Friday, May 19, 2006

Stem Cell Snippets: Liberal Folly, WARF and SB401

Here are links to some recent, interesting news stories, press releases or other items connected to California stem cell issues.

Problematic payoff on stem cell research – Daniel Callahan in Bioethics Forum -- "The California stem cell initiative had a super-rich real estate tycoon leading the charge, lots of money from the biotechnology industry, the support of celebrities, and that best of American mixes, the possibility of saving millions of lives while making millions of dollars.... We may or may not ever see a payoff from stem cell research, but that’s where the action is, and with the blessing of liberals. This is not a proud moment for us."

WARF not helped by U.S. Supreme Court – Press release from Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights -- "A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court this week involving online auction giant eBay means an affiliate of the University of Wisconsin has less power to assert its dubious patent claims to control all human embryonic stem cells in the United States."

San Diego Union-Tribune endorses SB401 – Editorial written prior to Ortiz' proposed changes in the bill -- "Increased accountability and openness from the institute and its oversight board are needed....Instead of fighting the Legislature and those concerned about openness and accountability, the institute's leaders should continue to work closely with lawmakers and reach agreement on what needs to be done. That would be a better outcome than legislation that may, in some places, be too restrictive." Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

  1. As to the comment about the impact of the eBay decision on WARF's demands on CIRM, the eBay decision pertains to the question of whether a permanent injunction will issue AFTER questions of validity and infringement have been decided.

    The Supreme Court in eBay determined that the correct test, even for patent issues, is the traditional 4-factor test, which includes a public interest factor. If the balance went CIRM's way, it would keep WARF from getting an injunction against CIRM. The eBay decision does not impact in any way the ability of WARF to collect money damages from CIRM, if validity and infringement are established.

    By far the more relevant Supreme Court decision is Merck v. Integra, with the expansive breadth given to 35 USC 271(e)(1) allowing the possibility of no money damages and no injunction. Further, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary has relevance because CIRM is a state entity; WARF's claim against CIRM would likely end up in a California state court.

    [See also 88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006)]

    ReplyDelete