Academic researchers have regularly ignored patents on key technologies as a strategy to maneuver around patent thickets and freedom-to-operate issues, but they may be more at risk than they realize.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Merges, R.P. & Duffy, J.F. Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials 3rd edn. 2–3 (LexisNexus, Mathew Bender, 2002).
The Patent Act, 35 US Code.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 (1980).
Pray, C. Oehmke, J.F. & Naseem, A. AgBioForum 8, 52–63 (2005).
Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting (paper presented at Innovation Policy and the Economy, Washington, DC; 1–4 April 2000).
Cukier, K. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).
Graff, G.D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 989–995 (2003).
Hansen, S.A., Kisielewski, M.R. & Asher, J.L. Intellectual property experiences in the United States scientific community (a report by the Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest; 2007).
Walsh, J., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Patents, material transfers and access to Research inputs in biomedical research (Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Research Inventions; 2005).
Pray, C.E. & Naseem, A. AgBioForum 8, 108–117 (2005).
Mentewab, A. & Stewart, C.N. Jr. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1177–1180 (2005).
Stewart, C.N. Jr. Open-source agriculture. ISB News Report, December, 1–4 (2005).
National Research Council, Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation. Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: intellectual property rights, innovation, and public health. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2005).
Andrews, L. et al. Science 314, 1395–1396 (2006).
35 USC § 200.
Boettiger S. & Bennett, A. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 320–323 (2006).
Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (2002).
Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999).
Malakoff, D. Science 289, 2267–2269 (2000).
Gillam, C. University group sues Monsanto over soybean patent. Reuters May 23 (2007).
KSR International v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US ___ (2007).
Samardzija, M.R. Science 315, 190–191 (2007).
Anonymous. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 633 (2005).
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bill Park and Stacey Patterson for helpful discussions and comments on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yancey, A., Stewart, C. Are university researchers at risk for patent infringement?. Nat Biotechnol 25, 1225–1228 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1107-1225
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1107-1225
This article is cited by
-
The impact of greed on academic medicine and patient care
Nature Biotechnology (2008)