There are several emerging technology clusters in the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) space. Simon Elliot and I conducted a patent landscape analysis focusing on issued U.S. patents and pending applications. We found several geographical clusters and a trend in the development of the technology away from the use of genetic transforming factors. A brief report on our analysis was recently published on line - “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: A U.S. Patent Landscape Analysis.”
This report is interesting not only from a patent analyst’s perspective of tracking the evolution of IP in a particular technology, but also because it shows a clear evolution of the technology and processes for achieving the same result using different techniques.
Today in Bowman v. Monstanto Co., 569 U.S. __ (2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion,the authorized sale of a patented article only gives the purchaser or any subsequent owner of the patented article the right to use or resell that article. It does not give the purchaser or any subsequent owner the right to make copies of the original article, even when the article being purchased inherently possesses the ability to make copies of itself. Continue reading this entry
On October 10, 2012, two pro-life groups petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court’s decision allowing the continued federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells (“hESCs”). A copy of the petition for certiorari is attached here and our review of the history of the case can be found in our prior posts of August 27, 2012 and July 28, 2011.Continue reading this entry
On October 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion that eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale in patented seeds sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Docket No. 11-796 (Supreme Court 2012), proceedings below, Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).Continue reading this entry
On July 27, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Sherley v. Sebelius (Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1575) held that the National Institutes for Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (“Guidelines”) are neither invalid for violating the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (“Dickey Amendment”) nor the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). In reaching this holding, the Court opined that the language of the Dickey Amendment does not prohibit the funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells within the limitations imposed by the Guidelines, but does prohibit NIH funding of research in which an embryo is subject to risk of injury or death in that research, for example, research regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Researchers involved in prenatal genetic testing should therefore be mindful of this opinion and its explicit exclusion of the use of federal monies.
Continue reading this entry