Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents Volume 15, 2005 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
80
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

The freedom to tinker: patent law and experimental use

Matthew Rimmer The Australian National University, The Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), Faculty Of Law, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia. [email protected]
Pages 167-200 | Published online: 22 Apr 2005

Bibliography

  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):64.
  • BURK D, LEMLEY M: Is patent law technology-specific? Berkeley TechnoL Law J. (2002) 17:1155.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003).
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co. (UK) (1985) RPC 515.
  • Monsanto Co. v Stauffer Chemical Co. (NZ) (1984) FSR 559.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer (1987) FSR 57.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Japan (1989) 20 IIC 91.
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN D: Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Ttrade Marks and Allied Rights. Sweet and Maxwell, London (2003):246–247.
  • LENTZ E: Pharmaceutical and biotechnology research after Integra and Madey. Biotech. Law Rep. (2004) 23:265.
  • Roche Products, Inc. v Bolar Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc. (1984) 733 F. 2d 858.
  • Iainische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623 at 642–643.
  • Iainische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423.
  • MCSHERRY C: Who Owns Academic Work?: Battling for Control of Intellectual Property. Harvard University Press, Harvard (2001).
  • PERELMAN M: Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity Palgrave, New York (2002).
  • MONOTTI A, RICKETSON S: Universities and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Exploitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003).
  • PERELMAN M. Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity Palgrave, New York (2002):88.
  • LIEBERWITZ R: The marketing of higher education. Cornell Law Rev. (2004) 89:763.
  • ARMSTRONG J: Bayh-Dole under siege: the challenge to federal patent policy as a result of Madey v Duke University. J. Coll. Univ. Law (2004) 30(3):619.
  • QUIGLEY T: Commercialization of the state university: why the intellectual property restoration act of 2003 is necessary. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. (2004) 152:2001.
  • EPSTEIN R: Steady the course: propertyrights in genetic material. In: Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project. Kieff FS (Ed.), Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003):159.
  • LLEWELYN M: Perspectives on patenting biological material. In: Industrial Property in the Bio-Medical Age: Challenges for Asia. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. (2003):73 at 96, f. 63.
  • RESNIK D: Patents and the research exemption. Science (2003) 299:821.
  • LONG C: Information costs in patent and copyright. Virginia Law Rev. (2004) 90:465.
  • RESNIK D: Discoveries, inventions and gene patents. In: Who Owns Life? Magnus D, Caplan A, McGee G (Eds), Prometheus Books, New York (2002):135.
  • ARMSTRONG J: Bayh-Dole under siege: the challenge to federal patent policy as a result of Madey v Duke University. J. Coll. Univ. Law (2004) 30(3):619 at 637.
  • JOHNSON J: The experimental use exception in Japan: A model for US patent law. Pacific Rim Law Policy J. (2003) 12(2):499.
  • DERZKO N: A local and comparative analysis of the experimental use exception - is harmonization appropriate? J. Law Tech. (2003) 44:1.
  • MUELLER J: No 'dilettante affair': rethinking the experimental use exception to patent infringement for biomedical research tools. Washington Law Rev. (2001) 76:41–42.
  • MUELLER J: The evanescent experimental use exemption from US patent infringement liability: implications for university/nonprofit research and development. Baylor Law Rev. (2004) 56:forthcoming.
  • Whittemore v Cutter (1813) 29 F. Cas. 1120.
  • Sawin v Guild (1813) 21 Fed. Cas. 554.
  • Chesterfield v United States (1958) 159 F.Supp. 371
  • Ruth v Stearns-Roger Manufacturing Co. (1935) 13 F.Supp. 697.
  • Folsom v Marsh (1841) 9 Fed. Cas. 342.
  • Roche Products, Inc. v Bolar Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc. (1984) 733 F. 2d 858.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1351.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003) 331 F. 3d 860.
  • App/era v M Research, Inc. (2004) 311 F. Supp. 2d 293.
  • FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy, a report by the Federal Trade Commission (October 2003):37.
  • Roche Products, Inc. v Bolar Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc. (1984) 733 F. 2d 858.
  • Roche Products, Inc. v Bolar Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc. (1984) 733 F. 2d 858 at 863.
  • Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v Roche Products, Inc. (1984) 469 U.S. 856.
  • 35 USC 271 (e)(1).
  • Eli Lilly & Co v Medtronic (1990) 496 US 661.
  • Infigen v Advanced Cell Technology (1999) 65 F.Supp.2d 967.
  • Infigen v Advanced Cell Technology (1999) 65 F.Supp.2d at 981.
  • Embrerc, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp. (2000) 216 F.3d 1343.
  • Embrerc, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp. (2000) 216 F.3d 1353.
  • EISENBERG R: Patent swords and shields. Science (2003) 299:1018–1019.
  • BRICKLEY P: Patent rights wrangle puts law in question. Scientist (2003) 17(42).
  • Madey v Duke University (2001) 266 F. Supp. 2d 420.
  • Madey v Duke University (2001) 266 F. Supp. 2d 425.
  • Madey v Duke University (22 October 2001). Appellant's Opening Brief.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1351.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1362.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1362–1363.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1363.
  • Duke University v Madey. Supreme Court of the United States. Consumer Project on Technology and Public Knowledge et al. Petition for a writ of certiorari (January 2003).
  • Duke University v Madey, Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the Association of American Medical Colleges et al. Petition for a writ of certiorari (January 2003).
  • Duke University v Madey. Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the Association of American Medical Colleges et al. Petition for a writ of certiorari (January 2003):3.
  • RIMMER M: The attack of the clones: patent law and stem cell research. J. Law Med. (2003) 10(4):488–505.
  • WYSOCKI B: Cutting edge: a laser case sears universities right to ignore patents. Wall St. J. (2004) :A1.
  • DONLEY B: Using patented materials in your research: what you should know. Wisconsin Alumni Res. Fdn (21 May 2003).
  • Duke University v Madey, Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae. Petition for a writ of certiorari (May 2003).
  • Duke University v Madey, Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae. Petition for a writ of certiorari (May 2003):5.
  • Duke University v Madey. Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae. Petition for a writ of certiorari (May 2003):16.
  • Madey v Duke University (2004) WL 2148935.
  • Madey v Duke University (2004) WL 2148935:8.
  • Madey v Duke University (2004) WL 2148935:10.
  • DUKE UNIVERSITY: Duke University statement on supreme court action in case involving academic research (27 May 2003).
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003):5.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003) 331 F. 3d860.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA 1999 WL 398180.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003)331 F. 3d860 at 864.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003)331 F. 3d 860 at 872.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003) 331 F. 3d 860 at 875.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003) 331 F. 3d 860 at 876.
  • Integra Lifesciences Ltd v Merck KgaA (2003) 331 F. 3d 860 at 873.
  • SAMPSON T: Madey, Integra and the wealth of nations. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. (2004) 26(1):1–6.
  • Merck KgaA v Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. Brief of Amicus Curiae Wyeth in support of the petitioner. (2004) WL 741062.
  • Merck KgaA v Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. Brief in Opposition of Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2004) WL 741062.
  • Appiera v MI Research, Inc. (2004) 311 F. Supp. 2d 293.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1351.
  • App/era v MI Research, Inc. (2004) 311 F. Supp. 2d 293 at 297.
  • Appiera v MI Research, Inc. (2004) 311 F. Supp. 2d 293 at 296.
  • MJ RESEARCH: MJ Research, Inc. responds to Applera press release regarding patent-antitrust suit. Press Release, Waltham and Watertown Massachusetts (22 April 2004).
  • Soitec S.A. v Silicon Genesis Corporation (2003) 81 Fed. Appx. 724.
  • Soitec S.A. v Silicon Genesis Corporation (2003) 81 Fed. Appx. 724 at 3.
  • WYSOCKI B: Cutting edge: a laser case sears universities' right to ignore patents. Wall St. J. (11 October 2004):A1.
  • FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy, a report by the Federal Trade Commission (October 2003):37.
  • ARMSTRONG J: Bayh-Dole under siege: the challenge to federal patent policy as a result of Madey v Duke University. J. College Univ. Law (2004) 30(3):619 at 635.
  • EISENBERG R: Patent swords and shields. Science (2003) 299:1018–1019.
  • SAMPSON T: Madey, Integra and the wealth of nations. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. (2004) 26(1):1–6.
  • Whittemore v Cutter (1813) 29 F. Cas 1120.
  • SAMPSON T: Madey, Integra and the wealth of nations. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. (2004) 26(1):1.
  • SAMPSON T: Madey, Integra and the wealth of nations. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. (2004) 26(1):6.
  • GITTER D: International conflicts over patenting human DNA sequences in the United States and the European Union: an argument for compulsory licensing and a fair use exemption. New York Univ. Law Rev. (2001) 76:1623.
  • CAHOY D: Oasis or mirage: efficient breach as a relief to the burden of contractual recapture of patent and copyright limitations. Harvard J. Law Tech. (Fall 2003):135.
  • VAVER D: Canada's intellectual property framework: a comparative overview. Intellect. Prop. J. (2003–2004) 17:125.
  • Micro-Chemicals Ltd. v Smith lane and French Inter-American Ltd (1971) 25 D.L.R. 79.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003):3.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003):6.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003):12.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation, economics of innovation and science policy. Department of Economics, Iowa State University (2003):7.
  • RESNIK D: Patents and the research exemption. Science (2003) 299:821.
  • CAI M: Madey v Duke University: Shattering the myth of universities' experimental use defense. Berkeley Tech. Law J. (2004) 19:175.
  • DERZKO N: A local and comparative analysis of the experimental use exception - is harmonization appropriate? J. Law Tech. (2003) 44:1.
  • EPSTEIN R: Steady the course: property rights in genetic material. In: Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project. Kieff FS (Ed), Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam. (2003):159.
  • DREYFUSS RC: Varying the course in patenting genetic material: a counter-proposal to Richard Epstein's steady course. In: Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project. Kieff FS (Ed.), Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003):195.
  • DREYFUSS RC: Protecting the public domain of science: has the time for an experimental use defense arrived? Arizona Law Rev. (2004) 46:457.
  • NICOL D, NIELSEN J: Submission to the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property: patents and experimental use. Centre for Law and Genetics, the University of Tasmania (April 2004).
  • WENGER H: The Post-Madey Research Exemption, Foley and Lardner: Attorneys at Law (2003).
  • Muntz v Foster (1844) 2 WPC 96.
  • Frearson v Loe (1878) 9 Ch. D.48.
  • Frearson v Loe (1878) 9 Ch. D. 48 at 66.
  • Molins and Molins Machine Co Ltd v Industrial Machine Co. Ltd (1937) 54 RPC 94.
  • Blanco White's Patents for Inventions, 4th Ed. (1974) paragraph 3–216.
  • Netherlands v European Parliament (C377/98), 2001 WL 758973, (2001) ECR 1–7079, Celex No. 698C0377, EU : Case C-377/98, ECJ (14 June, 2001).
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN D: Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. Sweet and Maxwell, London (2003):244–245.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co. (UK) (1985) RPC 515.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co. (UK) (1985) RPC 515 at 522.
  • Micro-Chemicals Ltd. v Smith Kline and French Inter-American Ltd (1971) 25 DLR 79.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co. (UK) (1985) RPC 515 at 538.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co. (UK) (1985) RPC 515 at 542.
  • Monsanto Co. v Stauffer Chemical Co. (NZ) (1984) FSR 559.
  • Monsanto v Stauffer (1988) FSR 57
  • Monsanto v Stauffer Japan (1989) 20 IIC 91.
  • Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd (1989) F.S.R. 513.
  • Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd (1989) F.S.R. at 523.
  • Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd (1989) F.S.R. at 523–524.
  • Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Evans Medical Ltd (1989) F.S.R. at 524.
  • Auchincloss v Agricultural & Veterinary Supplies Ltd (1997) R.P.C. 649; on appeal (1999) R.P.C. 397.
  • Auchincloss v Agricultural & Veterinary Supplies Ltd (1997) R.P.C. 649 at 682.
  • Auchincloss v Agricultural & Veterinary Supplies Ltd (1999) R.P.C. 397 at 405.
  • Inhale Therapeutic Systems v Quadrant Healthcare Plc (2002) RPC 21.
  • Inhale Therapeutic Systems v Quadrant Healthcare Plc (2002) RPC 21 at 145.
  • Kirin-Amgen Inc. v Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (No. 2) (2002) RPC 3.
  • BINNS R, DRISCOLL B: Are the generic companies winning the battle? Managing Intellectual Property (1999) 86:36.
  • ICl/Pharbia and Medicopharma (Atenolol) (1993) NJ 735 (1993) GRUR Int. 887 (Dutch Supreme Court).
  • Applied Research Systems/Organon (Follicle-Stimulating Hormone) (1996) NJ 463,28 IIC 558 (1997)
  • DUTCH SUPREME COURT: Affirming a more extensive judgement of The Hague Court of Appeal, 29 IIC 702 (1998).
  • Kirian Amgen/Boehringer Mannheim (Erythropoietin), Judgment of February 3, 1994 (docket No. 93/960).
  • THE HAGUE COURT OF APPEAL: Affirmed on other grounds by the Dutch Supreme Court: (1996) NJ 462.
  • Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd (1997) R.P.C. 801, 803 (European Ct. of J. 1997).
  • Wellcome Foundation v Parexel International & Flamel, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 20th February 2001.
  • ER Squibb & Sons, Inc. v Giovannia Aguggini (12 June 1995) T Milano.
  • Ethofumesate (1990) GRUR 997.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623 at 637.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623 at 638.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623 at 639.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) (1997) RPC 623 at 642–643.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423 at 432–433.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423 at 436.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423 at 433–434.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423 at 437.
  • Klinische Versuche II (Erythropoietin) (1998) RPC 423 423 at 437–438.
  • Klinische Versuche I (Interferon Gamma) 2001 GRUR 43; 1 ByR 1864/95 [German].
  • GODDARD H: The Experimental Use Exception: A European Perspective. Centre for Advanced Studies and Research on Intellectual Property, University of Washington, Seattle (2002):7.
  • CORNISH W: Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, IIC (1998) 29(7):735.
  • STOATE N: EU Enlargement, the Bolar Exemption and Parallel Imports. Bioscience Law Rev. (13 October 2003).
  • L'ECLUSE P, LONGEVAL C: The Bolar clause in the new European pharmaceutical regulatory package. Practical Law (1 June 2004).
  • THE ROYAL SOCIETY: Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science. The Royal Society, London (April 2003).
  • THE ROYAL SOCIETY: Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science. The Royal Society, London (April 2003):11.
  • THE NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS: The ethics of patenting DNA: A discussion paper. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London (2002).
  • THE NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS: The ethics of patenting DNA: A discussion paper. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London (2002):60–61.
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN M, ADCOCK M: Intellectual property rights and genetics: a study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the healthcare sector. Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge (2003).
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN M, ADCOCK M: Intellectual property rights and genetics: a study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the healthcare sector. Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge (2003):25–26.
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN M, ADCOCK M: Intellectual property rights and genetics: a study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the healthcare sector. Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge (2003):26.
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN M, ADCOCK M: Intellectual property rights and genetics: a study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the healthcare sector. Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge (2003):27.
  • CORNISH W, LLEWELYN M, ADCOCK M: Intellectual property rights and genetics: a study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the healthcare sector. Public Health Genetics Unit, Cambridge (2003):148–149.
  • Frearson v Loe (1876) 9 ChD 48.
  • Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 9(a), 18(1)(d).
  • SMITH C: Experimental use exception to patent infringement: where does Australia stand? Intellectual Property Forum (2003) 53:14,15.
  • NICOL D, NIELSEN J: Patents and medical biotechnology: an empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry. Centre for Law and Genetics occasional paper (2003) 6.
  • NICOL D, NIELSEN J: Patents and medical biotechnology: an empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry. Centre for Law and Genetics occasional paper (2003) 6:218.
  • OPESKIN B: Inventions, Patents, and Research, ACIPA Symposium (19 March 2004).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Gene patenting and human health: 27. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (July 2003).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Gene patenting and human health: discussion paper 68. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (February 2004).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health: report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004).
  • ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Patents and experimental use: issues paper. Commonwealth Government, Canberra (February 2004).
  • ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Patents and experimental use: options paper. Commonwealth Government, Canberra (December 2004).
  • GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD: Genetic Technologies and Myriad Genetics announce strategic licensing agreement (28 October 2002).
  • GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD: Letter from GTG to Medical and Scientific Colleagues (21 July 2003).
  • Genetic Technologies Limited: Issued Licenses (29 September 2004)
  • GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD: GTG reports significant licensing agreement with Genzyme Corp. of USA (22 September 2004).
  • HOLMES J: Patently a problem. Four corners, ABC (11 August, 2003).
  • CANTOR C: A patent's place. Bio-IT World (13 August, 2003).
  • Genetic Technologies Ltd v Applera Corporation. United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. c-03-1316 PJH (2003).
  • APPLERA CORP.: Opening brief in Genetic Technologies Limited v Appkra Coloration. United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. c-03-1316 PJH (2003).
  • SMITH D: DNA scientists happy to buy junk. The Sydney Morning Herald (4 August 2003).
  • HOLMES J: Interview with Dr Mervyn Jacobson. Four Corners, ABC (4 August 2003).
  • GORMAN P: NZ health boards in patent dispute. The Christchurch Press (21 August, 2004):3.
  • Legal Action Against GTG. The Christchurch Press (19 August, 2004).
  • O'NEILL G: NZ health service takes on GTG over licence fees. Australian Biotechnology News (24 August, 2004).
  • OFFICES OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF COMMERCE: Implications of the granting of patents over genetic material. Cabinet Policy Committee. (November 2003).
  • OFFICES OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF COMMERCE: Memorandum to Cabinet Policy Committee: report back with recommendations and options for addressing genetic material patents (June 2004).
  • SMITH HUGHES S: Making dollars out of DNA: the first major project in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. Isis (2001) 92:541–578.
  • RABINOW P: Making PCR: a story of biotechnology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996).
  • COLLINS F: A patent's place. Bio-IT World (13 August 2003).
  • HOLMES J: Interview with Professor Francis Collins. Four Corners, ABC (9 July 2003).
  • COLLINS F: A patent's place. Bio-IT World (13 August 2003).
  • NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: NIH principles and guidelines for sharing of biomedical research resources (25 May 1999).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):12.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):336.
  • ELKMAN S: The Research Exemption to Patent Infringement: a doctrine in search of a principle. Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia. Working Paper No. 10/04 (September 2004).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):327–328.
  • SMITH C: Experimental use exception to patent infringement: where does Australia stand? Intellectual Property Forum (2003) 53:14,15.
  • Madey v Duke University (2002) 307 F.3d 1351.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):12.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):329.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):330.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):340.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):388.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):337–338.
  • WATERHOUSE D: Plant breeder's rights and experimental use. ACIPA Symposium (19 March 2004).
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (June 2004):325.
  • Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515.
  • RIMMER M: Franklin Barley: patent law and plant breeders rights. Murdoch Univ. Electronic J. Law (2003) 10:4.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Gene patenting and human health: Issues Paper 27. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney (July 2003):223.
  • New York University v Nissin Molecular Biology Institute Inc. (1994) 29 IPR 173.
  • Monsanto Company v Stauffer Chemical Company (NZ) (1984) FSR 559.
  • New York University v Nissin Molecular Biology Institute Inc. (1994) 29 IPR 173.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):339.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):342.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):343.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):343–344.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):344.
  • AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION: Genes and ingenuity: gene patenting and human health. Report 99. Australian Commonwealth, Sydney. (June 2004):344–345.
  • ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Patents and experimental use: issues paper. Commonwealth Government, Canberra (February 2004).
  • Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization), (1995) ATS 8, (1 January 1995).
  • CANADA: Patent protection of pharmaceutical products: Complaint by the European communities and their member states (17 March 2000) WT/DS114/R.
  • CANADA: Patent protection of pharmaceutical products: Complaint by the European communities and their member states (17 March 2000) WT/DS114/R:29.
  • CANADA: Patent protection of pharmaceutical products: Complaint by the European communities and their member states (17 March 2000) WT /DS114/R: 55–56.
  • CANADA: Patent protection of pharmaceutical products: Complaint by the European communities and their member states (17 March 2000) WT/DS114/R:98.
  • Patents Act 1977 (UK) s 60(5)(6).
  • Council Agreement relating to Community Patents No 89/695/EEC, 15 December 1989, OJ L401/01 art 27(6).
  • JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES: The Australia - United States Free Trade Agreement: report 61. Australian Parliament, Canberra (June 2004)
  • THE SENATE: Select committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America. Canberra: Australian Parliament (August 2004).
  • FAUNCE T: Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America. Parliament House, Canberra (21 June 2004):6.
  • HEATH I: Recent developments in protecting and commercialising intellectual property (10 August 2004).
  • DRAHOS P, LOKUGE B, FAUNCE T, GODDARD M, HENRY D: Pharmaceuticals, intellectual property and free trade: the case of the US - Australia Free Trade Agreement. Prometheus (September 2004) 22(3):243.
  • WESCHLER C: The informal experimental use exception: university research after Madey v Duke University. New York Univ. Law Rev. (2004) 76:1536.
  • JANIS M: Experimental use and the shape of patent rights for plant innovation. Economics of Innovation and Science Policy, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, (2003):6.
  • CORNISH W: Experimental use of patented inventions in European community states. IIC (1998) 29(7):735.
  • MCKEOUGH J, STEWART A. GRIFFITH P: Intellectual property in Australia, 3rd Ed. Butterworths, Sydney. (2004):12.
  • OECD: Patents and innovation: trends and policy challenges. OECD, Paris. (2003):23.
  • LLEWELYN M: Perspectives on patenting biological material. In: Industrial Property in the Bio-Medical Age: Challenges for Asia. Heath C, Sanders AK (Eds). Kluwer Law International (2003):73.
  • http://www.freedorn_to_tinker.com/
  • http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publi cations/reports/99/
  • http://www.econdastate.edu/department/sem inadispw/Janis-seminar-Fall-03.pdf
  • http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 192003/10/innovationrp t. pdf
  • http: //www. the- scientist . com/yr 192003/mar/prof2_030310.ht ml
  • http://jurist.law.pittedu/amicus/duke_v_ma dey_cert_petition_au.pdf
  • http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/pat entbrief.pdf
  • http://www.usdojgov/osg/briefs/ 192002/2pet/6 invit/2002-1007.pet.ami. inv.html
  • http://www.ecomiastate.edu/department/sem inar/ispw/Janis-seminar-Fall-03. pdf
  • http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 192003/10/innovationrp t. pdf
  • http://www.acip.gov.au/expusesubs/NicoP/02 060/020Nielsen,°/020Uni%20ofb/020Tas.pdf
  • http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/cgi-bin/link.pl?entscheidungen
  • http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/Symp osium/Number7/1-Goddar.pdf
  • http: //www. royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.as p?id6343
  • http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork /patentingdna/publication_310.html
  • http://www.phgu.org.uk/about_phgufintellec t_prop_rights.html
  • http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publi cations/issues/27/
  • http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publi cations/dp/68/
  • http://www.acip.gov.au/library/patentsexpuse .pdf
  • http://www.gtg.com.aufindex_general.asp?m enuid080.030
  • http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/200 3/2003081 l_patent/default.htm
  • http://www.smh.com.au/articles/ 192003/08/03 /1059849278757.html
  • http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/200 3/2003081 l_patent/int_jacobson.htm Holmes
  • http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/gene tic-material/cabinet/implications/ implications. pdf
  • http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/gene tic-material/cabinet/memo/memo.pdf
  • http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/200 3/2003081 l_patent/int_collins.htm
  • http://ott.od.nih.gov/res_tools.html
  • http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10 n4/rimmer104.html
  • http://www.acip.gov.au/library/patentsexpuse .PDF
  • http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/comm nee/57716. pdf
  • http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/news/ausf ta. pdf
  • http://www.oecd.org/clataoecd/48/12/24508 541.pdf

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.