"Not Quite Dead Yet": The Near Fatal Wounding of the Experimental Use Exception and its Impact on Public Universities

While federal legislators have given universities increased freedom to protect new inventions created at their institutions through the BayhDole Act, the judicial branch has restricted universities’ use of patented inventions to produce additional innovations. This paper discusses the problems resulting from the decision in Madey v. Duke University, which reduced the breadth and applicability of the experimental use exception defense to patent infringement claims. Limiting the accessibility of novel intellectual property to research universities jeopardizes scientific progress and weakens the educational experience. Possible solutions exist on many fronts: sovereign immunity may be an adequate defense to many infringement claims at public universities; other potential solutions may address the dilemma through the courts, supplementary legislation, or private settlement of infringement disputes. * J.D. Candidate 2005, University of Colorado School of Law; B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Mississippi, 1997; M.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Colorado, 2000; Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Colorado, 2002. The author would like to thank Ben Fernandez and Bryan Smith for their careful editing, outstanding support, and encouragement. Thanks also to the outstanding members of the JTHTL for their helpful assistance and incomparable editing skills. Finally, the author wishes to thank the fine filmmakers of MONTY PYTHON AND THE QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL (Columbia Tri-Star 1975) and Phil Weiser who provided the inspiration for the title. 454 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. [Vol. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................ 453 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 454 I. HISTORY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL USE EXCEPTION ............... 456 II. THE DECISION AND IMPLICATIONS OF MADEY V. DUKE UNIVERSITY ................................................................................. 458 III. THE BAYH-DOLE ACT: FRIEND OR FOE TO THE TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE?..................................................... 461 IV. PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY........... 466 V. PROPOSAL.................................................................................... 471 A. Courts ................................................................................... 472 B. Congress ............................................................................... 473 C. Individual Parties.................................................................. 475 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 476