On April 24th, an article in the MIT Technical Review outlined direct attention to the Wisconsin/WARF/Thomson stem cell patent. from
How patents will affect basic academic research, which in turn will affect the development of stem cell-based tools and therapies.
The article points out that California may take steps to ensure from
Cooperation between state researchers from
. The California CIRM Oversight Committee recently reported that any California researcher using California state funds to develop patent discoveries must share their patents with other state researchers. CIRM's Ed Penhoet was quoted as "We want WARF to be rewarded." Of course, one problem is that WARF previously had patents related to embyronic stem cells, while CIRM did not. In addition, people need to know the details of the shared content. Is sharing limited to researchers in academic institutions or to companies created by these researchers? One of the main selling points for state voters in California and New Jersey is that state-funded research will recover expired funds through royalties. If everyone gets a free license, then this recovery is illegal.
This article describes the world of patent use between different patent holding universities. from
Universities usually allow other institutions to use proprietary technology without special permission. from
Madey v. Duke's lawsuit is an exception to this general rule, although it is a patent holding professor who sues a university. In addition, WARF requires universities to obtain permission to conduct embryonic stem cell research. "We don't understand why we need a license… Why is this technology different?" said a technology transfer official. For example, the University of California's WARF license allows scientists to use only a small number of embryonic stem cell lines. And a license to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a non-profit medical research organization that funds scientists across the country. from
Scientists are prohibited from receiving funding from commercial companies or working with commercial companies, and the company does not have a commercial license for WARF.
This article cites an interesting passage from Jeanne Loring, who is the author of an article criticizing WARF's patent royalty requirements [311 Science 1716 ]: Jeanne Loring is a scientist at the Burnham Institute of Medicine in La Jolla, Calif., and founded a short-lived embryonic stem cell company a few years ago. “I learned from venture capital investors that these patents exist and it is impossible to get funding from them,” she said. There are at least two reasons for this reference. First, people see venture capitalists know about Thomson / WARF's patents and see it as a venture capital investment in the field. Therefore, for small research entities to dispute patent rights disputes from CIRM, it is suspected that these small entities do not have venture capital as a viable alternative. I suspect that the length of time before payment is a stagnant venture capital; there is nothing here that can be commercialized within seven years, which is a typical VC benchmark. Secondly, in the world of Bayh-Dole, a professor/entrepreneur will not know the patents of the Bayh-Dole assignee, which is a bit scary. In addition, CIRM apparently did not expect the play of WARF to be terrible. This failure has been difficult to understand since the basic patents issued a few years ago.
The basic WARF / Thomson patent is US 5,843,780 [issued to James A. Thomson on December 1, 1998, based on application 591,246 filed on January 18, 1996; this application is part of US Application Serial No. 08/376,327 Continued application January 1st, which was funded by the Federal Institutes of Health, and therefore represents a patent obtained through the Bayh-Dole Act. The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 92 PNAS 7844 .
Kenneth Taymor is a lawyer for the Stanford Stem Cell Social Project, citing articles: “The more WARW suppresses its rights, the greater the impact of research and the greater the likelihood of offshore.” This boogeyman won't hunt. In another variant, the study will be transferred overseas after Bush’s 2001 restrictions.
Taymor and article author Emily Singer did not mention at all the role that 35 USC 271[e] will play in embryonic stem cell research. Therapies produced by embryonic stem cells require FDA approval. The work done to meet FDA requirements is not affected by the infringement of 271[e] Safe Harbor, which was widely interpreted by the US Supreme Court in Merck v. Integra.
The issues discussed in this article are related to the issues mentioned by Ebert, Lawrence. [April 13, 2006]. Will Wisconsin patents prevent embryonic stem cell research? EzineArticles. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://ezinearticles.com/?id=178431 and Ebert, Lawrence. [April 12, 2006]. The Los Angeles Times article based on stem cell issues. EzineArticles. Retrieved on April 24, 2006 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Los-Angeles-Times-Article-Way-Off-Base-on-Stem-Cell-Issues&id=178050.