An examination of three patents in the fast-moving iPS space may help determine their ultimate value.
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 SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Change history
13 October 2010
In the version of this article initially published, the authors state: “The patents have been cross-licensed, protecting against unlicensed use of either method. Both the Sakurada and Yamanaka patents are part of the portfolio held by iPierian, a company recently formed by the merger of iZumi Bio, a San Francisco Bay Area biotech and Boston-based Pierian.” This statement is incorrect. The Yamanaka patent (owned by Kyoto University) is not licensed to iPierian. The Sakurada patent (owned by iPierian) is not licensed to Kyoto University. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
References
Takahashi, K. et al. Cell 131, 861–872 (2007).
Yu, J. et al. Science 318, 1917–1920 (2007).
Park, I. et al. Cell 134, 877–886 (2008).
Yamanaka, S. Japan patent JP 2008–131577 (2008).
Sakurada, K. et al. UK patent GB2450603 (2010).
Jaenisch, R. et al. US patent 7,682,828 (20104).
35 USC § 112.
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
USPTO. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §§ 2131.02, 2144.08, edn. 8th (US Patent and Trademark Office; 2008).
Evans, M.J. & Kaufman, M.H. Nature 292, 154–156 (1981).
Vrtovec, K. & Scott, C.T. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 393–395 (2008).
USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Foundation of Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. Patent of WARF, Appeal 2010-001854, Patent 7,029,913 (April 28, 2010).
Jaenisch, R. et al. United States Patent Application No. 12/703,061 (filed 2010).
Jaenisch, R. et al. United States Patent Application No. 12/703,015 (filed 2010).
USPTO Requirement for Restriction/Election in US Patent Application No. 10/997,146 (mailed May 24, 2006).
Yu, J. & Thomson, J.A. Genes Dev. 22, 1987–1997 (2008).
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Zhou, H. et al. Cell Stem Cell 4, 381–384 (2009).
Normile, D. Science Insider (February 8, 2010). http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/landmark-plurip.html
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Stem Cell Network (Canada) for their generous funding. A special thanks to E. Chiao for his extremely helpful insights.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simon, B., Murdoch, C. & Scott, C. Pluripotent patents make prime time: an analysis of the emerging landscape. Nat Biotechnol 28, 557–559 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0610-557
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0610-557
This article is cited by
-
The global intellectual property landscape of induced pluripotent stem cell technologies
Nature Biotechnology (2014)
-
Erratum: Corrigendum: Pluripotent patents make prime time: an analysis of the emerging landscape
Nature Biotechnology (2010)