Relevant to Proposition 71, but...
Gina C. Freschi, Navigating the Research Exemption's Safe Harbor: Supreme Court
to Clarify Scope - Implications for Stem Cell Research in California, 21 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 855 (2005), BUT
--> written before the decision in Merck v. Integra came out. The decision explicitly excluded research tool patents.
--> patent claims in the stem cell area, such as those of Gerald Schatten, are more than research tool patents; thus, the decision in Merck v. Integra about the scope of 271(e)(1) will apply.
--> cites Florida Prepaid, but misunderstands the implication. In footnote 16: n16. Public universities, as arms of the states, may be granted
sovereign immunity from patent infringement liability under the Eleventh
Amendment. In determining liability, courts have looked to whether state actors fail
to provide a remedy, "or only inadequate remedies, to injured patent
owners." Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Savs. Bank, 527 U.S.
627, 643 (1999) (finding unconstitutional a federal statute abrogating state
immunity from patent infringement).
State institutions can be sued for patent infringement in STATE court. If (hypothetically) no remedy were available in state court, there would be "deprivation of a protected property interest without due process" and they would be sued in federal court.
**
Michael J. Malinowski, The Impact of Current Policy and Regulation on Future Stem
Cell Human Health Applications, 39 New Eng.L. Rev. 647 (2005)
**
Molly Silfen, HOW WILL CALIFORNIA'S FUNDING OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IMPACT
INNOVATION? RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY, 18 Harv. J. Law & Tec 459 (2005), BUT
--> Doesn't mention Merck v. Integra or Florida Prepaid
--> Doesn't mention issues with tax-exempt bonds and state use of patent royalties
--> Advocates Bayh-Dole but misses the issues with the lack analogies between federal funding and state funding through tax-exempt bonds.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home