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
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
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Caulfield, T. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).
Mishra, A. & Bubela, T. OMICS 18, 254–273 (2014).
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, no. 35, sched. 2 (Austl.).
U.S. Patent Act 35 USC (1952).
Riesenfeld, S.A. Univ. PA Law Rev. 102, 291–322 (1954).
Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980, codified at 35 USC §§200–12 (2014).
Judiciary and Judicial Procedure of 1948, 28 USC § 1498 (2011).
Cahoy, D.R. Am. Bus. Law. J. 40, 125–175 (2002).
Australian Government, Productivity Commission. Compulsory Licensing of Patents. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/patents/report (27 May 2013).
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).
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S.Ct. 1747 (2013).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Lab., 131 S.Ct. 3027 (2012).
Bilski v. Kappos, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2010).
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al. 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).
D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.  FCAFC 115.
Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. WL 5507637 (D. Del. 2014).
Rimmer M. U. Ottawa Law & Tech. J. Dec 539–599 (2006).
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).
Blischak, M.P. IP Litigator January/February 45–47 (2007).
Feldman, R. & Price, W.N. Patent trolling—Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are at Risk (University of California Hastings College of the Law, 2013).
Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act, H.R. 4450, 113th Cong. (2014).
Alzheimer's Inst. of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 952 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D. Pa. 2013).
Alzheimers Inst. of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 560 Fed.Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Hsiao, K. et al. Science 274, 99–103 (1996).
Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014).
Radar, R.R., Chien, C.V. & Hricik, D. Make patent trolls pay in court. The New York Times (June 4, 2013).
Malani, A. & Masur, J. Georgetown Law J. 101, 637–687 (2013).
Anticancer Inc. v. Leica Microsystems Inc. Case No. 11cv2756 DMS (JMA) [Docket No. 49] (S.D. Cal. 2013).
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S.Ct. 733 (2006).
National Research Council. Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest (National Academies Press, 2010).
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).
Fore, J., Wiechers, R. & Cook-Deegan, R. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 1, 7–17 (2006).
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).
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).
Lemley, M.A. Media & Entertainment Law J. 18, 611 (2008).
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System Inc. 134 S.Ct. 1051 (2014).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 575 (2007).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 338 (2009).
Crouch, D. Patentlyo http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/federal-circuit-supports-bare-bones-patent-complaints.html (23 April 2013).
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.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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