The court's decision in Madey v Duke University in 2002 and the subsequent denial of the petition for certiorari set out in an Amicus curiae brief in June 2003 have focused attention on the societal role played by US universities. The decision, according to the above petition, effectively ‘seals the coffin on the experimental use exception for private universities’, a mechanism that provided a defence to patent infringement in the USA. Similar experimental use mechanisms are relied upon by universities around the world. The ensuing debate over Madey is likely to impinge on certain facets of international university-industry interactions and subsequently increase the importance of university technology transfer offices. This article presents an accessible historically and internationally contextualized introduction to Madey and subsequently offers an analysis of the potential ramifications for university-level institutions.
ArrowK. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention’, in NelsonR.R., ed, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, NJ.
2.
AyersT. (1999), ‘Science and technology leaders discuss innovation for the future’, Editorial, Science, Vol 286, p 1753.
3.
BeeR. (1957), ‘Experiment use as an act of patent infringement’, Journal of the Patent Office Society, Vol 34, No 5, May.
4.
BlumbergP. (1996), ‘From “publish to perish” to “profit or perish” revenues from university technology transfer and the s501 (c) (3) tax exemption’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol 145, No 1.
5.
BlumenthalD. (1994), ‘Growing pains for new academic/industry relationships’, Health Affairs, Summer.
6.
BohannanC. (2002), ‘Beyond abrogation of sovereign immunity: State waivers, private contracts and federal incentives’, New York University Law Review, Vol 77, p 273.
7.
ChroczielP. (1986), Die Benutzung Patentierter Erfindungen zu Versuchs und Forschungszwecken, Vol 67, Schriften zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Carl Heymanns, Cologne.
8.
CohenJ.LemleyM. (2001), ‘Patent scope and innovation in the software industry’, California Law Review, Vol 1, No 29.
9.
CohenW.FloridaR.RandazzeseL.WalshJ. (1998), ‘Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance’, in NollR., ed, Challenges to the Research University, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
10.
CookT. (1999), ‘Experimental use as a defence to patent infringement’, Bioscience Law Review, No 5.
11.
CrowM.EmmertM. (1984), ‘Inter-organisational management of research and development: University relations and innovation’, in BosemanB.CrowM.LinkA., eds, Strategic Management of Industrial Research and Development, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, pp 255–275.
12.
DecourP. (1999), ‘Research tool patents and the experimental use exemption: A no win situation’, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 10.
13.
DennisC. (2003), ‘Geneticists question fees for use of patented “junk” DNA, Nature, Vol 423, p 105.
14.
Economist (2001), ‘Science and profit’, The Economist, 17–23 February.
15.
EdmondsonJ. (2001), Editorial, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 15, No 6, December, p 376.
16.
EisenbergR. (1987), ‘Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research,’Yale Law Journal, Vol 97, pp 177–231.
17.
EisenbergR. (1989), ‘Patents and the progress of science: Exclusive rights and experimental use’, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol 56, p 1017.
18.
ErbischF. (1999), Michigan State University, Office of Intellectual Property, in LawlerC.ErbischF., ‘From mice to maize,’Science, Vol 283, pp 33–34.
19.
FryeA. (1985), ‘From source to use: Bringing university technology to the market place’, New York American Management Association.
20.
GambardellaA. (1995), ‘Science and innovation: The US pharmaceutical industry during the 1980s’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21.
GeislerE.RubensteinA. (1989), ‘University industry relations: A review of major issues’, in LinkA.TasseyG., eds, Cooperative Research and Development: The Industry University Government Relationship, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp 43–62.
22.
GoddarH. (2001), ‘Experimental use exception: The European perspective’, Patent World, September, No 135.
23.
HantmanR. (1985), ‘Experimental use as an exception to patent infringement’, Journal of the Patent Office Society p 617.
24.
JanisM. (2001), ‘Sustainable agriculture, patent rights and plant innovation,’International Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol 91, No 105.
25.
JohnsonJ. (2003a), ‘The experimental use exception in Japan: A model for US patent law?’, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, Vol 12, p 499.
KarpJ. (1991), ‘Experimental use as patent infringement: The impropriety of a broad exemption’, Yale Law Journal, Vol 100, p 2169.
28.
LongC. (2000), ‘Patents and cumulative innovation’, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol 2.
29.
LudwigS.ChumneyJ. (2003), ‘No room for experiment: The Federal Circuit's narrow construction of the experimental use defence’, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 21, No 4, pp 453–454.
30.
MachlupF. (1952), An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No 15, US Senate Sub-Committee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
31.
MaebiusM.WegnerH. (2002), ‘Ruling on research exemption roils universities’, National Law Journal, Vol 25, C3.
MoweryD.SampatB. (2000), ‘University patents and patent policy debates 1925–1980’, paper presented at the conference in honour of Richard R. Nelson, Columbia University, New York, 13–15 October.
34.
MoweryD.NelsonR.SampatB.ZiedonisA. (1999), ‘The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980’, http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/RESEARCH/Paper/99–5.pdf.
35.
OdzaM. (1996), ‘Big winners in university tech transfer: And the winners are …’, Technology Access Report, Vol 9, No 4, pp 1–4.
36.
O'RourkeM. (2000), ‘Toward a doctrine of fair use in patent law’, Columbia Law Review, Vol 100.
RahmD. (1994), ‘Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer’, Policy Studies Journal, Vol 22, No 2, pp 267–278.
39.
RobinsonW. (1890), The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions, Vol 3, §898, Little & Brown, Boston, MA.
40.
StuartG.GibsonD. (1990), ‘University and industry linkages: The Austin, Texas study’, in WilliamsF.GibsonD., eds, Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 109–129.
41.
SutherlandAsbillBrennan (2003) Patent Licensing Requirements under Madey v Duke University, Sutherland, Asbill, Brennan Attorneys in Law, 22 July, www.sablaw.com.
42.
TruneD.GoslinL. (1998), ‘University technology transfer programs: A profit and loss analysis’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 57, pp 197–204.
WalshJ.AroraA.CohenW. (2003), ‘The patenting and licensing of research tools and biomedical innovation’, Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Vol 2, No 35.
45.
WicksteedS. (1988), ‘Utilisation of the results of public or publicly funded research and development in the United Kingdom’, in CorstenH.Junginger-DittelK., eds, Utilisation of the Results of Public Research and Development, European Commission, Brussels.
46.
WilliamsL. (1990), ‘Academia wise up to patents’, LA Times, 16 March, p A1.
