In a recent patent infringement case, Madey v. Duke University, the
court did not support Duke's experimental use defense. Read a one page
brief here:

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/pdf_files/lsung/2002/021004.pdf

The experimental use defense protects the use of patented technology
by third parties "...for amusement, to satisfy idle curiousity, or for
strictly philosophical inquiry." (This protection, it seems, is
similar in spirit to the Fair Use provisions in Copyright law.)

My question: If the Duke case represents a non-example of experimental
use, what are some cases that describe legitimate experimental uses?

Pre-clarification: I am most interested in cases that involve
university research by graduate students working on theses or
dissertations, and then in cases that involve any kind of university
research. If none exist in either category, so be it--I'll take what I
can get.

Bonus criteria: I will tip $2.50 for each category that is represented
by at least one case: (1) amusement, (2) idle curiousity, and (3)
strictly philosophical inquiry. (No doubling up, ie. one case fits two
categories.) I will tip an additional $2.50 if more than 5 cases are
cited. (...for a maximum of a $10.00 tip.)

Hi

After reading the case law pertaining to experimental use and its
limitations, I must conclude that any work/research conducted as a
grad student for his/her thesis or graduation WOULD NOT be
experimental use.  There is a commercial value in obtaining an
advanced degree.  The only research that might be covered by this
limited, narrow exemption would be work conducted for NO purpose other
than for fun.  For example, if there was a patented method for putting
two chemicals together that would produce a glow in the dark putty
that the students used to throw at each other late at night in lab. 
However, as soon, as you tried to sell the putty, cite its production
on your CV, or give a talk about it, then it would lose its
protection.

Additionally, at the current time with the above cited decisison, any
work conducted by professors at a university would not be covered by
the "experimental use" exemption since the goals of the university
would be achieved, which has commerical value.

Thank you Socal-ga for your comment. I think you present an
interesting argument: "There is commercial value in obtaining an
advanced degree." It's all a matter of degree (pun only slightly
intended...) An advanced degree is earned based on a great deal of
work beyond the dissertation and the -direct- link between the
advanced degree and commercial exploitation (which damages the patent
holder) is weak.

I am still hoping that one of the powerhouse Google researchers out
there will find some cases that present examples of
legitimate/recognized experimental use defenses. (Again, I prefer
university research-related cases, but if they don't exist--so be it.)

Again. thank you socal-ga for weighing in.

PS I found this page which addresses the topic (albeit without
answering my question):
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00156/008583/title/subject/topic/education%20law_colleges/universities/filename/educationlaw_1_145