Navigating the Narrow Confines of the Common Law Experimental Use Exemption

This article examines the experimental use exemption in patent law, emphasizing its narrow applicability in cases of research activities that have commercial goals. It discusses the Giese v. Pierce Chem. Co. case, where the court deliberated whether selling research kits to academics could constitute protection under the experimental use exemption. Ultimately, the article contends that researchers must be cautious, as without clear evidence of experimental intent, they could face patent infringement liabilities despite the exemption.

These decisions highlight the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry into a potential infringer's legitimate business and commercial intent. Without concrete proof of experimental intent, the defense is unlikely to succeed.

The experimental use exemption's scope is limited in scenarios involving activities with direct or indirect commercial objectives. Researchers should not rely on this exemption to avoid patent liability.

The court considered whether selling kits to academic researchers fell within the scope of the research exemption, thereby shielding defendant sellers from liability for contributory infringement.

The court acknowledged that the experimental use doctrine could shield end-users from direct infringement claims, which would also absolve Vector and Pierce from liability.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law