學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 DNA定序產業之美國專利訴訟分析
U.S. patent litigation analysis of the DNA seqencing industry作者 蘇祐諄
Su, Yu-Chun貢獻者 許牧彥
Hsu, Mu-Yen
蘇祐諄
Su, Yu-Chun關鍵詞 專利訴訟
DNA定序
專利價值
產業鏈
Patent litigation
DNA sequencing
Patent value
Industry chain日期 2017 上傳時間 3-Jul-2017 14:46:13 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究從DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟，了解該產業中廠商的訴訟行為與系爭專利之特性。本研究由商用資料庫取得DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟共100件及其系爭專利共168件，分析訴訟資訊、訴訟主體資訊(原告及被告)和訴訟客體資訊(系爭專利和被控侵權產品)。本研究也由次級資料中歸類各廠商在DNA定序產業鏈中之位置和其各世代產品技術之發展。由訴訟主體資訊可得知在DNA定序產業中，主要發起美國專利侵權訴訟之廠商為中游的儀器平台廠商，被控專利侵權的廠商也多為具有相同商業模式在同樣產業鏈位置上的競爭者。而由訴訟客體資訊中，除了以產品技術結構定位系爭專利之保護標的和技術特徵外，也從專利的被引證數、專利家族大小、所有權移轉次數、國際分類號分佈等指標比較系爭專利和一組同樣專利權人在相同時間間隔內申請的同技術領域之對照組專利，可發現系爭專利和對照組專利相比屬於較有價值的專利。
The present research analyzes the U.S. patent infringement cases of the DNA sequencing industry to understand the features of patent-in-suit and litigation behaviors in said industry. The present research obtains 100 U.S. patent infringement cases and 168 patent-in-suit from commercial databases. The litigation history, parties in the litigation (plaintiff and defendant), subject matter of the litigation (the patent-in-suit and the infringing products) are analyzed. The present research identifies the position of different corporate entities in the DNA sequencing industry chain and the development of each generations of DNA sequencing technology. By analyzing the parties in the litigation, the present research identifies that most of the plaintiffs are corporate entities developing sequencing instrument, and most of the defendants are competitiors having the same business model with the plaintiffs. By analyzing subject matter of the litigation, the present research identifies the technical features and subject matter of the patent-in-suit. The present research compares the citation, patent family size, number of ownership transfer and IPC distribution between the patent-in-suit and a control group patents of the same technical field within the same time frame. The patent-in-suit is more valuable than the control group patents.參考文獻 中文文獻李思元，莊以光 (2010)。DNA定序技術之演進與發展。生物醫學暨檢驗科學雜誌，第22：2期，第49-58頁。司徒達賢 (2016)。策略管理新論：觀念架構與分析方法 (第三版)。智勝出版社。甘良生，洪輝嵩，陳昭蓉，李佳峯，黃元品，楊志浩 (2016)。2016生技產業白皮書 (第一版，第103-104頁)。臺北市: 經濟部工業局。生物晶片產業發展現況與趨勢 (2011)。國家型奈米科技橋接計畫。生醫分子檢測產業聯盟成立緣起。(2012)。2016年10月23日，取自 http://mdxtaiwan.com/origins/pages/1。全球行動通訊技術專利授權模式分析 (2010)。 2016年10月23日，取自http://std-share.itri.org.tw/Content/Files/Industry/Files/%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E9%80%9A%E8%A8%8A%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%8E%88%E6%AC%8A%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf行政院科技會報辦公室 (2016)。行政院「亞太生技醫藥研發產業中心」啟動： 「強化全球連結、整合在地創新聚落」兩大策略雙管齊下。2017年5月1日，取自http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=5331137415276DD6&s=AFE580B14EB8E81B李孟訓，劉冠男，丁神梅，林俞君 (2007)。我國生物科技產業關鍵成功因素之研究。東吳經濟商學學報第56期，第27-51頁。周延鵬 (2006)。一堂課2000億：智慧財產的戰略與戰術 (第一版)。台北市: 商訊文化事業股份有限公司。周延鵬 (2010)。智慧財產全球行銷獲利聖經 (第一版)。台北市: 天下雜誌股份有限公司。易先勇 (2014)。引發專利訴訟的影響因素－以動態競爭AMC觀點分析ITC案件為例。國立政治大學。施學浩 (2009)。專利經營方法與訴訟策略─以台灣半導體和電子產業為實證研究。國立交通大學。唐與菁 (2016)。台灣資通訊品牌企業面臨PE及NPE專利訴訟風險之 比較分析—從動態競爭AMC的觀點。國立政治大學。許牧彥 (2016)。加己減異、加異減己─ 專利佈署的全方位競爭策略。於2016中華民國科技管理年會暨論文研討會。陳乃華 (2010)。專利權評價模式之實證研究。臺灣銀行季刊，第61：2期，第269-281頁。陳怡婷 (2013)。以國際專利訴訟為例探討台灣廠商之專利品質。國立政治大學。陳柏中，葉席吟 (2016)。市場報導：基因體定序解疑難雜症利器 - 科技產業資訊室。Iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw。2017年5月2日，取自 http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=12931智財經營扎根計畫-通訊產業專利趨勢與專利訴訟分析研究期末報告 (2015)。2016年10月23日，取自https://ticpa.stpi.narl.org.tw/download/research_report/104/trend/006.pdf馮浩庭 (2008)。美國專利訴訟程序之研究─現況、困境與美國國會之修法回應。智慧財產權月刊，第110期，第71-97頁。馮震宇 (2011)。鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產：從創新研發到保護應用。台北市: 元照出版公司。劉尚志，倪貴榮，陳秀雯。(2004)。生物晶片之專利保護、授權、侵權及上市前程序之研究。行政院國家科學委員會。魯美貝 (2005)。專利訴訟對於企業競爭優勢之影響分析─以台灣IC設計廠商為例。國立台灣大學。外文文獻Abrams, D., Akcigit, U., & Popadak, J. (2013). Patent value and citations: creative destruction or strategic disruption?. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Allison, J. R., & Mann, R. J. (2007). The disputed quality of software patents. Washington University Law Review, 85(2), 297–342. doi:10.2139/ssrn.970083Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, D. (2003). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, . doi:10.2139/ssrn.426020An overview of the human genome project. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/12011238/an-overview-of-the-human-genome-project/Applera Corp. v. MJ Research, Inc., 349 F. Supp. 2D 314 (D. Conn. 2004).Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00115-5Bergin, J. (2013). Next generation sequencing: emerging clinical applications and global markets. Wellesley, MA: BCC Research.Brulotte v. Thys Co. 379 U.S. 29 (1964) (U.S. Supreme Court 1964).Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new Competition*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 241–262. doi:10.2307/1885416Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2016). Technology management: Activities and tools (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Del. 2003).Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000, February). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Eisenberg, R. S. (2004). Reaching through the genome. Advances in genetics., 50, 209–30.Enzo Bioche, Inc. v. Amersham PLC., 981 F.Supp.2d 217 (D. NY. 2013).Enzo Biochem v. Applera Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2015).Flattmann, G. J., & Kaplan, J. M. (2002). Licensing research tool patents. Nature Biotechnology, 20, 945–947.Fore, J., Wiechers, I., & Cook-Deegan, R. (2006). Journal Of Biomedical Discovery And Collaboration, 1(1), 7. General information concerning patents. (2011, March 9). Retrieved October 18, 2016, from United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patentsGenetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC & Bristol-Myers Squibb (Fed. Cir. 2016).Genetic Technologies Limited. (2006). Annual Report 2005.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2007). Annual Report 2006.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2008). Annual Report 2007.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2009). Annual Report 2008.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2010). Annual Report 2009.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2011). Annual Report 2010.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2012). Annual Report 2011.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2013). Annual Report 2012.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2014). Annual Report 2013.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2015). Annual Report 2014.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2016). Annual Report 2015.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2017). Annual Report 2016.Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128. doi:10.2307/2696400Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions. Review Of Economics And Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.Harhoff, D., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.Hert, D. G., Fredlake, C. P., & Barron, A. E. (2008). Advantages and limitations of next-generation sequencing technologies: A comparison of electrophoresis and non-electrophoresis methods. ELECTROPHORESIS,29(23), 4618–4626. doi:10.1002/elps.200800456Hudson, K., Lifton, R., Bray, P.-L., Burchard, E. G., Coles, T., Collins, R., … Riley, C. (2015). The precision medicine initiative cohort program – building a research foundation for 21 st century medicine. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://acd.od.nih.gov/reports/DRAFT-PMI-WG-Report-9-11-2015-508.pdfIllumina (2011), Annual Report 2010Illumina (2013), Annual Report 2012Illumina (2017), Annual Report 2016Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent Bio-systems, Inc., no. 15-1123 (Fed. Cir. 2016).Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001b, December). Enforcing intellectual property rights. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8656.pdfMardis, E. R. (2008). The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics. Trends in Genetics, 24(3), 133–141.Markman, G. D., Espina, M. I., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Patents as surrogates for inimitable and Non-Substitutable resources. Journal of Management, 30(4), 529–544.Metzker, M. L. (2009). Sequencing technologies [mdash] the next generation: Abstract: Nature reviews genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(1), 31–46.Meurer, M. J., & Bessen, J. E. (2005). Lessons for patent policy from empirical research on patent litigation by Michael J. Meurer, James E. Bessen: SSRN. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9(1), 1–27.PCR Licensing | Roche Molecular Diagnostics. (2016). Molecular.roche.com. Retrieved 2 May 2017, from https://molecular.roche.com/innovation/pcr/licensing/Penrose, E. (2002). The growth of the firm: The legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford University Press.Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance ; with a new introduction. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.Report of the economic survey 2015. (2015). Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://files.ctctcdn.com/e79ee274201/b6ced6c3-d1ee-4ee7-9873-352dbe08d8fd.pdfShendure, J., & Ji, H. (2008). Next-generation DNA sequencing: Abstract: Nature biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 26(10), 1135–1145.Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., Criscuolo, C., & OECD, F. (2013). Measuring patent quality. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers.Stafford, K. A. (2005). Reach-through royalties in biomedical research tool patent licensing: implications of NIH guidelines on small biotechnology firms. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9(3), 699–717.Standard-essential patents (2014). Competition policy brief. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/008_en.pdfThe cost of sequencing a human genome. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/27565109/the-cost-of-sequencing-a-human-genome/Thermo Fisher Scientific. (2014). Thermo Fisher Scientific Completes Acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://news.thermofisher.com/press-release/corporate/thermo-fisher-scientific-completes-acquisition-life-technologies-corporationThermo Fisher Scientific. (2016). Thermo Fisher Scientific Completes Acquisition of Affymetrix Following Approval of Transaction by Affymetrix Stockholders. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://ir.thermofisher.com/investors/news-and-events/news-releases/news-release-details/2016/Thermo-Fisher-Scientific-Completes-Acquisition-of-Affymetrix-Following-Approval-of-Transaction-by-Affymetrix-Stockholders/default.aspxWernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.WIPO. (2011). What is intellectual property? Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdfZimmerman, E. (2014). Illumina is No. 1 on the MIT Technology Review list of the 50 Smartest Companies. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 4 May 2017, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524531/why-illumina-is-no-1/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
100361011資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1003610111 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 許牧彥 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsu, Mu-Yen en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 蘇祐諄 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Su, Yu-Chun en_US dc.creator (作者) 蘇祐諄 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Su, Yu-Chun en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Jul-2017 14:46:13 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Jul-2017 14:46:13 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Jul-2017 14:46:13 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1003610111 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/110717 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100361011 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究從DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟，了解該產業中廠商的訴訟行為與系爭專利之特性。本研究由商用資料庫取得DNA定序產業之美國專利侵權訴訟共100件及其系爭專利共168件，分析訴訟資訊、訴訟主體資訊(原告及被告)和訴訟客體資訊(系爭專利和被控侵權產品)。本研究也由次級資料中歸類各廠商在DNA定序產業鏈中之位置和其各世代產品技術之發展。由訴訟主體資訊可得知在DNA定序產業中，主要發起美國專利侵權訴訟之廠商為中游的儀器平台廠商，被控專利侵權的廠商也多為具有相同商業模式在同樣產業鏈位置上的競爭者。而由訴訟客體資訊中，除了以產品技術結構定位系爭專利之保護標的和技術特徵外，也從專利的被引證數、專利家族大小、所有權移轉次數、國際分類號分佈等指標比較系爭專利和一組同樣專利權人在相同時間間隔內申請的同技術領域之對照組專利，可發現系爭專利和對照組專利相比屬於較有價值的專利。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The present research analyzes the U.S. patent infringement cases of the DNA sequencing industry to understand the features of patent-in-suit and litigation behaviors in said industry. The present research obtains 100 U.S. patent infringement cases and 168 patent-in-suit from commercial databases. The litigation history, parties in the litigation (plaintiff and defendant), subject matter of the litigation (the patent-in-suit and the infringing products) are analyzed. The present research identifies the position of different corporate entities in the DNA sequencing industry chain and the development of each generations of DNA sequencing technology. By analyzing the parties in the litigation, the present research identifies that most of the plaintiffs are corporate entities developing sequencing instrument, and most of the defendants are competitiors having the same business model with the plaintiffs. By analyzing subject matter of the litigation, the present research identifies the technical features and subject matter of the patent-in-suit. The present research compares the citation, patent family size, number of ownership transfer and IPC distribution between the patent-in-suit and a control group patents of the same technical field within the same time frame. The patent-in-suit is more valuable than the control group patents. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 11第一節 研究背景 11第二節 研究動機 12第三節 研究問題 14第二章 文獻探討 15第一節 DNA定序技術的發展與應用 15第二節 產業鏈與價值鏈 20第三節 專利的品質與價值 21第四節 專利貨幣化 27第五節 專利與競爭 32第三章 前導性個案討論 35第一節 Illumina 35第二節 Genetic Technologies 43第三節 前導性個案小結 49第四章 研究架構與方法 50第一節 研究架構與假設 50第二節 研究方法與資料來源 52第五章 資料分析結果 60第一節 訴訟基礎資訊分析 60第二節 訴訟主體及其行為分析 65第三節 訴訟客體分析 97第四節 對照組專利分析 112第五節 對照組專利與系爭專利比對分析 133第六章 研究假設驗證 143第一節 DNA定序產業之專利訴訟原告特性 143第二節 DNA定序產業之專利訴訟原告行為 144第三節 DNA定序產業之系爭專利特性 145第七章 研究結論與建議 149第一節 美國專利侵權訴訟主體 149第二節 美國專利侵權訴訟客體 151第三節 建議 152第四節 研究限制 154參考文獻 155附錄 162附錄一：DNA定序產業美國專利侵權訴訟資訊 162附錄二：DNA定序產業美國專利侵權訴訟系爭專利資訊 173 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1967613 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1003610111 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利訴訟 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) DNA定序 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 專利價值 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 產業鏈 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent litigation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) DNA sequencing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Patent value en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Industry chain en_US dc.title (題名) DNA定序產業之美國專利訴訟分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) U.S. patent litigation analysis of the DNA seqencing industry en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻李思元，莊以光 (2010)。DNA定序技術之演進與發展。生物醫學暨檢驗科學雜誌，第22：2期，第49-58頁。司徒達賢 (2016)。策略管理新論：觀念架構與分析方法 (第三版)。智勝出版社。甘良生，洪輝嵩，陳昭蓉，李佳峯，黃元品，楊志浩 (2016)。2016生技產業白皮書 (第一版，第103-104頁)。臺北市: 經濟部工業局。生物晶片產業發展現況與趨勢 (2011)。國家型奈米科技橋接計畫。生醫分子檢測產業聯盟成立緣起。(2012)。2016年10月23日，取自 http://mdxtaiwan.com/origins/pages/1。全球行動通訊技術專利授權模式分析 (2010)。 2016年10月23日，取自http://std-share.itri.org.tw/Content/Files/Industry/Files/%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E9%80%9A%E8%A8%8A%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%8E%88%E6%AC%8A%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90.pdf行政院科技會報辦公室 (2016)。行政院「亞太生技醫藥研發產業中心」啟動： 「強化全球連結、整合在地創新聚落」兩大策略雙管齊下。2017年5月1日，取自http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=5331137415276DD6&s=AFE580B14EB8E81B李孟訓，劉冠男，丁神梅，林俞君 (2007)。我國生物科技產業關鍵成功因素之研究。東吳經濟商學學報第56期，第27-51頁。周延鵬 (2006)。一堂課2000億：智慧財產的戰略與戰術 (第一版)。台北市: 商訊文化事業股份有限公司。周延鵬 (2010)。智慧財產全球行銷獲利聖經 (第一版)。台北市: 天下雜誌股份有限公司。易先勇 (2014)。引發專利訴訟的影響因素－以動態競爭AMC觀點分析ITC案件為例。國立政治大學。施學浩 (2009)。專利經營方法與訴訟策略─以台灣半導體和電子產業為實證研究。國立交通大學。唐與菁 (2016)。台灣資通訊品牌企業面臨PE及NPE專利訴訟風險之 比較分析—從動態競爭AMC的觀點。國立政治大學。許牧彥 (2016)。加己減異、加異減己─ 專利佈署的全方位競爭策略。於2016中華民國科技管理年會暨論文研討會。陳乃華 (2010)。專利權評價模式之實證研究。臺灣銀行季刊，第61：2期，第269-281頁。陳怡婷 (2013)。以國際專利訴訟為例探討台灣廠商之專利品質。國立政治大學。陳柏中，葉席吟 (2016)。市場報導：基因體定序解疑難雜症利器 - 科技產業資訊室。Iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw。2017年5月2日，取自 http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=12931智財經營扎根計畫-通訊產業專利趨勢與專利訴訟分析研究期末報告 (2015)。2016年10月23日，取自https://ticpa.stpi.narl.org.tw/download/research_report/104/trend/006.pdf馮浩庭 (2008)。美國專利訴訟程序之研究─現況、困境與美國國會之修法回應。智慧財產權月刊，第110期，第71-97頁。馮震宇 (2011)。鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產：從創新研發到保護應用。台北市: 元照出版公司。劉尚志，倪貴榮，陳秀雯。(2004)。生物晶片之專利保護、授權、侵權及上市前程序之研究。行政院國家科學委員會。魯美貝 (2005)。專利訴訟對於企業競爭優勢之影響分析─以台灣IC設計廠商為例。國立台灣大學。外文文獻Abrams, D., Akcigit, U., & Popadak, J. (2013). Patent value and citations: creative destruction or strategic disruption?. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Allison, J. R., & Mann, R. J. (2007). The disputed quality of software patents. Washington University Law Review, 85(2), 297–342. doi:10.2139/ssrn.970083Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., & Trunkey, D. (2003). Valuable patents. Georgetown Law Journal, 92, . doi:10.2139/ssrn.426020An overview of the human genome project. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/12011238/an-overview-of-the-human-genome-project/Applera Corp. v. MJ Research, Inc., 349 F. Supp. 2D 314 (D. Conn. 2004).Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00115-5Bergin, J. (2013). Next generation sequencing: emerging clinical applications and global markets. Wellesley, MA: BCC Research.Brulotte v. Thys Co. 379 U.S. 29 (1964) (U.S. Supreme Court 1964).Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new Competition*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 241–262. doi:10.2307/1885416Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2016). Technology management: Activities and tools (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Del. 2003).Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000, February). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Eisenberg, R. S. (2004). Reaching through the genome. Advances in genetics., 50, 209–30.Enzo Bioche, Inc. v. Amersham PLC., 981 F.Supp.2d 217 (D. NY. 2013).Enzo Biochem v. Applera Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2015).Flattmann, G. J., & Kaplan, J. M. (2002). Licensing research tool patents. Nature Biotechnology, 20, 945–947.Fore, J., Wiechers, I., & Cook-Deegan, R. (2006). Journal Of Biomedical Discovery And Collaboration, 1(1), 7. General information concerning patents. (2011, March 9). Retrieved October 18, 2016, from United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patentsGenetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC & Bristol-Myers Squibb (Fed. Cir. 2016).Genetic Technologies Limited. (2006). Annual Report 2005.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2007). Annual Report 2006.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2008). Annual Report 2007.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2009). Annual Report 2008.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2010). Annual Report 2009.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2011). Annual Report 2010.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2012). Annual Report 2011.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2013). Annual Report 2012.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2014). Annual Report 2013.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2015). Annual Report 2014.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2016). Annual Report 2015.Genetic Technologies Limited. (2017). Annual Report 2016.Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128. doi:10.2307/2696400Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions. Review Of Economics And Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.Harhoff, D., Scherer, F., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.Hert, D. G., Fredlake, C. P., & Barron, A. E. (2008). Advantages and limitations of next-generation sequencing technologies: A comparison of electrophoresis and non-electrophoresis methods. ELECTROPHORESIS,29(23), 4618–4626. doi:10.1002/elps.200800456Hudson, K., Lifton, R., Bray, P.-L., Burchard, E. G., Coles, T., Collins, R., … Riley, C. (2015). The precision medicine initiative cohort program – building a research foundation for 21 st century medicine. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://acd.od.nih.gov/reports/DRAFT-PMI-WG-Report-9-11-2015-508.pdfIllumina (2011), Annual Report 2010Illumina (2013), Annual Report 2012Illumina (2017), Annual Report 2016Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent Bio-systems, Inc., no. 15-1123 (Fed. Cir. 2016).Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129–151.Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2001b, December). Enforcing intellectual property rights. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8656.pdfMardis, E. R. (2008). The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics. Trends in Genetics, 24(3), 133–141.Markman, G. D., Espina, M. I., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Patents as surrogates for inimitable and Non-Substitutable resources. Journal of Management, 30(4), 529–544.Metzker, M. L. (2009). Sequencing technologies [mdash] the next generation: Abstract: Nature reviews genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(1), 31–46.Meurer, M. J., & Bessen, J. E. (2005). Lessons for patent policy from empirical research on patent litigation by Michael J. Meurer, James E. Bessen: SSRN. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9(1), 1–27.PCR Licensing | Roche Molecular Diagnostics. (2016). Molecular.roche.com. Retrieved 2 May 2017, from https://molecular.roche.com/innovation/pcr/licensing/Penrose, E. (2002). The growth of the firm: The legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford University Press.Porter, M. E. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance ; with a new introduction. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.Report of the economic survey 2015. (2015). Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://files.ctctcdn.com/e79ee274201/b6ced6c3-d1ee-4ee7-9873-352dbe08d8fd.pdfShendure, J., & Ji, H. (2008). Next-generation DNA sequencing: Abstract: Nature biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 26(10), 1135–1145.Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., Criscuolo, C., & OECD, F. (2013). Measuring patent quality. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers.Stafford, K. A. (2005). Reach-through royalties in biomedical research tool patent licensing: implications of NIH guidelines on small biotechnology firms. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 9(3), 699–717.Standard-essential patents (2014). Competition policy brief. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/008_en.pdfThe cost of sequencing a human genome. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/27565109/the-cost-of-sequencing-a-human-genome/Thermo Fisher Scientific. (2014). Thermo Fisher Scientific Completes Acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://news.thermofisher.com/press-release/corporate/thermo-fisher-scientific-completes-acquisition-life-technologies-corporationThermo Fisher Scientific. (2016). Thermo Fisher Scientific Completes Acquisition of Affymetrix Following Approval of Transaction by Affymetrix Stockholders. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://ir.thermofisher.com/investors/news-and-events/news-releases/news-release-details/2016/Thermo-Fisher-Scientific-Completes-Acquisition-of-Affymetrix-Following-Approval-of-Transaction-by-Affymetrix-Stockholders/default.aspxWernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.WIPO. (2011). What is intellectual property? Retrieved October 23, 2016, from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdfZimmerman, E. (2014). Illumina is No. 1 on the MIT Technology Review list of the 50 Smartest Companies. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 4 May 2017, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/524531/why-illumina-is-no-1/ zh_TW
