More complaints about WARF demand for royalties for stem cell patents
In a March 25 post titled "WARF Under Assault For Excessive Royalties," California Stem Cell Report contained text:
Reporter Ron Seely of the Wisconsin newspaper [Wisconsin State Journal] wrote the article about patent complaints by Jeanne F. Loring, a stem-cell researcher with the Burnham Institute in San Diego,, and Cathryn Campbell, a patent attorney with McDermott, Will & Emery, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
Their charges were contained in an article in Science magazine that said WARF patents are "a more daunting barrier to progress in the field" than President Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
Seely quoted Carl Gulbrandsen, executive director of WARF, as saying,
"I'm not embarrassed at all to say that I hope the University of Wisconsin will make a whole lot of money from these patents.
Those with a sharp eye for IPBiz posts will note that the name Cathryn Campbell came up in previous posts on Merck v. Integra. Campbell represented patentee Integra in the dispute over the research exemption of 271(e)(1). Nominally, Integra lost on the contested issue, but I think Integra will prevail on remand, because the jury instructions were consistent with the "new law" enunciated in the Supreme Court decision.
However, WARF in going after CIRM will face the one-two punch of Florida Prepaid Postsecondary AND Merck v. Integra. A California state court/tribunal will decide how Merck v. Integra / 271(e)(1) apply as to research needed for FDA information in INDs and NDAs, and generally against the big bucks Californians are spending for research in stem cells. Hmmmm, I wonder how that will come out? CIRM and WARF should just cut some kind of deal.
Reporter Ron Seely of the Wisconsin newspaper [Wisconsin State Journal] wrote the article about patent complaints by Jeanne F. Loring, a stem-cell researcher with the Burnham Institute in San Diego,, and Cathryn Campbell, a patent attorney with McDermott, Will & Emery, a Washington, D.C., law firm.
Their charges were contained in an article in Science magazine that said WARF patents are "a more daunting barrier to progress in the field" than President Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
Seely quoted Carl Gulbrandsen, executive director of WARF, as saying,
"I'm not embarrassed at all to say that I hope the University of Wisconsin will make a whole lot of money from these patents.
Those with a sharp eye for IPBiz posts will note that the name Cathryn Campbell came up in previous posts on Merck v. Integra. Campbell represented patentee Integra in the dispute over the research exemption of 271(e)(1). Nominally, Integra lost on the contested issue, but I think Integra will prevail on remand, because the jury instructions were consistent with the "new law" enunciated in the Supreme Court decision.
However, WARF in going after CIRM will face the one-two punch of Florida Prepaid Postsecondary AND Merck v. Integra. A California state court/tribunal will decide how Merck v. Integra / 271(e)(1) apply as to research needed for FDA information in INDs and NDAs, and generally against the big bucks Californians are spending for research in stem cells. Hmmmm, I wonder how that will come out? CIRM and WARF should just cut some kind of deal.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home