pmc logo image
Logo of jbiomeddisBioMed Central web siteReference to the article.Search.Manuscript submission.Registration.Journal front page.

Formats:

J Biomed Discov Collab. 2006; 1: 7.
Published online 2006 July 3. doi: 10.1186/1747-5333-1-7.
PMCID: PMC1523369
The effects of business practices, licensing, and intellectual property on development and dissemination of the polymerase chain reaction: case study
Joe Fore, Jr,1 Ilse R Wiechers,1,2 and Robert Cook-Deegancorresponding author1
1Center for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University, Box 90141, Durham, NC 27708, USA
2Massachusetts General/McLean Hospital Adult Psychiatry Residency Program, 55 Fruit Street Wang 812, Boston, MA 02114, USA
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Joe Fore, Jr: joe.fore/at/duke.edu; Ilse R Wiechers: ilse.wiechers/at/duke.edu; Robert Cook-Deegan: bob.cd/at/duke.edu
Received May 10, 2006; Accepted July 3, 2006.
Abstract
Introduction
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was a seminal genomic technology discovered, developed, and patented in an industry setting. Since the first of its core patents expired in March, 2005, we are in a position to view the entire lifespan of the patent, examining how the intellectual property rights have impacted its use in the biomedical community. Given its essential role in the world of molecular biology and its commercial success, the technology can serve as a case study for evaluating the effects of patenting biological research tools on biomedical research.
Case description
Following its discovery, the technique was subjected to two years of in-house development, during which issues of inventorship and publishing/patenting strategies caused friction between members of the development team. Some have feared that this delay impeded subsequent research and may have been due to trade secrecy or the desire for obtaining lucrative intellectual property rights. However, our analysis of the history indicates that the main reasons for the delay were benign and were primarily due to difficulties in perfecting the PCR technique. Following this initial development period, the technology was made widely available, but was subject to strict licensing terms and patent protection, leading to an extensive litigation history.
Discussion and evaluation
PCR has earned approximately $2 billion in royalties for the various rights-holders while also becoming an essential research tool. However, using citation trend analysis, we are able to see that PCR's patented status did not preclude it from being adopted in a similar manner as other non-patented genomic research tools (specifically, pBR322 cloning vector and Maxam-Gilbert sequencing).
Conclusion
Despite the heavy patent protection and rigid licensing schemes, PCR seems to have disseminated so widely because of the practices of the corporate entities which have controlled these patents, namely through the use of business partnerships and broad corporate licensing, adaptive licensing strategies, and a "rational forbearance" from suing researchers for patent infringement. While far from definitive, our analysis seems to suggest that, at least in the case of PCR, patenting of genomic research tools need not impede their dissemination, if the technology is made available through appropriate business practices.