On October 14, 2014, Stanford’s Professor Mark Lemley tweeted “My new study with Allison & Schwartz shows that software and biotech patent lawsuits overwhelmingly lose.” He was referring to an article entitled Our Divided Patent System, co-authored by Lemley and two other prominent law professors. Taken at face value, the assertion that “biotech patent lawsuits overwhelmingly lose” would seem to hold troubling implications for biotechnology. In order to better understand the basis for Lemley’s assertion, I reanalyzed the underlying data and found that the situation is not nearly as bleak as his tweet might suggest. My significantly different interpretation of the same lawsuits arises in part from my decision to focus on favorable litigation outcomes rather than final patent adjudications. Thus, while Lemley and his co-authors found that biotech companies have only won with respect to 8% of the patents that have been taken to judgment, I looked at the same set of lawsuits and found that, out of a total of sixteen distinct biotech patent litigations, seven appear to result in favorable outcomes for the patent owner (44%). Not only did biotech patent owners benefit from favorable outcomes in nearly half of the litigations, the magnitude of these favorable outcomes was often substantial. This short article assesses the outcome of each biotech litigation identified in Our Divided Patent System, and explain the basis for my determination of favorable or unfavorable outcomes from the perspective of the patent owner.

中文翻译：

---

生物技术专利诉讼真的“压倒性败诉”：对我们分裂的专利制度的回应

2014 年 10 月 14 日，斯坦福大学的 Mark Lemley 教授在推特上写道：“我与 Allison & Schwartz 的新研究表明，软件和生物技术专利诉讼以压倒性优势败诉。” 他指的是由 Lemley 和另外两位著名法学教授合着的一篇题为“我们的专利分割制度”的文章。从表面上看，“生物技术专利诉讼以压倒性优势败诉”的说法似乎对生物技术产生了令人不安的影响。为了更好地理解 Lemley 断言的依据，我重新分析了基础数据，发现情况并不像他的推文所暗示的那样暗淡。我对相同诉讼的截然不同的解释部分源于我决定关注有利的诉讼结果而不是最终的专利裁决。因此，虽然 Lemley 和他的合著者发现生物技术公司只赢得了 8% 的专利，但我查看了同一组诉讼，发现在总共 16 项不同的生物技术专利中在诉讼中，有 7 项似乎为专利所有人带来了有利结果（44%）。在近一半的诉讼中，生物技术专利所有人不仅受益于有利结果，而且这些有利结果的幅度往往很大。这篇简短的文章评估了我们的分立专利制度中确定的每项生物技术诉讼的结果，并从专利所有人的角度解释了我确定有利或不利结果的依据。我查看了同一组诉讼，发现在总共 16 起不同的生物技术专利诉讼中，有 7 起似乎对专利所有人有利（44%）。在近一半的诉讼中，生物技术专利所有人不仅受益于有利结果，而且这些有利结果的幅度往往很大。这篇简短的文章评估了我们的分立专利制度中确定的每项生物技术诉讼的结果，并从专利所有人的角度解释了我确定有利或不利结果的依据。我查看了同一组诉讼，发现在总共 16 起不同的生物技术专利诉讼中，有 7 起似乎对专利所有人有利（44%）。在近一半的诉讼中，生物技术专利所有人不仅受益于有利结果，而且这些有利结果的幅度往往很大。这篇简短的文章评估了我们的分立专利制度中确定的每项生物技术诉讼的结果，并从专利所有人的角度解释了我确定有利或不利结果的依据。这些有利的结果往往是巨大的。这篇简短的文章评估了我们的分立专利制度中确定的每项生物技术诉讼的结果，并从专利所有人的角度解释了我确定有利或不利结果的依据。这些有利的结果往往是巨大的。这篇简短的文章评估了我们的分立专利制度中确定的每项生物技术诉讼的结果，并从专利所有人的角度解释了我确定有利或不利结果的依据。