Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California
In January 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's holding in Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA. The decision, largely seen as a victory for research tool patentees in the biotechnology sector, would if affirmed, promote cross-licensing between universities and i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal 2005-05, Vol.21 (4), p.855 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 855 |
container_title | Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Freschi, Gina C |
description | In January 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's holding in Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA. The decision, largely seen as a victory for research tool patentees in the biotechnology sector, would if affirmed, promote cross-licensing between universities and industry, as well as discourage misappropriation of unlicensed patented tools. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argue that the decision is a limitation on drug development activities that could potentially benefit human health, and that restricting the use of tool patents in biomedical research could mean years of delay in the availability of new, life-saving drugs. The underpinnings of the Integra ruling involve federally enacted, 35 U.S.C. paragraph 271(e)(l). To encourage development and expedite the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the marketplace, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate drug research from charges of infringement so long as such research is solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The statute renders activities that would otherwise constitute patent infringement noninfringing if they are undertaken for the purpose of developing and submitting to the FDA information necessary to obtain marketing approval for a new chemical entity, a medical device, or a food additive. Hence, the statute benefits competitors of a patentee by freeing them of liability for development work reasonably related to securing regulatory approval. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218704330</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A133279867</galeid><sourcerecordid>A133279867</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1320-41368ba51a7068da54a6fa1838422b44ef089138054939fff49ae42a00003c323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptj01LAzEQhvegYP34D0EPnlby1d2st1L8gqIH9bxM08k2JbtZk1T06i83UkGEzhwG3nned5iDYkKV4qUQShwVxzFuKGWMN3JSfD3Cu-0g2aEjaY0kYEQIek3wA_sxWT9cRhLBIFlDWPpwTZ63Y8AeydxvQyLJE-0gWPNJovYjlqXtR2c1_FgjMT6QmLAnGp37C7cDmYOzeTtYOC0ODbiIZ7_zpHi9vXmZ35eLp7uH-WxRdkxwWkomKrWEKYOaVmoFUwmVAaaEkpwvpURDVcOEolPZiMYYIxtAyYHmElpwcVKc73LH4N-2GFO7yS8M-WTLmaqpFIJm6GIHdeCwtYPxKYDubdTtjAnB60ZVdabKPVSHAwZwfkBjs_yPv9rD515hb_UewzcX04YE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218704330</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Freschi, Gina C</creator><creatorcontrib>Freschi, Gina C</creatorcontrib><description>In January 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's holding in Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA. The decision, largely seen as a victory for research tool patentees in the biotechnology sector, would if affirmed, promote cross-licensing between universities and industry, as well as discourage misappropriation of unlicensed patented tools. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argue that the decision is a limitation on drug development activities that could potentially benefit human health, and that restricting the use of tool patents in biomedical research could mean years of delay in the availability of new, life-saving drugs. The underpinnings of the Integra ruling involve federally enacted, 35 U.S.C. paragraph 271(e)(l). To encourage development and expedite the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the marketplace, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate drug research from charges of infringement so long as such research is solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The statute renders activities that would otherwise constitute patent infringement noninfringing if they are undertaken for the purpose of developing and submitting to the FDA information necessary to obtain marketing approval for a new chemical entity, a medical device, or a food additive. Hence, the statute benefits competitors of a patentee by freeing them of liability for development work reasonably related to securing regulatory approval.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0882-3383</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2334-1610</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Santa Clara: Santa Clara University</publisher><subject>Biomedical research ; FDA approval ; Federal regulation ; Generic drugs ; Infringement ; Intellectual property ; Interpretation and construction ; Inventors ; Litigation ; Medical research ; Patent law ; Pharmaceutical industry ; Pharmaceutical research ; Regulatory approval ; Safe harbor ; Stem cells ; Studies ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal, 2005-05, Vol.21 (4), p.855</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2005 Santa Clara University</rights><rights>Copyright Santa Clara University May 2005</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Freschi, Gina C</creatorcontrib><title>Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California</title><title>Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal</title><description>In January 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's holding in Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA. The decision, largely seen as a victory for research tool patentees in the biotechnology sector, would if affirmed, promote cross-licensing between universities and industry, as well as discourage misappropriation of unlicensed patented tools. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argue that the decision is a limitation on drug development activities that could potentially benefit human health, and that restricting the use of tool patents in biomedical research could mean years of delay in the availability of new, life-saving drugs. The underpinnings of the Integra ruling involve federally enacted, 35 U.S.C. paragraph 271(e)(l). To encourage development and expedite the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the marketplace, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate drug research from charges of infringement so long as such research is solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The statute renders activities that would otherwise constitute patent infringement noninfringing if they are undertaken for the purpose of developing and submitting to the FDA information necessary to obtain marketing approval for a new chemical entity, a medical device, or a food additive. Hence, the statute benefits competitors of a patentee by freeing them of liability for development work reasonably related to securing regulatory approval.</description><subject>Biomedical research</subject><subject>FDA approval</subject><subject>Federal regulation</subject><subject>Generic drugs</subject><subject>Infringement</subject><subject>Intellectual property</subject><subject>Interpretation and construction</subject><subject>Inventors</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Patent law</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical industry</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical research</subject><subject>Regulatory approval</subject><subject>Safe harbor</subject><subject>Stem cells</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0882-3383</issn><issn>2334-1610</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptj01LAzEQhvegYP34D0EPnlby1d2st1L8gqIH9bxM08k2JbtZk1T06i83UkGEzhwG3nned5iDYkKV4qUQShwVxzFuKGWMN3JSfD3Cu-0g2aEjaY0kYEQIek3wA_sxWT9cRhLBIFlDWPpwTZ63Y8AeydxvQyLJE-0gWPNJovYjlqXtR2c1_FgjMT6QmLAnGp37C7cDmYOzeTtYOC0ODbiIZ7_zpHi9vXmZ35eLp7uH-WxRdkxwWkomKrWEKYOaVmoFUwmVAaaEkpwvpURDVcOEolPZiMYYIxtAyYHmElpwcVKc73LH4N-2GFO7yS8M-WTLmaqpFIJm6GIHdeCwtYPxKYDubdTtjAnB60ZVdabKPVSHAwZwfkBjs_yPv9rD515hb_UewzcX04YE</recordid><startdate>20050501</startdate><enddate>20050501</enddate><creator>Freschi, Gina C</creator><general>Santa Clara University</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050501</creationdate><title>Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California</title><author>Freschi, Gina C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1320-41368ba51a7068da54a6fa1838422b44ef089138054939fff49ae42a00003c323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biomedical research</topic><topic>FDA approval</topic><topic>Federal regulation</topic><topic>Generic drugs</topic><topic>Infringement</topic><topic>Intellectual property</topic><topic>Interpretation and construction</topic><topic>Inventors</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Patent law</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical industry</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical research</topic><topic>Regulatory approval</topic><topic>Safe harbor</topic><topic>Stem cells</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Freschi, Gina C</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Freschi, Gina C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California</atitle><jtitle>Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal</jtitle><date>2005-05-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>855</spage><pages>855-</pages><issn>0882-3383</issn><issn>2334-1610</issn><abstract>In January 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's holding in Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA. The decision, largely seen as a victory for research tool patentees in the biotechnology sector, would if affirmed, promote cross-licensing between universities and industry, as well as discourage misappropriation of unlicensed patented tools. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argue that the decision is a limitation on drug development activities that could potentially benefit human health, and that restricting the use of tool patents in biomedical research could mean years of delay in the availability of new, life-saving drugs. The underpinnings of the Integra ruling involve federally enacted, 35 U.S.C. paragraph 271(e)(l). To encourage development and expedite the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the marketplace, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate drug research from charges of infringement so long as such research is solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The statute renders activities that would otherwise constitute patent infringement noninfringing if they are undertaken for the purpose of developing and submitting to the FDA information necessary to obtain marketing approval for a new chemical entity, a medical device, or a food additive. Hence, the statute benefits competitors of a patentee by freeing them of liability for development work reasonably related to securing regulatory approval.</abstract><cop>Santa Clara</cop><pub>Santa Clara University</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0882-3383 |
ispartof | Santa Clara computer and high-technology law journal, 2005-05, Vol.21 (4), p.855 |
issn | 0882-3383 2334-1610 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_218704330 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Biomedical research FDA approval Federal regulation Generic drugs Infringement Intellectual property Interpretation and construction Inventors Litigation Medical research Patent law Pharmaceutical industry Pharmaceutical research Regulatory approval Safe harbor Stem cells Studies Supreme Court decisions |
title | Navigating the research exemption's safe harbor: Supreme Court to clarify scope--implications for stem cell research in California |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T11%3A56%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Navigating%20the%20research%20exemption's%20safe%20harbor:%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20clarify%20scope--implications%20for%20stem%20cell%20research%20in%20California&rft.jtitle=Santa%20Clara%20computer%20and%20high-technology%20law%20journal&rft.au=Freschi,%20Gina%20C&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=855&rft.pages=855-&rft.issn=0882-3383&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA133279867%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218704330&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A133279867&rfr_iscdi=true |