Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T00:30:13.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
John P. Walsh ,
Ashish Arora  and
Wesley M. Cohen
Edited by
Mariana Mazzucato  and
Giovanni Dosi
John P. Walsh
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, United States
Ashish Arora
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Wesley M. Cohen
Affiliation:
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Mariana Mazzucato
Affiliation:
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Giovanni Dosi
Affiliation:
Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa
Get access

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 Evolution
The Case of Pharma-Biotech
 , pp. 277 - 326
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.
Arora, A. A., Ceccagnoli, M., and Cohen, W. M. (2002), R&D and the Patent Premium, working paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Arora, A. A., Fosfuri, A., and Gambardella, A. (2001), Markets for Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Association of University Technology Managers (2000), AUTM Licensing Survey FY1999 Survey Summary, Association of University Technology Managers, Northbrook, IL.
Bar-Shalom, A., and Cook-Deegan, R. M. (2002), “Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lessons from CellPro,” Milbank Quarterly, 80, 637–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, J. (2000), “Intellectual property rights: reforming the patent system,” Science, 287, 1933–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, S. (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.
Bunk, S. (1999), “Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents,” The Scientist, 13 (20), 7.Google Scholar
Cho, M. K., Illangasekare, S., Weaver, M. A., Leonard, D. G. B., and Merz, J. F. (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 Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S. (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 Mowery, D. C. (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 Cohen, W. and Merrill, S. (eds.), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 17–53.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1999), “Chiron stakes out its territory,” Science, 285, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P. (2002), “R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States,” Research Policy, 31, 1349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., and Klepper, S. (1992), “The tradeoff between firm size and diversity for technological progress,” Journal of Small Business Economics, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P. (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
Cook-Deegan, R. M., and McCormack, S. J. (2001), “Patents, secrecy, and DNA,” Science, 293, 217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doll, J. J. (1998), “The patenting of DNA,” Science, 280, 689–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drews, J. (2000), “Drug discovery: a historical perspective,” Science, 287, 1960–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducor, P. (1997), “Are patents and research compatible?,” Nature, 387, 13–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducor, P.(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 Dreyfuss, R. C., Zimmerman, D. L., and First, H. (eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 223–50.Google Scholar
Evenson, R., and Kislev, Y. (1973), “Research and productivity in wheat and maize,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 1309–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambardella, A. (1995), Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry in the 1980s, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. H., and Ziedonis, R. H. (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.
Heller, M. A. (1998), “The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets,” Harvard Law Review, 111, 621–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. A., and Eisenberg, R. S. (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 Mowery, D. C. and Nelson, R. R. (eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 267–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D., Breitzman, T., Olivastro, D., and Hamilton, K. (2001), “The changing composition of innovative activity in the US – a portrait based on patent analysis,” Research Policy, 30 (4), 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, M. R., Cho, M. K, Weaver, M. A., and Merz, J. F. (2002), “DNA patenting and licensing,” Science, 297, 1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jewkes, J., Sawers, D., and Stillerman, R. (1958), The Sources of Invention, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Kornberg, A. (1995), The Golden Helix, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA.Google Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O., and Schankerman, M. (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 Nelson, R. R. (ed.), Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis, Pergamon Press, New York, 9–100.Google Scholar
Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. (1987), “Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maebius, S., and Wegner, H. (2001), “Research methods patents: a territoriality loophole,” National Law Journal, 24 December, C3–C4.Google Scholar
Malakoff, D., and Service, R. F. (2001), “Genomania meets the bottom line,” Science, 291, 1193–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansfield, E. (1986), “Patents and innovation: an empirical study,” Management Science, 32, 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E. (1999a), “Drug firms to create public database of genetic mutations,” Science, 284, 406–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E.(1999b), “Do-it-yourself gene watching,” Science, 286, 444–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E.(2000a), “Patent on HIV receptor provokes an outcry,” Science, 287, 1375–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E.(2000b), “Property claims: a deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research,” Science, 288, 255–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E.(2001), “Bermuda rules: community spirit, with teeth,” Science, 291, 1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marx, J. (2002), “Chromosome end game draws a crowd,” Science, 295, 2348–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merges, R. P. (1994), “Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents,” Tennessee Law Review, 62 (1), 74–106.Google Scholar
Merges, R. P., and Nelson, R. R. (1990), “On the complex economics of patent scope,” Columbia Law Review, 90 (4), 839–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, R. P., and Nelson, R. R.(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
Merz, J. F., Kriss, D. G., Leonard, D. D. G., and Cho, M. K. (2002), “Diagnostic testing fails the test,” Nature, 415, 577–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B., and Ziedonis, A. (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.
Nelson, R. R. (1961), “Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development efforts,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 43, 351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. R.(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.
Rai, A. K. (1999), “Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science,” Northwestern University Law Review, 94 (1), 77–152.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. (2002), “The economics of human gene patents,” Academic Medicine, 77, 1348–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, F. M., Herzstein, S. Jr., Dreyfoos, A., Whitney, W., Bachmann, O., Pesek, C., Scott, C., Kelly, T., and Galvin, J. (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
Science (1997), “Genomics' wheelers and dealers,” 275, 774–5.CrossRef
Science. (2000), “A cheaper way to buy genomic data,” Science, 288, 223.CrossRef
Scotchmer, S. (1991), “Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seide, R. K., and MacLeod, J. M. (1998), “Comment on Heller and Eisenberg,” ScienceOnline, http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/980465/seide.shl.Google Scholar
Service, R. F. (2001), “Can data banks tally profits?,” Science, 291, 1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, C. (2000), “Navigating the patent thicket: cross-licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting,” in Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., and Stern, S. (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.
Uzzi, B. (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.
Walsh, J. P., and Bayma, T. (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.
Whyte, W. F. (1984), Learning from the Field, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×