I'm pretty sure you're not right about research use. Wikipedia states:
cisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.
'In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."'
The pertinent part of US statute is 35 USC 271(e)(1).
I wasn't fully cognisant of the Madey vs Duke decision but it does address the situation of attempting to hide commercial action behind a guise of scientific experiment. The "philosophical inquiry" (sic) surely covers experiment that is not motivated by commercial interests.
They've gone too far IMO, the German position appears to hold most closely to the purpose of the patent system where they are more liberal in allowing commercially motivated experiment (and rightly), how else can improvements and developments be made.
Merck vs Integra appears to reverse this to some extent but is specific to the area of FDA testing and is thus quite hard to apply generally IMO.
As far as the European/UK position most states appear to follow the once proposed but unimplemented CPC Art.27(b) and thus have statutory exemptions for research use.
In particular in the UK, Patents Act as amended, SS60(5) states that use of a patent is not infringing if:
(a) it's for personal use
(b) it's done for experiment
...
See for example the MPP, www.ipo.gov.uk/practice-sec-060.pdf. The 2006 Gowers Review gave as it's first recommendation that this section should be clarified to make it clear that research was an allowed, non-infringing, activity.
cisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.
'In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."'