Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
10 - The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
There is widespread consensus that patents have long benefited biomedical innovation. A forty-year empirical legacy suggests that patents are more effective, for example, in protecting the commercialization and licensing of innovation in the drug industry than in any other. Patents are also widely acknowledged as providing the basis for the surge in biotechnology startup activity witnessed over the past two decades. Heller and Eisenberg (1998) and the National Research Council (NRC) (1997) have suggested, however, that recent policies and practices associated with the granting, assertion, and licensing of patents on research tools may now be undercutting the stimulative effect of patents on drugs and related biomedical discoveries. In this chapter we report the results of seventy interviews with personnel at biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms and universities in considering the effects of research tool patents on industrial or academic biomedical research. We conceive of research tools broadly to include any tangible or informational input into the process of discovering a drug or any other medical therapy or method of diagnosing disease.
Heller and Eisenberg (1998) argue that biomedical innovation has become susceptible to what they call a “tragedy of the anticommons,” which can emerge when there are numerous property right claims to separate building blocks for some product or line of research. When these property rights are held by numerous claimants (especially if they are from different kinds of institutions), the negotiations necessary for their combination may fail, quashing the pursuit of otherwise promising lines of research or product development.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Knowledge Accumulation and Industry EvolutionThe Case of Pharma-Biotech, pp. 277 - 326Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
American Intellectual Property Law Association (1995), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
American Intellectual Property Law Association(1997), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
American Intellectual Property Law Association(2001), Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Washington, DC.
, , and (2002), R&D and the Patent Premium, working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Association of University Technology Managers (2000), AUTM Licensing Survey FY1999 Survey Summary, Association of University Technology Managers, Northbrook, IL.
, and (2002), “Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lessons from CellPro,” Milbank Quarterly, 80, 637–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2000), “Intellectual property rights: reforming the patent system,” Science, 287, 1933–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1998), “Do you have a license? Products licensed for PCR in research applications,” The Scientist, 12 (12), 21.Google Scholar
Blanton, K. (2002), “Corporate takeover,” Boston Globe, Magazine, online edition, 24 February.
(1999), “Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents,” The Scientist, 13 (20), 7.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2003), “Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services,” Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 5 (1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockburn, I., and R. M. Henderson (2000), “Publicly funded science and the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry,” in , , and (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1–34.Google Scholar
Cockburn, I., R. Henderson, L. Orsenigo, and G. P. Pisano (2000), “Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology,” in (ed.), U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 363–98.Google Scholar
Cockburn, I., S. Kortum, and S. Stern (2003), “Are all patent examiners equal? Examiners, patent characteristics, and litigation outcomes,” in and (eds.), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 17–53.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2002), “R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States,” Research Policy, 31, 1349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992), “The tradeoff between firm size and diversity for technological progress,” Journal of Small Business Economics, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
, , and (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), Working Paper no. 7522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000), “Drug discovery: a historical perspective,” Science, 287, 1960–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1999), “Research tool patents and the experimental use exemption,” Nature Biotechnology, 17, 1027–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, R. S. (2001), “Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools: is this market failing or emerging?,” in , , and (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 223–50.Google Scholar
, and (1973), “Research and productivity in wheat and maize,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 1309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995), Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001), “The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995,” RAND Journal of Economics, 32 (1), 101–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. O. (1997), “Stanford's DNA patent ‘enforcer’ Grolle closes the $200m book on Cohen–Boyer,” Signals Magazine, online edition, 25 November.
(1998), “The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets,” Harvard Law Review, 111, 621–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998), “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons tragedy in biomedical research,” Science, 280, 698–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, R. M., L. Orsenigo, and G. Pisano (1999), “The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: exploring the interactions between scientific, institutional, and organizational change,” in and (eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 267–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2001), “The changing composition of innovative activity in the US – a portrait based on patent analysis,” Research Policy, 30 (4), 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001), Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, Working Paper no. 8656, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, R. (1982), “The semiconductor industry,” in (ed.), Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis, Pergamon Press, New York, 9–100.Google Scholar
, , , and (1987), “Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001), “Research methods patents: a territoriality loophole,” National Law Journal, 24 December, C3–C4.Google Scholar
, and (2001), “Genomania meets the bottom line,” Science, 291, 1193–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1986), “Patents and innovation: an empirical study,” Management Science, 32, 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999a), “Drug firms to create public database of genetic mutations,” Science, 284, 406–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000b), “Property claims: a deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research,” Science, 288, 255–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001), “Bermuda rules: community spirit, with teeth,” Science, 291, 1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1994), “Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents,” Tennessee Law Review, 62 (1), 74–106.Google Scholar
, and (1990), “On the complex economics of patent scope,” Columbia Law Review, 90 (4), 839–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1994), “On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: the effect of patent scope decisions,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2002), “Diagnostic testing fails the test,” Nature, 415, 577–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2001), “The growth of patents and licensing by U.S. universities,” Research Policy, 30, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
National Science Foundation (1998), Science and Engineering Indicators, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Neighbour, A. (2002), “Presentation to the National Cancer Policy Board,” Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, 23 April.
(1961), “Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development efforts,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982), “The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97, 453–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002), Genetic Inventions, IPRS and Licensing Practices, report by the Working Party on Biotechnology, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
(1999), “Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science,” Northwestern University Law Review, 94 (1), 77–152.Google Scholar
(2002), “The economics of human gene patents,” Academic Medicine, 77, 1348–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , , , and (1959), Patents and the Corporation: A Report on Industrial Technology Under Changing Public Policy, 2nd edn., Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
(1991), “Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998), “Comment on Heller and Eisenberg,” ScienceOnline, http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/980465/seide.shl.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C. (2000), “Navigating the patent thicket: cross-licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting,” in , , and (eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. I, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 119–50.Google Scholar
Thursby, J. G., and M. C. Thursby (1999), Purdue Licensing Survey: A Summary of Results, unpublished manuscript, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
(1996), “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect,” American Sociological Review, 61 (4), 674–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall Street Journal (2001), “IBM and others are financing a public database on proteins,” online edition, 30 May.
, and (1996), “Computer networks and scientific work,” Social Studies of Science, 26, 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, H. C. (2002), The Right to Experiment with a Patented Invention, paper presented to a meeting of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section, Washington, DC, 10 December.
- 17
- Cited by