Ex Parte Yu et al - Page 24


             Appeal No. 2004-1761                                                  Page 24                     
             Application No. 10/044,807                                                                        

             subject of someone else’s patent.  For each of the DNAs that was the subject of                   
             someone else’s patent claim, a license would have to be negotiated – potentially                  
             thousands of such negotiations for the finished product.  These transaction costs would           
             have to be incurred for each new product that an aspiring gene chip manufacturer                  
             wished to market.  The industry gridlock likely to result has been termed a “tragedy of           
             the anticommons”:                                                                                 
                   By conferring monopolies in discoveries, patents necessarily increase                       
                   prices and restrict use—a cost society pays to motivate invention and                       
                   disclosure.  The tragedy of the anticommons refers to the more complex                      
                   obstacles that arise when a user needs access to multiple patented inputs                   
                   to create a single useful product.  Each upstream patent allows its owner                   
                   to set up another tollbooth on the road to product development, adding to                   
                   the cost and slowing the pace of downstream biomedical innovation.                          
             Heller, page 698.4                                                                                
                   The Supreme Court has warned against allowing too many “tollbooths” on                      
             the road to innovation:                                                                           
                   Patents . . . are meant to encourage invention by rewarding the inventor                    
                   with the right, limited to a term of years fixed by the patent, to exclude                  
                   others from the use of his invention. . . . But in rewarding useful invention,              
                   the “rights and welfare of the community must be fairly dealt with and                      
                   effectually guarded.”  Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, 329 (1859). . . .  To                
                   begin with, a genuine “invention” or “discovery” must be demonstrated                       
                   “lest in the constant demand for new appliances the heavy hand of tribute                   
                   be laid on each slight technological advance in an art.”                                    
             Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 230, 140 USPQ 524, 527 (1964).                 





                                                                                                               
             4 Heller et al., “Can patents deter innovation?  The anticommons in biomedical research,” Science, Vol. 280,
             pp. 698-701 (1998).  Accessible online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698.       





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007