Whither the Research Anticommons?
Fifteen years ago, the “tragedy of the anticommons” article warned that excessive patenting of biotech products and research methods could deter rather than stimulate invention, but little evidence was offered. Here, subsequent changes in patent law, public research support, and surveys of researchers are summarized. Results indicate the anticipated anticommons has not materialized significantly, and while ongoing monitoring is warranted, declining public research funding may necessitate more patenting to stimulate private investment.
- Adelman, D.E., and K.L. DeAngelis. 2007. Patent metrics: The mismeasure of innovation in the biotech patent debate (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06–10). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Rogers College of Law.Google Scholar
- Cassedy, C., and J. Love. 2014. Timeline for Fabrazyme, Replagal. Washington, DC: Knowledge Ecology International. Available on the World Wide Web: http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Replagal_Fabrazyme_Timeline.pdf.Google Scholar
- Cook-Deegan, R. 2008. Gene patents. In From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns (Chapter 15), ed. M. Crowley. The Hastings Center: Garrison, NY. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Briefing_Book/gene%20patents%20chapter.pdf.Google Scholar
- Crichton, M. 2007. Patenting Life (Op-Ed). The New York Times.Google Scholar
- Federal Trade Commission. 2009. Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition (FTC Report). Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.Google Scholar
- Gillene, D. 2004. Chiron relaxes patent licenses. Los Angeles Times.Google Scholar
- Hansen, S.A., M.R. Kisielewski, and J.L. Asher. 2007. Intellectual Property Experiences in the United States Scientific Community: A Report by the Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science.:Available at http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/ethics/documents/intellectual_property/SIPPI_US_IP_Survey.pdf.
- Holman, C.M. 2007. The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation. UMKC Law Review 76: 295–361.Google Scholar
- International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). n.d. Are Private Companies Involved in the Golden Rice Project? [website]. Los Baños, Philippines. Available on the World Wide Web: http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/are-private-companies-involved-in-the-golden-rice-project.
- Jensen, R.A. 2009. Patent races. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. S.N. Durlauf and L.E. Blume. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Johnson, J. 2010. Petition to use Authority under the Bayh-Dole Act to Promote Access to Fabryzyme (Agalsidase Beta), an Invention Supported by and Licensed by the National Institutes of Health under Grant No. DK-34045. Concordia, MO: Fabry Support and Information Group. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.genomicslawreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Fabrazyme-Bayh-Dole-Petition.pdf.Google Scholar
- Kelley, T. 2012. Shire Drops after Pulling U.S. Application for Replagal. Bloomberg. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-03-15/shire-drops-after-pulling-u-s-application-for-replagal.html.
- Kryder, R.D., S.P. Kowalski, and A.F. Krattiger. 2000. The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of Pro-vitamin A Rice (Golden Rice): A Preliminary Freedom-to-Operate Review (ISAAA Issue Brief No. 20–1000). Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).Google Scholar
- National Institutes of Health (NIH). n.d. NIH Almanac. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
- Nelsen, L. 2007. Evaluating Inventions From Research Institutions. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger et al., 795–804. Oxford, UK: Centre for the Management of Intellectual Property in Health Research and Development (MIHR) and Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA).Google Scholar
- Organization for the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies (Workshop Report). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/2491084.pdf.Google Scholar
- Potrykus, I. 2011. The ‘Golden Rice’ tale. AgBioWorld. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/goldenrice/tale.html.
- Rimmer, M. 2004. The Race to Patent the SARS Virus: The TRIPS Agreement and Access to Essential Medicines. Melbourne Journal of International Law 5 (2): 335–374.Google Scholar
- Shotwell, S.L. 2007. Field-of-Use Licensing. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger et al., 1113–1120. Oxford: MIHR and PIPRA.Google Scholar
- US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2014. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (Section 2404). USPTO: Alexandria, VA. Available at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/Google Scholar
- Walsh, J.P., A. Arora, and W.M. Cohen. 2003. Effects of Research Tool Patents and Licensing on Biomedical Innovation. In Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. W.M. Cohen and S.A. Merrill. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Wyatt, E. 2014. Legislation to Protect Against ‘Patent Trolls’ is Shelved (Business Day section). The New York Times.Google Scholar
- Yarchoan, M. 2012. The History of Zidovudine (AZT): Partnership and Conflict. ScribD 4.Google Scholar