The research exception has been construed narrowly by courts and doesn’t really exist
Josh Saul, 2024 - J.D. Candidate, 2025, Fordham University School of Law; Ph.D., 2021, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; B.A., 2014, University of California, Berkeley. “GENE PATENTS: STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN INCENTIVE AND INNOVATION” FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, Vol. 92: 2765, May, https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Vol.-92_29_Saul-2765-2804.pdf //DH
Additionally, an accused infringer can argue that their use is covered by the research use exception, which permits certain uses of a patented innovation that would otherwise constitute infringement.76 Such uses include those undertaken “for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry”—often uses associated with academic pursuits77—as well as some limited statutorily authorized exceptions.78 However, courts have traditionally construed the research use exception narrowly, for example, holding that the use of patented materials by universities to conduct research furthers the university’s business objective by enhancing its status and thus does not fall under the exception.79 Such a narrow scope for the research use exception has led some to suggest that— outside of statutory exceptions—there is effectively no research exception in the United States.80