Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research

Hardin G., Science162, 1243 (1968).

Demsetz H., Am. Econ. Rev.57, 347 (1967).

M. Heller, Harvard Law Rev. 111, 621 (1998).

R. Eisenberg, Va. Law Rev. 82, 1663 (1996).

35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200-11 (West 1984 and Suppl. 1992).

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, The Bayh-Dole Act, A Review of Patent Issues in Federally Funded Research: Hearings on Pub. L. No. 96-517, 103d Cong., 2nd sess., 1–2 (1994).

M. Kenney, Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 1986).

F. Michelman, Nomos 24, 3 (1982).

W. N. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays(Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 1923). This work introduced the now standard vocabulary of “privileges of use” and “rights of exclusion.”

R. Coase, J. Law Econ. 3, 1 (1960).

___, The Firm, The Market and The Law (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988), p. 174. “The world of zero transaction costs has often been described as a Coasian world. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the world of modern economic theory, one which I was hoping to persuade economists to leave.”

R. C. Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).

E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990).

C. Rose, Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 53, 711 (1986).

D. Baird, R. Gertner, R. Picker, Game Theory and the Law (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994).

R. Merton, The Sociology of Science (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973).

R. Eisenberg, Emory Law J. 39, 721 (1990).

R. Eisenberg and R. Merges, AIPLA Q. J. 23, 1 (1995).

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Policy on availability and patenting of human genomic DNA sequence produced by NHGRI pilot projects (funded under RFA 95-005) (NHGRI, Bethesda, MD, 1996).

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, BNA Pat. Trademark Copyright J. 52, 732 (1996).

Merges R., Nelson R., Columbia Law Rev.90, 839 (1990).

“Cetus to exact royalties from PCR sales; probe absolves convicted rapist,” Biotechnology Newswatch 8, 7 (5 September 1988).

National Research Council, Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997).

Harvard University, U.S. Patent 4,736,866, 1988; U.S. Patent 5,087,571, 1988. DuPont, as research sponsor, holds an exclusive license under these patents.

DuPont, U.S. Patent 4,959,317, 1990.

Non-commercial research license agreement between E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and Howard Hughes Medical Institute (24 June 1996) (on file with authors).

This interpretation requires careful parsing of inartfully drafted licenses, on file with the authors.

R. Merges, Calif. Law Rev. 84, 1293 (1996).

R. Levin, A. Klevorick, R. Nelson, S. Winter,Brookings Pap. Econ. Activ. 1987, 783 (1987).

G. Bittlingmayer, J. Law Econ. 31, 227 (1988).

U.S. v. Manufacturers Aircraft Assn., 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15333; 1976-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 60,810 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

J. Gould and J. Langenfeld, IDEA J. Law Technol. 37, 449 (1997).

G. D. Libecap, Contracting for Property Rights (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989).

D. Fundenberg and E. Maskin, Econometrica 54, 533 (1986).

Burroughs-Wellcome v. Barr Laboratories, 40 F. 3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, J. Risk Uncertainty 5, 297 (1992).

Lehman D., Lempert R., Nisbett R., Am. Psychol.43, 431 (1988).

L. Ross and C. A. Anderson, in Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, D. Kahnemanet al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982), pp. 129–152.

Amgen v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F. 2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (erythropoietin);Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v.Genentech, 927 F. 2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (factor VIII:C); Genentech v. Wellcome Found., 29 F. 2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (tissue plasminogen activator);Hormone Research Found. v. Genentech, 904 F. 2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (human growth hormone);Genentech v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F. 2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (human growth hormone);Bio-Technology General v. Genentech, 80 F. 3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (human growth hormone);Genentech v. Novo Nordisk, 108 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (human growth hormone); Genentechv. Chiron, 112 F. 3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (insulin-like growth factor); Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F. 3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Supported by the Cook Endowment at the University of Michigan Law School and the Office of Health and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy. We thank I. Cockburn, F. Collins, R. Cook-Deegan, S. Cullen, R. Ellickson, P. Goldstein, D. Hanahan, E. Jordan, K. Paigen, R. Nelson, N. Netanel, E. Posner, H. Varmus, anonymous reviewers for Science, and workshop participants at the National Bureau of Economic Research and the University of Michigan, Stanford University, and George Washington University law schools for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript.