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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Brain modulation and patent law

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 18–19 (2019)Cite this article

To the Editor:

Neurotechnologies aimed at directly influencing the brain are advancing at a considerable rate. Correspondingly, as shown by Roskams-Edris et al.1, the number of approved patents related to methods for direct brain modulation in the United States has increased considerably over the last two decades. But Roskams-Edris et al.1 argue that such patent rights should not be permitted. We respectfully disagree.

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. Roskams-Edris, D., Anderson-Redick, S., Kiss, Z.H. & Illes, J. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 119–121 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Foster, A.M. et al. US patent 9,327,069 (2006).

  3. Wagner, T.A. et al. US patent 9,050,463 (2015).

  4. Krueger, R. & Weiss, D. US patent 9,283,378 (2012).

  5. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S. 576 (2013).

  6. 35 U.S. Code §287(c).

  7. United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

  8. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 (1989).

  9. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. 416 U.S. 470 (1974).

  10. Abramowicz, M. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 56, 115–236 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, DC, USA

    Andreas Kuersten

  2. Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Anna Wexler

Authors
  1. Andreas Kuersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Wexler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Kuersten.

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

Kuersten, A., Wexler, A. Brain modulation and patent law. Nat Biotechnol 37, 18–19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4334

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4334

This article is cited by

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