In the field of mesenchymic stem cells (MSCs), companies have identical or related products at a late stage of clinical trials and patent protection is unlikely. Since there is no consensus definition of an MSC yet, it is even difficult to determine whether legal actions can be successful. The ceasefire is also used outside the context of wars and the military to refer to an informal agreement between two people in order to interrupt an argument or quarrel, especially one that has lasted for a long time. Such a ceasefire is often offered in the form of a question simply by saying, “Peace?” If the other person agrees, they can simply say, “Peace.” The ceasefire is often used in the context of wars and other military conflicts. But it is also often used in a much more casual way to refer to an agreement to end a petty argument. At NIH CRM, we have made efforts to make well-characterized iPSC lines widely available using a repository model, and we strongly encourage investigators to consider filing lines using a hardware transfer agreement that, like the one we have developed, does not reach downstream products or limits the use of cells for non-commercial purposes. Similarly, we have developed TALENs with an open source system that we have made widely available to commercial and non-commercial enterprises. The strategy of the non-profit company Addgene (Cambridge, MA, USA) in our own stem cell field is an example of successful collaborative work that allows free sharing of vectors with a standardized model. Addgene collaborates with the UBMTA (Uniform Biological Materials Transfer Agreement), which contributed to the development of the NIH and explicitly defined the scope and was important for widespread technology and access to reagents at a reasonable cost. And commercial operators have found that these costs are in a competitive field for them in order to offer competing alternatives. We could encourage investigators to use addgens services and, more importantly, to help improve the usefulness of this community effort. The nature of patent law brings a possible ironic turning point in the proceedings. Patent law requires, on the one hand, that there be sufficient description for anyone reasonably experienced in the technique to reproduce your results, a logical requirement to prevent imaginative claims.

On the other hand, you can only patent something really new, and this novelty may require fairly narrow definitions.