Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

The global intellectual property landscape of induced pluripotent stem cell technologies

Will freedom to research and innovate be restricted as the induced pluripotent stem cell field advances toward the clinic, or are concerns premature within a rapidly changing ecosystem?

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Broad iPSC technology patent landscape.
Figure 2: Trends in iPSC patent document filings.
Figure 3: The distribution of ownership origination shows a fragmented landscape with public-sector dominance and a growing cottage biotech industry.
Figure 4: The percentage of patents granted globally is low and varies between countries.


  1. Bubela, T., FitzGerald G.A. & Gold, E.R. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 133cm3 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergman, K. & Graff, G. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 419–424 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Winickoff, D.E., Krishanu, S. & Graff, G.D. Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 9, 52–157 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mathews, D.J.H. et al. Science 331, 725–727 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz, S.D. et al. Lancet 379, 713–720 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Takahashi, K. et al. Cell 131, 861–872 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yu, J. et al. Science 318, 1917–1920 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mathews, D.J.H., Cook-Deegan, R. & Bubela, T. Cell Stem Cell 12, 508–512 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. The Hinxton Group. Consensus statement on policies and practices governing data and materials sharing and intellectual property in stem cell science. (The Hinxton Group, 2010).

  10. Rao, M.S. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 4, 98 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. BioInformant Worldwide. Complete 2012–13 induced pluripotent stem cell industry report (BioInformant Worldwide, LLC, 2014).

  13. Cyranoski, D. Nat. Med. 19, 510 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. United States of America v. Regenerative Sciences, A Corporation, LLC et al. No. 12–5254, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 4 February 2014.

  15. UK Intellectual Property Office Patent Informatics Team. Stem cells: the UKSCN patent watch landscape (Intellectual Property Office, Newport, UK, 2012).

  16. Hou, P. et al. Science 341, 651–654 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Feldman, R. & Furth, D. Stanford J. Law Sci. Pol. 3, 17–34 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simon, B.M., Murdoch, C.E. & Scott, C.T. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 557–559 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Japan Patent No. 2008–131577, 2008; UK Patent No. GB2450603, 2010; US Patent No. 7,682,828, 2010; US Patent Application Patent No. 12/703,015, 2010; US Patent Application Patent No. 12/703,015, 2010.

  20. International Stem Cell Corporation v. Comptroller General of Patents, Patents Court, London, UK, Case No. [2013] EWHC 807 (Ch.); Referral Case C-364/13 (Court of Justice of the European Union, 17 April 2013).

  21. Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Fed. Cir. 2013).

  22. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research. Eighth report of session 2012–13 (Report no. HC 348) (House of Commons Stationery Office Limited, London, 2013).

  23. Moran, N. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 376 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Initial public offering, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington DC, on 3 June 2013, Registration no. 333.

  25. Webb, S. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 977–979 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank B. Larner, F. Wattler and J. Evans (Thomson Reuters) for their invaluable assistance; A. Carr (University of Oxford) and J. Karp (Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital) for their invaluable support and insights; and R. Barker (the Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI)) and M. Morys (CASMI) for their support of the CASMI Translational Stem Cell Consortium. The authors wish to express sincere thanks to the following organizations that have contributed to the consortium as funding and events partners: Centre for the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine; Celgene Cellular Therapeutics; Cell Therapy Catapult; CIRM; Eisai; GE Healthcare; Lonza; SENS Research Foundation; TAP Biosystems (now Sartorius Stedim); MEDIPOST Co., Ltd.; MEDIPOST America Inc.; the New York Stem Cell Foundation and the US National Institutes of Health Center for Regenerative Medicine. Additionally, CASMI is a past recipient of funding from the UK Technology Strategy Board to support an investigation into cell therapy regulation. The content outlined herein represents the individual opinions of the authors and may not necessarily represent the viewpoints of their employers. D.B. is subject to the CFA Institute's codes, standards and guidelines and as such, must stress that this piece is provided for academic interest only and must not be construed in any way as an investment recommendation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Anna French or David A Brindley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

D.A.B. is a stockholder in Translation Ventures Ltd., which provides cell therapy biomanufacturing, regulatory and financial advice to clients in the cell therapy sector. At the time of publication, D.A.B. and the organizations with which he is affiliated may or may not have agreed and/or pending funding commitments from the organizations named herein. D.A.B. has also consulted for Lonza Group and Sartorius Stedim within the past seven years with a cumulative compensation value greater than $10,000.

Supplementary information

Supplementary text and Figures

Supplementary text, Supplementary Figures 1 and 2 and Supplementary Tables 1–3 (PDF 1801 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roberts, M., Wall, I., Bingham, I. et al. The global intellectual property landscape of induced pluripotent stem cell technologies. Nat Biotechnol 32, 742–748 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


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