Patent holders often seek royalties on the sales of products developed using their tools, but how broadly should “reach-through” claims be applied?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Cullem, J.G. Panning for biotechnology gold: reach-through royalty damage awards for infringing uses of patented molecular sieves. Idea 39, 553 (1999).
35 USC § 112, first paragraph.
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk et al., 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Carroll, A.E. A review of recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: comment: not always the best medicine: biotechnology and the global impact of US patent law. Am. U.L. Rev. 44, 2433, 2482–2483 (1995).
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 US 100, 135–137 (1969).
Kobak, J.B. Intellectual property, competition law and hidden choices between original and sequential innovation. Va. J.L. & Tech. 3, 6 at ¶23 (citing Barton, J.H. Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation. Antitrust L.J. 65, 449, 454 (1997)).
Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber Co., 302 US 458, 463 (1938); See also B. Braun Medical Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 US at 135 (1969).
Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Harpold, M.M. & Brust, P. Assay methods and compositions useful for measuring the transduction of an intracellular signal. US patent 5,401,629 (“the '629 patent”).
Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F.3d at 1357–1359.
Bayer AG and Bayer Corp. v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 169 F. Supp 2d 328 (D. Del. 2001).
Idem at 329.
Idem at 331.
Eisenberg, R.S. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale L.J. 97, 177, 217 (1987).
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
Eisenberg, R.S. Patents and the progress of science: exclusive rights and experimental use. U. Chi. L. Rev. 56, 1017, 1078 (1989)
Barton, J.H. Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation. Antitrust L.J. 65, 449 (1997).
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flattmann, G., Kaplan, J. Licensing research tool patents. Nat Biotechnol 20, 945–947 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0902-945
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0902-945
This article is cited by
-
Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (2006)
