Paper Resources Used: Difference between revisions

From Commons Based Research
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 109: Line 109:
** [[Diagnostic Kits/Diagnosis or drug- Will pharmaceutical companies or diagnostics manufacturers earn more from personalized medicine|Highlights]]
** [[Diagnostic Kits/Diagnosis or drug- Will pharmaceutical companies or diagnostics manufacturers earn more from personalized medicine|Highlights]]


*Laakmann, A. Restoring the Genetic Commons: A "Common Sense" Approach to Biotechnology Patent in Restoring the Genetic Commons, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 14 MITTLR 43 (2007).
*'''In Paper''' Laakmann, A. Restoring the Genetic Commons: A "Common Sense" Approach to Biotechnology Patent in Restoring the Genetic Commons, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 14 MITTLR 43 (2007) Available at: http://www.mttlr.org/volfourteen/laakmann.pdf


* Lei et al. Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY (2009) vol. 27 (1) pp. 36-40.  Available at: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-36.html
* Lei et al. Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY (2009) vol. 27 (1) pp. 36-40.  Available at: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-36.html
Line 138: Line 138:
*Mueller, J.M., Public Access Versus Proprietary Rights in Genomic Information: What Is the Proper Role of Intellectual Property Rights? SSRN eLibrary. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1367849 [Accessed October 30, 2009].
*Mueller, J.M., Public Access Versus Proprietary Rights in Genomic Information: What Is the Proper Role of Intellectual Property Rights? SSRN eLibrary. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1367849 [Accessed October 30, 2009].


*Muller, A et. al., Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope and Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope, and Interpretation of Claims 2002, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 13 ALBLJST 145 (2002).   
*'''In Paper'''  Muller, A et. al., Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope and Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope, and Interpretation of Claims 2002, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 13 ALBLJST 145 (2002).   


*NanoLogix Provides Operations Update and Notification of Shareholder Meeting - FOXBusiness.com. Available at: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/nanologix-provides-operations-update-notification-shareholder-meeting/ [Accessed August 5, 2009].
*NanoLogix Provides Operations Update and Notification of Shareholder Meeting - FOXBusiness.com. Available at: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/health-care/nanologix-provides-operations-update-notification-shareholder-meeting/ [Accessed August 5, 2009].

Revision as of 17:20, 22 December 2009

Current Status Of Study of the Field Materials Used in the Paper

Analysis of the field with basis on Field Research Methodology

Currently Part of the Paper: (CURRENTLY ALL OF THE IP MATERIAL HAS BEEN ADDED)

  1. Overview of Economics of Intellectual Property in Kits
  2. Give an overall picture of the Kits' sector
  3. Legal tools available for and in use by the actors of Kits' sector: IP in Kits
  4. IP Profile of Universities working in Kits
  5. competitive advantages in Kits

Not Currently Part of the Paper:

  1. Outputs and Products of the field: data, narratives and tools produced by the Kits' sector
  2. Commons based cases in Kits

Sections of our Study of the Field Materials without significant data contributions

  1. IP Profile of Biggest for-profit companies in Kits
  2. IP Profile of non-profit companies in Kits
  3. IP Profile of Associations in Kits
  4. Peer-Production Business models in Kits
  5. Open Business models in Kits

Current Status Of Study of the Diagnostic Kits Bibliography Used in the Paper

Bibliography

  • Cohen, W.M., Merrill, S.A. & Economy, N.R.C., 2003. Patents in the knowledge-based economy, National Academies Press.
  • In Paper Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S. & Angrist, M., 2009. The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature, 458(7237), 405-406.
  • Eisenberg, R. Noncompliance, 2008. Nonenforcement, Nonproblem? Rethinking the Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Houston Law Review Available at: # www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/45-4_pdf/03_​Eisenberg.pdf [Accessed November 20, 2009].
  • Garcia, L. & Shimizu, R., 1997. Evaluation of nine immunoassay kits (enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescence) for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum in human fecal specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol., 35(6), 1526-1529.
  • Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.A. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280, 698-701 (1998).
  • Hoag, H., 2004. Testing new ground. Nature, 429(6992), 682-3
  • Holman, Christopher M., The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation. UMKC Law Review, Vol. 76, p. 295, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090562
  • Holman, C.M., 2008. GENETICS: Trends in Human Gene Patent Litigation. Science, 322(5899), 198-199.
  • In Paper Jensen, K. & Murray, F., 2005. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Enhanced: Intellectual Property Landscape of the Human Genome. Science, 310(5746), 239-240.
  • Kalorama Information (Rosen). Diagnostic Test Service Commercialization: A Roadmap to Diagnostics in the 21st Century. (2008)
  • Kaye, J., Hawkins, N., and J. Taylor. (2007). Patents and translational research in genomics. Nature Biotechnology 25(7):739.
  • In Paper Laakmann, A. Restoring the Genetic Commons: A "Common Sense" Approach to Biotechnology Patent in Restoring the Genetic Commons, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 14 MITTLR 43 (2007) Available at: http://www.mttlr.org/volfourteen/laakmann.pdf
  • McGill Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, 2005, Biotechnology and Intellectual Property: Reinventing the Commons: Workshop Report. Available at: www.cipp.mcgill.ca/data/events/00000017_en.pdf [Accessed November 20, 2009].
  • Merz, J.F., 2002. Patents limit medical potential of sequencing. Nature, 419(6910), 878.
  • In Paper Mills, A.E. & Tereskerz, P., 2008. DNA-based patents: an empirical analysis. Nat Biotech, 26(9), 993-995.
  • Mills, A.E. & Tereskerz, P.M., 2007. Changing patent strategies: what will they mean for the industry? Nat Biotech, 25(8), 867-868.
  • Morrison & Foerster : Legal Updates & News : Press Releases : Morrison & Foerster Represents ACON Laboratories in $175 Million Acquisition by Inverness Medical Innovations, Resolving Patent Litigation Between the Two Companies Over Rapid Diagnostic Techno. Available at: http://www.mofo.com/news/media/files/pr02058.html [Accessed August 5, 2009].
  • In Paper Muller, A et. al., Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope and Protecting Biotechnological Inventions in Brazil and Abroad: Draft, Scope, and Interpretation of Claims 2002, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 13 ALBLJST 145 (2002).
  • Nelson. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy (2004) vol. 33 (3) pp. 455-471
  • Palombi. The Search for Alternatives to Patents in the 21st Century. (2009) pp. 1-42
  • Paradise, J., European Opposition to Exclusive Control Over Predictive Breast Cancer Testing and the Inherent Implications for United States Patent Law and Public Policy: A Case Study of the Myriad Genetics' BRCA Patent Controversy. SSRN eLibrary. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897507 [Accessed October 30, 2009].
  • Phillips, K.a., Van Bebber, S. & Issa, A.M., 2006. Diagnostics and biomarker development: priming the pipeline. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 5(6), 463-9.
  • In Paper Pressman, L. et al., 2006. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotech, 24(1), 31-39
  • Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society—Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests (Draft Report for Public Comment) [excerpts]. Biotechnology Law Report, 28(3), 417-442 (2009). Available at: http://oba.od.nih.gov/SACGHS/sacghs_documents.html#GHSDOC_011
  • Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society—Public Consultation Final Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests - September 17, 2009
  • Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society—Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and Their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests - Appendix 1: Compendium of Case Studies on the Impact of Gene Patents and Licensing Practices on Access to Genetic Testing. (2009) Available at: http://oba.od.nih.gov/SACGHS/sacghs_documents.html#GHSDOC_011.
  • Shapiro, C., Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, 2001, Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol. I) (Jaffe, Adam B. et al., eds), pp. 119-150, MIT Press Available at: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf [Accessed December 6, 2009]
  • Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM. Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. In: Cohen WM, Merrel SA, (editors). Patents in the knowledge-based economy. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2003. p. 285-340.
  • Walsh, J. , Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research (Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee [on] Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Research Inventions, 20 September 2005).
  • Wilson et al., Biomarker Development, Commercialization, and Regulation: Individualization of Medicine Lost in Translation, 81 Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 153 (2007).
  • Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont, Research Tool Patents After Integra v. Merck—Have They Reached a Safe Harbor?, 14 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 367 (2008), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volfourteen/waldeck.pdf