. J. Dec 539–599 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  20. President's Council of Economic Advisers. The National Economic Council, and the Office of Science & Technology Policy. Patent Assertion and US Innovation http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf (June 2013).

  21. Blischak, M.P. IP Litigator January/February 45–47 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feldman, R. & Price, W.N. Patent trolling—Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are at Risk (University of California Hastings College of the Law, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act, H.R. 4450, 113th Cong. (2014).

  24. Alzheimer's Inst. of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 952 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Pa. 2013).

  25. Alzheimers Inst. of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 560 Fed.Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

  26. Hsiao, K. et al. Science 274, 99–103 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014).

  28. Radar, R.R., Chien, C.V. & Hricik, D. Make patent trolls pay in court. The New York Times (June 4, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Malani, A. & Masur, J. Georgetown Law J. 101, 637–687 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Anticancer Inc. v. Leica Microsystems Inc. Case No. 11cv2756 DMS (JMA) [Docket No. 49] (S.D. Cal. 2013).

  31. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S.Ct. 733 (2006).

  32. National Research Council. Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest (National Academies Press, 2010).

  33. Nicol, D. et al. The Innovation Pool in Biotechnology: The Role of Patents in Facilitating Innovation. Occasional Paper #8 (U. Tasmania, Center for Law & Genetics, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fore, J., Wiechers, R. & Cook-Deegan, R. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 1, 7–17 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Broad Institute. Information about licensing CRISPR-Cas9 systems. https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic-alliances-and-partnering/information-about-licensing-crispr-cas9-syste (2015).

  36. Association of University Technology Managers. In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology. http://www.autm.net/source/NinePoints/ninepoints_endorsement.cfm (AUTM; 2007).

  37. Lemley, M.A. Media & Entertainment Law J. 18, 611 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System Inc. 134 S.Ct. 1051 (2014).

  39. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 575 (2007).

  40. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 338 (2009).

  41. Crouch, D. Patentlyo http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/federal-circuit-supports-bare-bones-patent-complaints.html (23 April 2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

T.B.'s research is funded by the Canadian Stem Cell Network, the NorComm II project (co-lead investigators: C. McKerlie and S. Brown) funded by Genome Canada and Ontario Genomics Institute, and the PACEOMICS project (co-lead investigators: C. McCabe and T.B.) funded by Genome Canada, Genome Alberta, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions. R.C.D.'s research is funded by NIH P50 HG003391 (National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), principal investigator (PI)); NIH R01 HG006460 (NHGRI, to Baylor College of Medicine, A. McGuire, PI); Kauffman Foundation; and he is a Senior Fellow at FasterCures, a Center of the Milken Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tania Bubela is at the School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.,

    Tania Bubela

  2. Robert Cook-Deegan is at the Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA and a Senior Fellow at FasterCures, a Center of the Milken Institute in Washington, DC.,

    Robert Cook-Deegan

Authors
  1. Tania Bubela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Cook-Deegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania Bubela.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bubela, T., Cook-Deegan, R. Keeping score, strengthening policy and fighting bad actors over access to research tools. Nat Biotechnol 33, 143–147 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3131

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3131

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