直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

The USPTO’s “Experimental Use Exception Request for Comments”

July 12, 2024

Authored and Edited by Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.; Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†

The USPTO released “Experimental Use Exception Request for Comments” in the Federal Register on Friday June 28, 2024. 89 Fed. Reg. 53,963 (June 28, 2024). 

Alleged infringers may argue in certain circumstances that activity is “experimental use” and therefore not infringing. The Federal Circuit, however, has narrowly construed the experimental defense to patent infringement. In Madey v. Duke University, the Federal Circuit concluded that ‘‘regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business and is not solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense.’’ 307 F.3d 1361, 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Similarly, in Roche Prod. V. Bolar Pharm. Co., 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit found the defendant’s conduct in developing a generic drug product infringing since the court “cannot construe the experimental use rule so broadly as to allow a violation of the patent laws in the guise of ‘scientific inquiry,’ when that inquiry has definite, cognizable, and not insubstantial commercial purposes.” Id. at 863.

Following the Roche v. Bolar decision, the United States codified a safe harbor provision for drug development at 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1). This, and similar exemptions in other jurisdictions, are often referred to as a “Bolar exemption.” In addition, the Plant Variety Protection Act contains exemptions that allow for others to use the protected variety in research and for breeding.

The USPTO’s “Experimental Use” request for comments seeks to investigate whether the Bolar exemption should be broadened to include activities beyond drug development, and specifically singles out the agricultural industry as an area where a Bolar exemption may be of interest. The request for comments, however, seeks input from the public about an experimental use exception for all technologies. The current effort purports to be aimed at encouraging innovation and fair competition. The USPTO poses 8 questions along those lines. For example, Question 3:

Please explain what impact, if any, a statutory experimental use exception would have on the innovation and commercialization of new technologies including with respect to: (a) research and development; (b) ability to obtain funding; (c) investment strategy; (d) licensing of patents and patent applications; (e) product development; (f) sales, including downstream and upstream sales; (g) competition; and (h) patent enforcement and litigation.

Takeaways

Written comments must be submitted by Sept. 26, 2024, to be considered.

Tags

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4134
Email
Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 



DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Singapore IP Week 2026

August 26-27, 2026

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Conference

Finnegan IP Summit 2026: Celebrating an Inclusive Talent Pipeline

August 11-13, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP