On April 24, an article in the MIT Technology Review described immediate concerns over the Wisconsin/WARF/Thomson patent on stem cells because of how the patent would affect basic academic research, which, in turn, could affect the development of stem cell-based devices and therapies.
The article mentions steps that the state of California might take to ensure collaboration among researchers from different states. The California CIRM oversight committee recently announced that any California researcher who develops a patented invention using California state funds must share their patent with other state researchers. Ed Penhoet of CIRM was quoted: “We hope WARF will retaliate.
” Of course, one problem is that WARF currently has patents related to embryonic stem cells, and CIRM does not. Next, people need to know the details of what is being shared. Does the division only apply to use by researchers in academic institutions, or does it extend to companies created by those researchers? One of the main selling points for voters of states like California and New Jersey is that state funding research will recover money spent through patent royalties. Reed Manning, Spa & Salon If everyone got a free license, such a recovery would be impossible.
This article discusses the world of patent use as one of the different patent holder universities. Universities generally allow other institutions to use patented technology without special permission. Case of Madey v. AKDSEO merupakan agency digital marketing yang fokus melayani jasa Backlinks dan Link building website, termasuk di dalamnya Jasa Menaikkan DA ( Domain Authority) The litigated Duke University is an exception to this general rule, even though it is a patent-holding professor who is suing a university. Furthermore, WARF requires universities to obtain a license to conduct embryonic stem cell research.
“None of us understand why we need a license…Why is this technology any different?” said a technology transfer official. WARF’s license to the University of California, for example, allows scientists to use only a small number of embryonic stem cell lines. And the license granted to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a non-profit medical research organization that funds scientists across the country, prohibits scientists from receiving funding from or collaborating with commercial companies unless the company has a commercial license from WARF.
The article features an interesting quote by Jeanne Loring, herself an author of an article criticizing WARF’s patent royalty request [311 Science 1716 (2006)]: Jeanne Loring, a scientist at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, CA, started a cell company embryonic broodstock was short lived a few years ago. “I learned from venture capital investors that these patents exist and it’s impossible to get funding from them,” he said. This quote is important for at least two reasons.
First, people see that venture capitalists are aware of the Thomson/WARF patent and see it as a barrier to VC investment in the field. So, for a small research entity that refuses money from CIRM because of a dispute over patent royalty rights, one suspect the small entity does NOT have VC funding as a viable alternative.
I suspect the length of time before separate payments is a barrier to VC funding; there’s nothing here that looks ready for commercialization in seven years, typical VC benchmarks. Second, in the Bayh-Dole world, it’s a bit scary that a professor/entrepreneur doesn’t know the relevant patent of a Bayh-Dole grantee. Furthermore, it’s also scary that CIRM doesn’t seem to anticipate the game WARF, whose failure has been a bit tricky to grasp since the basic patent was issued years ago.
The basic WARF/Thomson patent is US 5,843,780 (issued 1 Dec 1998 to James A. Thomson, based on application 591246 filed 18 Jan 1996; the application was a continuation-in-part of US application Ser. No. 08/376,327 filed Jan 20, 1995. It was obtained with funding from the federal NIH, and thus represents a patent obtained through the auspices of the Bayh-Dole Act. It is separately true that Thomson, a few days after filing his basic patent application, submitted a paper to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which appeared as 92 PNAS 7844 (1995). His effort at patenting did not impede his efforts at rapid public disclosure.
Kenneth Taymor, an attorney with the Stanford Program on Stem Cells in Society, is quoted in the article: “The more that WARF presses its rights, the more research will be impinged and the more likely it will move offshore.” This boogeyman won’t hunt. In a different variant, research was going to move offshore after Bush’s restriction in 2001.
Taymor and the article author Emily Singer simply neglects to mention the role that 35 USC 271(e)(1) is going to play in research on embryonic stem cells. Therapies arising from embryonic stem cells are going to need FDA approval. Work done to meet FDA requirements is insulated from infringement liability through the safe harbor of 271(e)(1), as expansively interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Merck v. Integra.