"Real as Pro Wrestling": Johns Hopkins University V. CellPro and the Federal Court's Power of Review in Patent Infringement Actions

By Dunbar, Gretchen | Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, May 2002 | Go to article overview

"Real as Pro Wrestling": Johns Hopkins University V. CellPro and the Federal Court's Power of Review in Patent Infringement Actions


Dunbar, Gretchen, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

CellPro, a biotechnology company in Seattle, Washington, developed an extraordinary device. (1) Its Ceprate system separates stem cells from blood and enables the reintroduction of healthy stem cells into patients who have undergone debilitating radiation treatment. (2) This device was so effective that it cured CellPro's own CEO, Rick Murdock, of his deadly form of cancer. (3) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved CellPro's Ceprate system for sale in the United States, (4) but it is not on the market. (5)

The Ceprate system is not for sale because the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that CellPro willfully infringed four patents in the creation of the Ceprate device. (6) Those four patents were initially found to be invalid in a jury trial. (7) However, the district court overturned the jury's decision by granting the patents, assignees and licensees, motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") using de novo review. (8) After its own de novo claim construction, the district court remanded the case to another jury. (9) That jury trial found CellPro had willfully infringed the patents. (10) That decision was upheld on appeal (11) and as a result CellPro dissolved, along with its Ceprate system. (12) This cancer-curing device was shelved. (13)

Rick Murdock comments on his experience with CellPro, Ceprate, and the district court in his book, Patient Number One. (14) He describes the entire process as "a sham, a kangaroo court ... about as real as pro wrestling." (15) Rightfully upset, Murdock was on the losing side of the case that destroyed the very technology that saved his life. (16) Stem cells continue to help biomedical research gain significant ground in the fight against cancer and other life-threatening diseases. (17) Yet the rush by scientists to patent their discoveries creates tension between open scientific research, and exclusivity and profit protection. This tension is all the more evident when life-saving technology is at stake because it is difficult to morally justify restricting technology that could eradicate debilitating diseases for the sake of exclusive intellectual property rights. Is Murdock right? Was his experience with the justice system a sham? Is the district court's review of jury verdicts too powerful? Maybe Markman (18) has changed the patent review system too much.

The opinion in Markman anticipated the possibility of "certainty in claim construction ... early settlements, reduced litigation costs, and increased judicial efficiency." (19) In practice however, it has had the opposite effect. (20) The Federal Circuit now reverses approximately forty percent of the claim constructions it reviews on appeal. (21) Litigation is not reduced as anticipated, since "[p]arties are much less willing to settle knowing that there exists a forty percent chance that the Federal Circuit will reverse the claim construction and remand the case for trial under a new construction." (22) If reality after Markman is a system fraught with uncertainty and added expense, (23) one cannot help but agree with Murdock. After all, the patent system was created to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by protecting rights of inventors. (24) Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as a court with exclusive jurisdiction over patent-related appeals. (25) Congress hoped to avoid forum shopping and create certainty in patent cases. (26) Further adding to the confusion is that the United States Constitution protects the right to a trial by jury. (27) Unless Congress takes the Federal Circuit one step further by creating an even more highly-specialized patent court system, a jury should be allowed to continue its fact-finding function in patent claim construction without the threat of de novo review by the Federal Circuit.

II. PATENT PROTECTION AND BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

The Constitution attributed to Congress the role of promoting "the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. …

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
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • 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.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
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.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

"Real as Pro Wrestling": Johns Hopkins University V. CellPro and the Federal Court's Power of Review in Patent Infringement Actions
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    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.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    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.