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.

Who reads patents?

Nature Biotechnology volume 35, pages 421–424 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Biotechnology and chemistry researchers look to the patent literature as a source of technical information more than researchers in other fields, and few researchers are deterred from reading patents by concerns about enhanced legal liability.

One ostensible goal of the patent system is to encourage and facilitate dissemination of scientific knowledge. Thus, in exchange for a patent, innovators must disclose how their inventions work. The US Supreme Court treats these disclosures as one of the main benefits of the patent system, stating that “[t]he disclosure required by the Patent Act is the quid pro quo of the right to exclude”1 and that “such additions to the general store of knowledge are of such importance” that they are worth the “high price [...] of exclusive use”2. However, legal scholars have asserted that scientists do not read patents, both because patents are obfuscated with legal jargon and because reading patents might lead to increased liability for 'willful' patent infringement3,4,5,6.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

References

  1. J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 534 US 124, 142 (2001).

  2. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 US 470 (1974).

  3. Roin, B.N. Harv. Law Rev. 118, 2007–2028 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fromer, J.C. Iowa Law Rev. 94, 539–606 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Seymore, S.B. Notre Dame Law Rev. 85, 621–669 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Devlin, A. Harv. J. Law Technol. 23, 401–446 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).

  8. Cohen, W.M. et al. Res. Policy 31, 1349–1367 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cockburn, I.M. & Henderson, R. Survey Results from the 2003 Intellectual Property Owners Association Survey on Strategic Management of Intellectual Property. https://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/survey_results_revised.pdf (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ouellette, L.L. Harv. J. Law Technol. 25, 545–607 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Graham, S. & Hegde, D. Science 347, 236–237 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lam, A. Res. Policy 40, 1354–1368 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Hoover IP2 Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette is at Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.,

    Lisa Larrimore Ouellette

Authors
  1. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Larrimore Ouellette.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ouellette, L. Who reads patents?. Nat Biotechnol 35, 421–424 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3864

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3864

Further reading

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