Digital Commons Network^™

Enabling Science Fiction, Camilla A. Hrdy, Daniel H. Brean

Michigan Technology Law Review

Patent law promotes innovation by giving inventors 20-year-long exclusive rights to their inventions. To be patented, however, an invention must be “enabled,” meaning the inventor must describe it in enough detail to teach others how to make and use the invention at the time the patent is filed. When inventions are not enabled, like a perpetual motion machine or a time travel device, they are derided as “mere science fiction”—products of the human mind, or the daydreams of armchair scientists, that are not suitable for the patent system.

This Article argues that, in fact, the literary genre of science fiction …

Clearing Opacity Through Machine Learning, W. Nicholson Price Ii, Arti K. Rai

Articles

Artificial intelligence and machine learning represent powerful tools in many fields, ranging from criminal justice to human biology to climate change. Part of the power of these tools arises from their ability to make predictions and glean useful information about complex real-world systems without the need to understand the workings of those systems.

The Cost Of Novelty, Will Nicholson Price Ii

Articles

Patent law tries to spur the development of new and better innova­tive technology. But it focuses much more on “new” than “better”—and it turns out that “new” carries real social costs. I argue that patent law promotes innovation that diverges from existing technology, either a little (what I call “differentiating innovation”) or a lot (“exploring innova­tion”), at the expense of innovation that tells us more about existing technology (“deepening innovation”). Patent law’s focus on newness is unsurprising, and fits within a well-told narrative of innovative diversity accompanied by market selection of the best technologies. Unfortunately, innovative diversity brings not only …

Opting Into Device Regulation In The Face Of Uncertain Patentability, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

This article examines the intersection of patent law, FDA regulation, and Medicare coverage in a particularly promising field of biomedical innovation: genetic diagnostic testing. First, I will discuss current clinical uses of genetic testing and directions for further research, with a focus on cancer, the field in which genetic testing has had the greatest impact to date. Second, I will turn to patent law and address two recent Supreme Court decisions that called into question the patentability of many of the most important advances in genetic testing. Third, I will step outside patent law to take a broader view of …

Biobanks As Innovation Infrastructure For Translational Medicine, W. Nicholson Price Ii

Book Chapters

Biobanks represent an opportunity for the use of big data to drive translational medicine. Precision medicine demands data to shape treatments to individual patient characteristics; large datasets can also suggest new uses for old drugs or relationships between previously unlinked conditions. But these tasks can be stymied when data are siloed in different datasets, smaller biobanks, or completely proprietary private resources. This hampers not only analysis of the data themselves, but also efforts to translate data-based insights into actionable recommendations and to transfer the discovered technology into a commercialization pipeline. Cross-project technological innovation, development, and validation are all more difficult …

The Cost Of Novelty, W. Nicholson Price Ii

Law & Economics Working Papers

Patent law tries to spur the development of new, better, innovative technology. But it focuses much more on “new” than “better” — and it turns out that “new” carries real social costs. I argue that patent law promotes innovation that diverges from existing technology, either a little (what I call “differentiating innovation”) or a lot (“exploring innovation”), at the expense of innovation that tells us more about existing technology (“deepening innovation”). Patent law’s focus on newness is unsurprising, and fits within a well-told narrative of innovative diversity accompanied by market selection of the best technologies. Unfortunately, innovative diversity brings not …

Patents For Sharing, Toshiko Takenaka

Michigan Technology Law Review

Spurred by the Internet, emerging technologies have changed the way commercial firms innovate and have made it possible for individuals to play an important role in that innovation. Producers in the Information Communication Technologies (ICT), and other sectors dealing with complex technologies with many separately patentable components, find it increasingly difficult to make products without infringing on patents held by others. Numerous overlapping patents often cover such products. Producers have developed a new way to use patents: as inclusive rights for sharing their technologies with others through cross-licensing and other private ordering arrangements in order to ensure the freedom to …

Connect The Dots: Patents And Interdisciplinarity, Michal Shur-Ofry

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article unravels a troubling paradox in the ecosystem of innovation. Interdisciplinarity is widely recognized as a source of valuable innovation and a trigger for technological breakthroughs. Yet, patent law, a principal legal tool for promoting innovation, fails to acknowledge it in an explicit, consistent manner. Moreover, although the scientific understanding of the significance of interdisciplinarity for innovation increasingly relies on big data analyses of patent databases, patent law practically ignores patent data as a source of information about interdisciplinary innovation. This Article argues that patent law should connect the dots—explicitly recognize interdisciplinarity as a positive indication when deciding whether …

Expired Patents, Trade Secrets, And Stymied Competition, W. Nicholson Price Ii

Articles

Patents and trade secrecy have long been considered substitute incentives for innovation. When inventors create a new invention, they traditionally must choose between the two. And if inventors choose to patent their invention, society provides strong legal protection in exchange for disclosure, with the understanding that the protection has a limit: it expires twenty years from the date of filing. At that time, the invention is opened to the public and exposed to competition. This story is incomplete. Patent disclosure is weak and focuses on one technical piece of an invention—but that piece is often only a part of the …

From Incentive To Commodity To Asset: How International Law Is Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Susy Frankel

Michigan Journal of International Law

The intellectual property landscape is changing. As Jerry Reichman once observed, intellectual property rights were islands in a sea of the public domain until domestic laws expanded to include such “innovations” as business methods, software, scents, and sounds and turned the public domain into a pond surrounded by a continent of rights. Reichman spoke towards the end of the 20th century, and whatever problems accompanied this change, in truth (to paraphrase Voltaire’s view of the Holy Roman Empire), the concept of “intellectual property rights” was predominantly about neither “property” nor “rights” (nor was it always “intellectual”). Rather, copyright, patent, and …

After Myriad: Reconsidering The Incentives For Innovation In The Biotech Industry, Daniel K. Yarbrough

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 101 allows a patent for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Recently, the Supreme Court issued several key decisions affecting the doctrine of patentable subject matter under § 101. Starting with Bilski v. Kappos (2011), and continuing with Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012), Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) and, most recently, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014), every year has brought another major change to the way in which the Court assesses patentability. In Myriad, the …

Innovative Copyright, Greg Lastowka

Michigan Law Review

For over a decade, Michael Carrier has been exploring the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property ("IP") law, contributing many articles that offer new solutions and approaches to the vexing problems confronting the law of innovation. Carrier's academic writing is situated in a voluminous scholarly discourse about the appropriate rules and goals of the laws of copyright, patent, and antitrust. While Carrier easily could have written an "insider" tome for specialists in this area, his new book, Innovation for the 21st Century, is targeted at a broader audience. Carrier's book is directed at legislators, jurists, and opinion makers-as well as …

Pioneers Versus Improvers: Enabling Optimal Patent Claim Scope, Timothy Chen Saulsbury

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Arising most commonly as a defense to an infringement claim, enablement requires a patent to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to permit a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field to replicate and use the invention without needing to engage in "undue experimentation." If a patent claim is not "enabled"--i.e., if a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) who studied the patent cannot make or use the invention without undue experimentation--the claim is invalid and can no longer be asserted. This penalty deters patent applicants from claiming more than they invented and allows others to …

Why Fdca Section 505(U) Should Not Concern Us Greatly, Kyle Faget

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Among the many amendments found in the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA) is a provision at the end of the act, Section 505(u), which grants chiral switches five years of market exclusivity under certain circumstances. Prior to Congressional enactment of the FDAAA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to award new chemical entity (NCE) status to enantiomers of previously approved racemic mixtures. The FDA defines a new chemical entity ("NCE") as a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other application submitted under Section 505(b) of the …

Research Tool Patents After Integra V. Merck - Have They Reached A Safe Harbor, Wolrad Prinz

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The saga surrounding the Integra v. Merck cases has rekindled a heated debate about the proper scope of both common law exemption and the safe harbor provision, causing significant concern for owners of research tool patents. This Article will argue that the next judicial decision addressing the question of research tool patents should clarify that they are in a safe harbor because none of the two exemptions from infringement referenced above extends to the use of research tools in experiments in order to preserve the necessary incentives for their creation in the first place. Allowing access to research tools under …

Pharmaceutical Lemons: Innovation And Regulation In The Drug Industry, Ariel Katz

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Before a new drug can be marketed, the Food and Drug Administration must be satisfied that it is safe and effective. According to conventional wisdom, the cost and delay involved in this process diminish the incentives to invest in the development of new drugs. Accordingly, several reforms aimed at restoring such incentives have been implemented or advocated. This Article challenges the central argument that drug regulation and drug innovation are necessarily at odds with one another. Although intuitively appealing, the argument that drug regulation negatively affects the incentives to innovate does not fully capture the role that regulation plays in …

Economics And The Design Of Patent Systems, Robert M. Hunt

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

I use intuition derived from several of my research papers to make three points. First, in the absence of a common law balancing test, application of uniform patentability criteria favors some industries over others. Policymakers must decide the optimal tradeoff across industries. Second, if patent rights are not closely related to the underlying inventions, more patenting may reduce R&D in industries that are both R&D and patent intensive. Third, the U.S. private innovation system has become far more decentralized than it was a generation ago. It is reasonable to inquire whether a patent system that worked well in an era …

Patents And Diversity In Innovation, Brian Kahin

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Over the past quarter-century, the patent system has expanded in scope and significance, claiming a central position in a U.S. economy increasingly based on knowledge and intangible assets. This historic expansion has come at the cost of controversy and, within the past five years, growing public scrutiny from outside the system--from the press, business, Congress, and finally the Supreme Court. However, proposed reforms are marked by deepening divisions between sectors of the economy. The information technology (IT) and services industries favor strong reforms while pharmaceutical and biotech industries, as well as the patent bar, favor modest, incremental reforms. This yawning …

Knowledge, Competition And The Innovation: Is Stronger Ipr Protection Really Needed For More And Better Innovations, Giovanni Dosi, Luigi Marengo, Corrado Pasquali

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The main questions addressed in this Article are thus: given that growth is a highly desirable phenomenon and that it is primarily spurred by technological innovation, how should society solve the problem of favoring a sufficient level of investments in R&D? In particular, is it necessarily true and always desirable that, independent of any other consideration, society should protect innovators from competition and shelter them in a legally protected and enforced monopoly? Is it true that the real source of economic value of new recipes is only found in the blueprints of ideas that those recipes implement? Is it necessarily …

The Role Of The Fda In Innovation Policy, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Article reexamines the role of FDA regulation in motivating investment in biopharmaceutical innovation. I begin by challenging the standard story that it is the patent system that makes drug development profitable, and drug regulation that makes it costly, by showing how patents add to costs and how drug regulation works in tandem with patents to protect profits. I then compare FDA-administered exclusive rights to patents as a means of fortifying drug development incentives, suggesting ways that FDA-administered rights might be preferable both from the perspective of policy makers and from the perspective of firms. In the remainder of the …

Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Before the unanimous decision in eBay v. MercExchange, patent holders were almost always granted an injunction against an infringer. In fact, the Federal Circuit, in deciding eBay, noted that, upon a finding of infringement, an injunction would issue unless there were extraordinary circumstances. The Court, in a brief opinion, disagreed with the Federal Circuit and explained that the injunction issue in a patent case must be analyzed under the traditional four-factor test.[...] Is the four-factor test fairer or better than the Federal Circuit's near-automatic injunction rule? It is certainly more difficult to administer a factor test as compared to a …

Pathological Patenting: The Pto As Cause Or Cure, Rochelle Dreyfuss

Michigan Law Review

The Patent Act was last revised in 1952. The hydrogen bomb was exploded that year, vividly demonstrating the power of the nucleus; in the ensuing postwar period, the Next Big Thing was clearly the molecule. Novel compounds were synthesized in the hopes of finding new medicines; solid-state devices exploited the special characteristics of germanium and other semiconductors; as investments in polymer chemistry soared, advice to the college graduate soon boiled down to "one word ... just one word[:] ... Plastics." Over the next half-century, things changed dramatically. "Better living through chemistry" has begun to sound dated (if not sinister). Genomics …

Supporting Innovation In Targeted Treatments: Licenses Of Right To Nih-Funded Research Tools, Tanuja V. Garde

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Support for new drug development has taken some interesting turns in current patent law jurisprudence. Beginning with the severe curtailment of scope of the common law experimental use doctrine in Madey v. Duke University, and culminating with the recent Supreme Court decision in Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., broadening the scope of the statutory research exemption, the freedom to conduct experimental research using another's patented inventions becomes dependent in part on the purpose of the research. That the patent at issue in Merck was characterized by the Federal Circuit as being directed to a research tool raised the …

Better, Faster, Cheaper - Later: What Happens When Technologies Are Suppressed, Kurt M. Saunders, Linda Levine

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Some inventions never see the light of day. Others enter the spotlight after long delays and the factors that slowed the arrival of that innovation are ignored. Technology suppression is a real occurrence involving well known and widely used products. In this Article, we examine the topic of technology suppression, seeking to reveal the tactics of suppression and the patterns and conditions under which it occurs. Current examples of US technologies are used to highlight the significance of this phenomenon. We consider related factors, including market and innovation forces, and we identify suppressive tactics, using illustrative cases where patent nonuse …

An Examination Of Patents, Licensing, Research Tools, And The Tragedy Of The Anticommons In Biotechnology Innovation, Michael S. Mireles

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The continued development of and affordable access to potentially life saving pharmaceuticals, gene therapies and diagnostics is unquestionably a socially important issue. However, crafting government policy to encourage the development of and allowing affordable access to those services and products is difficult. On one hand, the development of those services and products requires a large investment of funds because of the complexity, collaborative nature, and uncertainty of the development of those products and services. Accordingly, investors require the safety of strong and stable patent rights to ensure a return on their investment in the development of a commercial end-product or …

Festo: A Case Contravening The Convergence Of Doctrine Of Equivalents Jurisprudence In Germany, The United Kingdom, And The United States, Katherine E. White

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Despite differences in patent law jurisprudence in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, the fundamental principles underlying each system serve the same basic purpose: to encourage technological innovation and dissemination of knowledge. In granting exclusive patent rights, it is important that the scope of patent protection not be so broad as to remove existing knowledge from the public domain. The scope of protection should strike a balance between granting adequate patent rights while preserving the public's ownership in the public domain or the prior art. To encourage innovation patentees must attain significant exclusive rights, while potential infringers receive …

Bargaining Over The Transfer Of Proprietary Research Tools: Is This Market Failing Or Emerging?, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Book Chapters

This analysis highlights the importance of transactions between prior and subsequent innovators to permit valuable research to go forward across the boundaries of prior patent claims. In a recent article focusing on biomedical research,4 Michael Heller and I argue that too many patent rights on 'upstream' discoveries can stifle 'downstream' research and product development by increasing transaction costs and magnifying the risk of bargaining failures. Just as too few property rights leave communally held resources prone to overuse in a 'tragedy of the commons', too many property rights can leave resources prone to underuse in what Heller calls a 'tragedy …

Ownership, Commercial Development, Transfer And Use Of Publicly Funded Research Results: The United States Legal Regime, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Other Publications

This report summarizes key provisions of the United States. legal regime concerning ownership, dissemination and commercialization of the results of publicly funded research as background for a study on the feasibility of improving access by developing countries and economies in transition to environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) developed in other parts of the world.

To Innovate Or Not To Innovate, That Is The Question: The Functions, Failures, And Foibles Of The Reward Function Theory Of Patent Law In Relation To Computer Software Platforms , Seth A. Cohen

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The patent system has traditionally been viewed as having two primary functions: the reward function and the prospect function. Although these theories do explain some behavior which results from the practical applications of the patent system, they also overlook some behavior of the patent system which indicates a failure of these functions. In order to properly prevent such failure, this paper proposes that the patent system adopt an orientation that will lead to increased innovative rivalry and competition. In Part I, using the computer operating system software market as an example, I propose a framework for reconceptualizing patent protection as …

Limiting Patentees' Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives: The Perverse Benefits Of Uncertainty And Non-Injunctive Remedies, Ian Ayres, Paul Klemperer

Michigan Law Review

Uncertainty and delay in patent litigation may have unforeseen virtues. The combination of these oft-criticized characteristics might induce a limited amount of infringement that enhances social welfare without reducing (or without substantially reducing) the profitability of the patentee. Patent infringement is generally viewed as socially inefficient because infringement reduces the patentee's ex ante incentive to innovate. Limited amounts of infringement combined with increased patent duration, however, can substantially reduce the distortionary ex post effects of supracompetitive pricing without reducing the patentee's ex ante incentives to innovate. Indeed, this Article derives a legal regime that preserves the incentive to innovate by …