• July 6, 2001. Pharm-policy note from Els Torreele, which explains what the Winter II antibody expression library is and what the patent actually covers.
• June 20, 2001. Reuters. Cambridge Antobody granted U.S. patent.

• US Patent #6,200,806: Primate embryonic stem cells.
• NIH Press releases.
  • April 26, 2002. NIH Grants Infrastructure Awards For Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  • April 26, 2002. National Institutes of Health and the University of California, San Francisco Sign Stem Cell Research Agreement.
  • April 24, 2002. National Institutes of Health and BresaGen, Inc. Sign U.S./Australian Stem Cell Research Agreement.
• July 31, 2002. Zachary Vasilyuk, Martha L. Carpenter and Lisa A. Haile for the San Diego Source. The case that has made IP for stem cells significantly clearer.
• January 10, 2002. Andrew Pollock for the New York Times. University Resolves Dispute on Stem Cell Patent.
• January 9, 2001. January 9, 2001. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation press release. WARF and Geron Resolve Lawsuit and Sign New License Agreement
• September 10, 2001. Catherine Arnst for Business Week. Commentary: Stem Cell Science Needs More from Uncle Sam.
• September 5, 2001. Kristen Philipkoski for Wired News. Stem Cell Patent Issues Resolved.
• August 16, 2001. Sheryl Gay Stolberg for the New York Times. Patent Laws May Determine Shape of Stem Cell Research.
• March 13, 2001. Geron Corporation press release. Geron Reports Issuance of U.S. Patent for Human Embryonic Stem Cells.

• June 22, 2004. Chiron press release. Chiron Grants Nonexclusive HCV License to Prosetta.
• June 22, 2004. Denise Gellene for the L.A. Times. Chiron Relaxes Patent Licenses - The biotech firm acts amid criticism that its upfront fees stifle work on drugs for hepatitis C.
• February 28, 2004. Paul Elias for the Associated Press. Feds review complaints that Chiron hinders research.

• Patents held by Mercator Genetics for the test:
  • 5,712,098
  • 5,753,438
  • 5,705,343
• February 7, 2002. Jon F. Merz, Antigone G. Kriss, Debra G. B. Leonard and Mildred K. Cho for Nature 415, 577–579. Diagnostic testing fails the test.
• February 7, 2001. James Meek for the Guardian. Doctors hindered by company's gene patent.
• February 6, 2002. Paul Jacobs for the San Jose Mercury News. Biotech patents increasing costs of blood test, researchers say.
• February 6, 2002. Keith Mulvihill for Reuters. Gene Patent Costs May Impede Genetic Testing.

• June 22, 2004. Denise Gellene for the LA Times. Chiron Relaxes Patent Licenses. (On patented genes for Hepatitis C.)
• October 6, 2003. Zina Moukheiber for Forbes. Junkyard Dogs: A tiny Aussie firm has claimed rights to vast tracts of the genome and is riling the biotech world.
• March 24, 2003. Andrew Pollack for the New York Times. Advanced Cell Wins a Cloning Patent Dispute With Infigen.
• March 19, 2003. Sangamo BioSciences press release. Sangamo BioSciences Granted U.S. Patent Covering Regulation of Gene Expression Using Engineered Zinc Finger DNA-Binding Proteins.
• January 15, 2003. Jeffrey Kasner for the Boston Globe. Ariad gets patent for therapy method.
• January 13, 2003. The Edmonton Journal. Gene-patent policy review urgently needed.
• December 23, 2003. Helen Altonn for the Honolulu Star Bulletin. UH makes gene patent history.
• October 4, 2002. Reuters. Swede researchers apply for psoriasis gene patent.
• September 17, 2002. Joe Manning for the Milwalkee Journal-Sentinal. Biotech firm files suit over patents: Third Wave accuses EraGen of infringement.
• September 16, 2002. Bill Sloat for the Ohio Plain Dealer. Ohio scientist and corporate giant in court fight over gene discovery.
• July 6, 2001. Announcement of the Department of the Defense. Department of the Navy Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License.
• July, 2001. UVentures.com. Gene Pill Platform Receives Broad Patent Coverage.
• June 26, 2001. People's Daily. China's Largest Gene Company Gets 3,700 Patents.
• May 25, 2001. Houston Chronicle Business Wire. Cytogenix Files Patent Application For Novel Business Structure. This is a business method patent. For information on more business method patents (not health-related), click here.

• January, 2002. Report from OECD Workshop. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices: Evidence and Policies.
• May, 2001. National Organization for Rare Disorders. Gene Patenting Policy Position.
• July 13, 2000. Jon F. Merz. Statement on Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives.
• June 2001. Timothy B. Coan and Ron Ellis. Report for USA Specialty Pharmaceuticals. Generic Biologics: The Next Frontier.
• February 12, 2000, TACD Recommendation on Patents on Genetic Diagnosis
• January 12, 1999. Statement of Q. Todd Dickinson, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

• June 16, 1980. Diamond v. Chakrabarty. This case marked a turnaround in the patentability of bio-engineered organisms in the U.S. In it, the Supreme Court held that a bacterium genetically engineered to consume oil spills was patentable.

• July 23, 2002. Gaia Vince for the New Scientist. Gene Patents "Inhibit Innovation."
• March 25, 2002. Tom Abate for the San Francisco Chronicle. Do gene patents wrap research in red tape?
• September 11, 2001. Jennifer Jacobs for the Malaysia Business Times. Biotech companies no easy set-up.
• September 5, 2001. Introgen Theraputics press release. Introgen's p16 Cancer Therapeutic Receives Patent; Introgen Owns Exclusive Worldwide License From The University of Texas System.
• August 24, 2001. Op-ed by Howard Markel in the New York Times. Patents Could Block the Way to a Cure.
• August 14, 2001. Associated Press. UW Sues Geron Over Stem Cell Deal.
• July 18, 2001. Anthony Shadid for the Boston Globe. Battle turns fierce over biotech patents.
• May 26, 2001. China's People's Daily. Patent Protection for China' Genetic Engineering.
• May 15, 2001. Andrew Pollack in the New York Times. The Green Revolution Yields to the Bottom Line.
• March 8, 2001. Genomeweb.com. Interview with Leslie Misrock. Q&A: Biotech Patent Guru Discusses Possible Proteomics Patent Wars.
• March 6, 2001. Kristen Philipkoski for Wired News. New Quest: Mapping Gene Patents.
• February 28, 2001. Kristen Philipkoski for Wired News. Gene Patent Healthy for Introgen.
• December 30, 2000, Justin Gillis, in the Washington Post Gene Research Success Spurs Profit Debate
• June 28, 2000, Andrew Pollack, in the New York Times, U.S. Hopes to Stem Rush Toward Patenting of Genes
• June 21, 2000, Greg Aharonian, in Internet Patent News Service, Gene test patents cause debate at HHS panel meeting
• April 6, 2000, eubusiness.com, EU 'shock' at human clone patent decision
• March 29, 2000, Upd-discuss, RAFI: gene patent mania
• March 21, 2000, THE KCRACHANNEL.COM, AIDS Gene Patent Contains Errors
• March 15, 2001. Andrea Knox for Knight Ridder. Firms' gene patents worry doctors, ethicists.
• February 21, 2000, Vida Foubister, in American Medical News, Gene patents raise concerns for researchers, clinicians
• June 4, 1998, Naomi Freundlich for Signals Magazine. Will increasingly aggressive licensing terms on research tool patents hurt basic research? This story has a lot of interesting quotes. Here is one:

  At Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in Cambridge, Mass., Chief Business Officer Steven Holtzman says that "We often find ourselves walking away from licensing-in tissue samples or other tools because the university OTL officer is insisting that if we ever develop a drug using the tool we have to pay a royalty." These royalties usually amount to between .5 percent and 3 percent for such tools as tissue samples, receptors and vectors. Holtzman, who is the one biotech participant in the seven-member NIH Working Group, figures that his company might assemble five or more tools in running differential gene expression studies and drug development. When promising compounds are identified, they are usually handed off to a pharmaceutical company in exchange for a 5 percent to 15 percent royalty. As the tool royalties stack up, the biotech player could be paying out some 25 percent to 50 percent of what they receive in royalties from drug companies. "We're going through the swing of the pendulum," says Holtzman, "there will have to be equilibrium. It may get to the point where everyone starts saying 'we won't sign these darn things.' "

• May 29, 1998, is the alliance deck becoming "anti-stacked" against innovators? This is a very interesting report on the negotiations between various biotechnology players over shares of royalties in inventions with lots of inventors. From the article:

  More and more "tool companies" are filling biotechnology's ranks and filing patents for nifty research aids like surface receptors or useful polymorphic markers. That's led to increasing grousing among Big Pharma about "stacking royalties," or the need for an eventual developer/marketer to license so many different technology puzzle pieces in order to advance a given project that the royalties reduce the eventual product's attractiveness.

  In actual fact, so-called "anti-stacking" language has been around the biotechnology industry since its inception. Given the delays at the U.S. Patent Office, companies could rarely if ever negotiate contracts with full confidence about exactly how broad their intellectual property rights would be. The major pharmaceutical company's traditional argument for anti-stacking language ran something like this: If Big Pharma licenses a lead compound from Biotech and that compound is later blocked by another party's patent, it is Biotech who should bear the responsibility for that occurrence and shoulder the burden of crediting Big Pharma for the amount due the third party.

  It seemed a pretty compelling argument to most biotechs developing recombinant proteins or monoclonal antibodies throughout the 1980s. So compelling that biotechs adopted the same protection in their licenses with universities - except now the anti-stacking language was applied to technologies as well as compounds. In analysis done by ReCap of university/biotech license agreements, about 80% have anti-stacking language for the benefit of the biotech company, and most of this language is of the "fully creditable to floor" variety. That means the university's take goes from, for example, 5% of net sales down to a floor rate of 2.5% if the biotech player has to pay third parties in excess of 2.5% in royalties as well.

  But a funny thing happened when biotechs went "upstream" in the late 1980s and began doing technology deals in which the essence was helping big partners screen large libraries of compounds. Major pharmaceutical companies brought "university style" anti-stacking language into pharma/biotech agreements.

• May/June, 1998. MotherJones. An Owner's Guide: Pharmaceutical companies are mining your DNA for scientific gold.
• May 1, 1998. Michael A. Heller, Rebecca S. Eisenberg for Science. Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research.
• April 17, 1995. Franklin Hoke for the Scientist. Gene Patenting Is On The Rise, But Scientists Are Unimpressed.
• October 26, 1992, Scott Veggeberg, HHS Secretary Sullivan To Determine If NIH Gene Patent Quest Is Over

• June 15, 2001. Luiza Chwialkowska for the National Post. Court to rule on patent for Harvard mouse.
• October 14, 2000, Tervil Okoko, in Panafrican News Agency, Row Over AIDS Vaccine Patent
• October 14, 2000, M.G. Kimani, in the Daily Nation, Science and the myth of British fair play
• October 6, 2000, Reuters, Setback for 'Human-Pig' Fusion Patent Bid
• April 6, 2000, eubusiness.com, EU 'shock' at human clone patent decision
• March 19, 2000, Penny Fannin, in The Age, Patent critics try to stophuman-gene slave trade
• February 28, 2000, Associated Press, Genetic Face-Off
• October 18, 1999, Vida Foubister, in American Medical News, Lapses in practice, oversight undercut genetic testing
• June 19, 1995, AIDS Treatment News, Religious Coalition Opposes Gene Patents
• March 1995, Joseph Kaplinsky, in Living Marxism, Who owns your genes?
• National Institutes of Health Ethics Program, Ethics Forms

Government sites

• Department of Energy, Human Genome Research
• National Human Genome Research Institute, Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genetics Research
• National Human Genome Research Institute, The Human Genome Project,
• NIH, A New Gene Map of the Human Genome

• Encyclopædia Britannica, Human Genome Project
• Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Beverly Merz, Reading the Human Blueprint-The Human Genome Project
• New York Times, The Human Genome Project
• New York Times, The Human Genome Project, Selected Index of Articles (1990-1999)
• April 18, 2002. Peter Eisler for the USA Today. Was government cheated on DNA decoder?
• May 24, 2001. PR Newswire. Richard Holbrooke Joins Human Genome Sciences Board.