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:

Protecting rights to early-stage technology

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 701–703 (2003)Cite this article

Does the recent court decision invalidating the University of Rochester's 'method of treatment' patent herald a shift in policy indicating that such patents require successful testing of lead compounds?

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. Mowery, D.C. et al. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30, 99–119 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 35 USC, section 200.

  3. USPTO data (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/univ_toc.htm).

  4. GAO. R&D funding foreign sponsorship of US university research (http://archive.gao.gov/d34t11/135368.pdf), 33 (1988).

  5. NIH data (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/research/currcons5002.htm).

  6. US Pat. No. 6,048,850 Claim 1 reads “A method for selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity in a human host, comprising administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product to a human host in need of such treatment.”

  7. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., No. 00-CV-6161L, 2003 US Dist. LEXIS 3030 (WDNY Mar. 5, 2003).

  8. The University of Rochester received a separate patent, US Pat. No. 5,837,479, issued from a related application directed to screening assays.

  9. 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d (BNA) 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied 523 U.S. 1089 (1998).

  10. 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d (BNA) 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

  11. 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d (BNA) 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

  12. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, edn. 8, section 2138.05, (Aug. 2001).

  13. Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf.

  14. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (BNA) 81 (Fed. Cir 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).

  15. Association of University Technology Managers survey (2000).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fenwick & West LLP, 275 Battery Street, San Francisco, 94111, CA, USA

    Michael J Shuster

  2. Fenwick & West LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street, Mountain View, 94041, CA, USA

    Henry Su & Sasha Blaug

Authors
  1. Michael J Shuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sasha Blaug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shuster, M., Su, H. & Blaug, S. Protecting rights to early-stage technology. Nat Biotechnol 21, 701–703 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0603-701

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0603-701

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