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.

  • Biotools
  • Published:

The Infringement Exemption

Bio/Technology volume 13, pages 1065–1066 (1995)Cite this article

Questions remain about how this decade-old law will affect biotechnology

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. The legislative history of Section 271 (e)(1) is reprinted at 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2647. The section was amended in 1988, but the amendments do not affect the subject of this article.

  2. 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

  3. Id. at 863.

  4. The legislative history of Section 271 (e)(1) is reprinted at 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2647. The section was amended in 1988, but the amendments do not affect the subject of this article.

  5. 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1423 (D.N.J. 1994).

  6. NeoRx Corp. v. Immunomedics, Inc., 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1423 (D.N.J. 1994).

  7. 31 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1428.

  8. Id.

  9. 666 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

  10. Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.,775 F. Supp. 1269 (N.D.Cal. 1991); Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1926, 1931-1932 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

  11. 982 F.2d 1520, 1525, and n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing with approval the analysis in Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1269 (N.D.Cal. 1991). A contrary view was taken by the district court in Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 1379 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

  12. Congress was also interested in correcting the distorting effect that the lengthy FDA approval process (at that time averaging 7-10 years) had on the patent term. See generally Eli Lilly and Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661,669-672, (1990); Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 982 F.2d 1520, 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

  13. Intermedics Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1258, 1276-78. (N.D. Cal. 1991).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. partner at Morrison & Foerster, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104

    Carroll E. Neesemann

  2. associate at Morrison & Foerster, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104

    James E. Hough

Authors
  1. Carroll E. Neesemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Hough
    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

Neesemann, C., Hough, J. The Infringement Exemption. Nat Biotechnol 13, 1065–1066 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1095-1065

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1095-1065

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