Opponents of the WARF patents argue that the patents cover "upstream" technology.
The FTCR argues that the patents should be invalid because of the danger that WARF will keep stem cell research to itself and thereby stifle the scientific progress.
WARF has not only shared the patent with over 400 scientists worldwide, (121) but has also included training for a reasonable royalty or free of charge.
(128) Thus, the WARF patents are most certainly not "stopping ...
(156) Thus, the argument that the WARF patents drive U.S.
WARF's patents are not obvious in light of the newly cited prior art.
(37.) WARF Stem Cell Patents, Public Patent Foundation (2007), http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm.
(44.) WARF, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Defends Patents in Response to Initial U.S.
(50.) Joe Vanden Plas, Supreme Court Ruling Seen as Blow to WARF Stem Cell Patents, WISCONSIN TECHNOLOGY NETWORK (May 2, 2007), http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=3889.
Over the past year, the number of WARF commercial licenses has doubled, reflecting an increase in industry-supported research and development." Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Changes Stem Cell Policies to Encourage Greater Academic, Industry Collaboration, WARF NEWS, Jan.
(79.) Joe Vanden Plas, WARF Questions Relevancy of Documents Used to Uphold Patent Challenge, WISCONSIN TECHNOLOGY NETWORK (May 31, 2007), http://wisconsintechnology.com/printarticle.php?id=3965.
(81.) Vanden Plas, supra note 79 (quoting WARF managing director).