San Francisco Chronicle on Merck v. Integra

Discussing the Merck v. Integra decision, an article on June 24 was sub-titled:

Some fear research exemption could stifle innovation

Some text from the June 24 article:

A traditional industry argument supports stringent patent protections as a driving force behind medical innovation. Investors will only provide the millions needed to develop new therapies to a company that has secured key intellectual property rights, the reasoning goes. On the other hand, the fear is that a research area riddled with patent rights might attract few others to explore its promise.

Under the ruling, researchers can freely use patented material --
including novel biotech compounds -- if their studies are reasonably linked to a
product they can take to the Food and Drug Administration for approval, said
Merck attorney Joshua Rosenkranz at the biotech conference session. "The
Supreme Court gives an enormous amount of comfort to scientists sitting in a lab
saying, 'Can I perform the next experiment?' " he said.

Alan Hammond, chief intellectual property counsel for Invitrogen,
said the decision could hinder progress. "The whole patent system was developed
to promote innovation," he said. "Every time you weaken the patent system
you hurt innovation."

It will take years to see what effects the decision has, lawyers at
the session agreed. The effect may be different for each firm, depending on
the patents they hold and the ones held by others that they need to work
around.

**
The Chronicle article did not discuss the issue of whether or not research tool patents fall within the scope of the 271(e)(1) exemption.