The National Institutes of Health, Patents, and the Public Interest: An Expanded Rationale of Justice Breyer's Dissent in Stanford V. Roche

By Shakir, Nida | Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Winter 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The National Institutes of Health, Patents, and the Public Interest: An Expanded Rationale of Justice Breyer's Dissent in Stanford V. Roche


Shakir, Nida, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review


   I. INTRODUCTION    II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AND       PATENT AUTHORITY       A. Two Decades of Careful Planning Created the National       Institutes of Health       B. The Department of Health Education and Welfare    C. Two Opposing Perspectives: The Bush-Kilgore Debates    III. THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF       HEALTH       A. The National Institutes of Health and Its Patent Authority       B. The Passage of the Bayh-Dole Act    IV. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY V.       ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.    V. RATIONALIZING THE DISCUSSION RAISED IN JUSTICE BREYER'S       DISSENTING OPINION       A. Allowing Ownership of Title to Vest beyond a Federally Funded       Investor Could Tip the Scale       B. The National Institutes of Health: What Are They Doing Right?    VI. CONCLUSION 

I. INTRODUCTION

In February 2010, the Alzheimer's Institute of America (AIA] filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Jackson Laboratory, the largest repository of research mice in the world. (1) AIA sued Jackson Laboratory for infringing on AIA's patent covering a DNA mutation linked to Alzheimer's disease. (2) Jackson Lab allegedly violated that patent by distributing mice especially bred for Alzheimer's research. (3)

AIA also sued a number of other parties for infringing upon this same patent. However, in August 2011, only the case against Jackson Laboratory was dismissed. (4) What caused the dismissal of the lawsuit against Jackson Laboratory? The answer is simple: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had funded Jackson Laboratory's research with the mice in question since 2003. (5) And due to the NIH's significant interest in the research, it retroactively granted Jackson Laboratory authorization and consent to distribute the mice. (6)

It is easy to see why Jackson Laboratory, and arguably the public, benefited from NIH's rare decision to intervene. (7) Currently, the NIH holds various patent rights that date back to the federal government's long-term vision of the agency. (8) Many of these rights come from the amendments to the Patent and Trademark Act, or more commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act. (9)

Today, it seems like this vision falls seamlessly in line with the NIH's broader goals within the medical research community. For example, Francis Collins, the Director of the NIH, released a letter explaining the agency's decision to support Jackson Laboratory against the infringement suit. (10) He stated that it was not only to aid Jackson Laboratory, but also to effectuate the NIH's broader policy on access to research tools. (11) Specifically he stated, "[t]his is great news not only for those involved in Alzheimer's disease research, but for the entire biomedical research community ... [a]t [the] NIH, we believe that science advances most rapidly when new technologies and research tools resulting from federal funding are made available to others." (12)

In addition to having some authority over patents, the NIH has an underlying mission to uncover new knowledge that will lead to improved public health. (13) The Office of Technology Transfer, under the NIH, has a primary function to transition basic medical research into commercially successful inventions that will improve public health. (14) With such a stated mission, the NIH does not take this responsibility lightly and is heavily involved in balancing the interests of the public with those of the private sector. (15)

It is with this backdrop that this Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court case Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (Stanford v. Roche). (16) In Stanford v. Roche, the Court sets forth an interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act with regards to patent ownership and holds that patent ownership can vest beyond the initial recipient of federal funding.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The National Institutes of Health, Patents, and the Public Interest: An Expanded Rationale of Justice Breyer's Dissent in Stanford V. Roche
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?