The Hollowing Out of Patents on Biopharmaceutical Research Tools
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
The Hollowing Out of Patents on Biopharmaceutical Research Tools
Issue: Volume 25 no 2
Author(s): Victor Urban
Abstract:
After the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merck v. Integra, many commentators thought that the Bolar or “safe harbour” exemption in 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) would exempt most uses of biopharmaceutical research tools from patent infringement. After the 2008 Federal Circuit decision in Proveris v. Innovasystems, this argument was laid to rest and new life was given to the patentability of biopharmaceutical research tools. In comparison, Canadian case law suggests that the corresponding exemption in s. 55.2(1) of the Canadian Patent Act is broader and patents on such research tools may provide little, if any, value to patent holders.
