The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey (original) (raw)

References

  1. Rai, A.K. & Eisenberg, R.S. Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law Contemp. Probl. 66, 289–314 (2003).
    Google Scholar
  2. Eisenberg, R.S. Structure and function in gene patenting. Nat. Genet. 15, 125–130 (1997).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Jensen, K. & Murray, F. The intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310, 239–240 (2005).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Cho, M.K., Illangasekare, S., Weaver, M.A., Leonard, D.G.B. & Merz, J.F. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3–8 (2003).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  5. Paradise J., Andrews, L. & Holbrook, T. Patents on human genes: an analysis of scope and claims. Science 307, 1566–1567 (2005).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, L.B. & Paradise, J. Gene patents: the need for bioethics scrutiny and legal change. Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 5, 403–412 (2005).
    PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2002). http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/screen/ourwork/patentingdna/introduction
  8. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London, September 2002). http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf (accessed October 13, 2005).
  9. Human Genetics Program, World Health Organization. Genetics, Genomics, and the Patenting of DNA (WHO, Geneva, 2005). http://www.who.int/genomics/patentingDNA/en/ (accessed October 13, 2005).
  10. Australian Law Reform Commission. Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99 (Australian Law Reform Commission, Sydney, Australia, June 2004).
  11. Ontario Report to the Provinces and Territories. Genetics, Testing and Gene Patenting: Charting New Territory in Healthcare (Toronto, January 2002). http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/geneticsrep02/report_e.pdf (accessed October 13, 2005).
  12. Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.A. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  13. 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 [on] Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Research Inventions, 20 September 2005). http://tigger.uic.edu/~jwalsh/WalshChoCohenFinal050922.pdf; (accessed November 21, 2005).
    Google Scholar
  14. Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. View from the bench: patents and material transfers. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council. Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology. Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences, February 15–16, 1996. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1997).
  16. National Institutes of Health Working Group on Research Tools. Report of the National Institutes of Health Working Group on Research Tools, Presented to the Advisory Committee to the Director, June 4, 1998. (NIH, Bethesda, MD, 1998). http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/ (accessed 14 October 2005).
  17. Anonymous. Principles and guidelines for recipients of NIH research grants and contracts on obtaining and disseminating biomedical research resources. Federal Register 64, 72090–72096 (1999).
  18. Anonymous. Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions. Federal Register 70, 18413–18415 (2005).
  19. Driscoll, C. Evolving NIH Patent and Licensing Policies and Practices for Genomic Inventions in the Post-Human Genome Project Era, as presented at “Toward Consensus on Benefits Sharing in Genetics Reserach”, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, PA, March 3, 2003. Available at: http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/gelp/downloads/cdriscoll_03mar03.pdf
  20. Spiegel, J. Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions (draft), distributed at the AUTM annual meeting, Nov. 11, 2005. http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/gelp/downloads/jspiegel_07feb04.pdf
  21. Malakoff, D. NIH roils academe with advice on licensing DNA patents. Science 303, 1757–1758 (2004).
    PubMed Google Scholar
  22. 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 (report released 17 November 2005); available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11487.html (accessed 9 December 2005).
  23. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. The Finnegan Henderson 2005 Biotechnology Innovation Report. (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, USA, 2005).
    Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, L. Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology, Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences, February 15–16, 1996, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1997.
  25. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Madey v. Duke, decided 3 October 2002 [307 F.3d 1351; 2002 US App. LEXIS 20823; 64 USP.Q.2D (BNA) 1737] (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/2002Madeyedit.html).
  26. Association of University Technology Managers, AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey, FY 2004: A Survey Summary of Technology Licensing (and Related) Performance for U.S. Academic and Nonprofit Institutions, and Technology Investment firms, editors Stevens, A.J., Toneguzzo, F. & Bostrom, D.” (http://www.autm.net/surveys/dsp.surveyDetail.cfm?pid=16; accessed 9 December 2005).
  27. Cohen, S.N. & Boyer, H.W. Process for producing biologically functional molecular chimeras. US patent 4237224 (1980).
  28. Cohen, S.N. & Boyer, H.W. Biologically functional molecular chimeras. US patent 4468464 (1984).
  29. Cohen, S.N. & Boyer, H.W. Biologically functional molecular chimeras. US patent 4740470 (1988).
  30. Hughes, S.S. Making dollars out of DNA. The first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology. Isis. 92, 541–575 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  31. Axel, R., Wigler, M.H. & Silverstein, S.J. Processes for inserting DNA into eucaryotic cells and for producing proteinaceous materials. US patent 4399216 (1983).
  32. Axel, R., Wigler, M.H. & Silverstein, S.J. Processes for inserting DNA into eucaryotic cells and for producing proteinaceous materials. US patent 4634665 (1987).
  33. Axel, R. & Roberts, J.M. Method for introducing cloned, amplifiable genes into eucaryotic cells and for producing proteinaceous products. US patent 5149636 (1992).
  34. Axel, R., Wigler, M.H. & Silverstein, S.J. Processes for inserting DNA into eucaryotic cells and for producing proteinaceous materials. US patent 5179017 (1993).
  35. Axel, R., Wigler, M.H. & Silverstein, S.J. DNA construct for producing proteinaceous materials in eucaryotic cells. US patent 6455275 (2002).
  36. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N. & Ziedonis, A.A. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2004) p. 158.
    Google Scholar

Download references