Business

Stem Cells Stuck in Patent Quagmire

(Page 2 of 2)

  • Monday, April 24, 2006
  • By Emily Singer

Universities generally allow other institutions to use patented technologies without special permission. WARF, however, requires universities to get a license to do embryonic stem cell research. "None of us understand why we need a license...Why is this technology any different?" says one technology-transfer official.

WARF officials emphasize that they have made licenses broadly available. "We have given 54 different research groups in California royalty-free licenses," says WARF's Cohn. "Those academic researchers can patent anything they find and publish anything they find without any oversight from us." WARF does not disclose specific details of licenses.

But license requirements could still impact early research and development. "A number of institutions have not been able to reach terms with WARF for licenses," says Kenneth Taymor, an attorney with the Stanford Program on Stem Cells in Society. "That suggests that in this research area, it's making impediments."

The license for the University of California, for example, permits scientists to use only a small number of embryonic stem cell lines. And the license granted to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization that funds scientists across the nation, prohibits scientists from accepting funding from or collaborating with commercial companies unless the company has a commercial license from WARF. (Some companies have chosen not to take a license because of the cost.) That could make it difficult for academics to partner with companies to develop their discoveries into products or therapies.

This inability to gain industry investments is of particular concern in the embryonic stem cell field. Since federal funding is limited (due to restrictions mandated by President Bush in 2001), experts predict that much early-stage stem cell research that usually would take place at universities will need to be done by biotech companies.

Licensing costs could also hinder scientists who want to start their own biotech companies. "I think there has been a lot of concern from investors about funding startup companies because of uncertainty over WARF patent coverage," says Warren.

Jeanne Loring, a scientist at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, CA, started a short-lived embryonic stem cell company several years ago. "I learned from venture capital investors that these patents existed and that it would be impossible to obtain funding from them," she says.

So far, WARF has not been aggressive in enforcing its patents, says Taymor. (In principle, it could take legal action against those studying embryonic stem cells without a license.) "But as there are more dollars on the table, there is more incentive for WARF to become more aggressive," Taymor says. "The more that WARF presses its rights, the more research will be impinged and the more likely it will move offshore."

Print

Related Articles

What's the Point in Patenting Genes?

Whatever the outcome of the ACLU vs. Myriad case, a new effort is needed to turn genetic testing into a useful diagnostic tool.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Guest (Lawrence B. Ebert)

  • 2122 Days Ago
  • 04/24/2006

Impact of 35 USC 271(e)(1) on assertion of WARF patents

The text --These patents, which are now owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), apply to all current lines of embryonic stem cells -- scientists who wish to do research on such cells, even if they derive their own lines, must acquire a license from the Wisconsin foundation.-- might be reconsidered.

Given that state agencies, such as California's CIRM, are doing research for the purpose of obtaining a treatment for which FDA approval will be required, the activities of such agencies are likely to be insulated from infringement by the safe harbor of 35 USC 271(e)(1), as broadly interpreted in the recent Supreme court case of Merck v. Integra.

This point has been published in the academic literature, 88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006).

Separately, for the particular situation wherein a state agency is an accused infringer, the case will likely be heard in state court, not federal court, per Florida Prepaid Postsecondary.

Reply

Guest (grey eminence)

  • 2122 Days Ago
  • 04/24/2006

California's Double Standard

You had better believe if Calif. had the patents they would not hesitate to use them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Reply

Guest (David Jensen)

  • 2121 Days Ago
  • 04/25/2006

California stem cell developments

One of the reasons that Apple has such a tiny share of the computer market is that it limited access to its software. That set the stage for Microsoft to succeed. While the WARF situation is not entirely comparable, there is a bit of a sense of biting off your nose to spite your face. Read more about how California is taking all this on my blog, californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com.

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Consumer-Driven Disruptions

More

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Geron

Akamai

Life Technologies

iRobot

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement