Posts Tagged: "bio"

In this edition of News, Notes & Announcements, patent attorneys asked to participate in an inequitable conduct study, BIO seeks session proposals for 2011 Convention, Huffington Post and other popular press starting to report that patent backlog is costing jobs, the Second Circuit refuses en banc rehearing in reverse patent payments case and PLI sponsoring yours truly on a speaking tour.

I understand the objections to embryonic stem cell research, but I simply cannot understand anyone that has a moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. How is it moral to watch those with crippling diseases agonize without trying to do everything we possibly can to find cures and treatments? Simply put, there is nothing moral about watching the suffering of another human being and doing nothing.

Those who are opposed to exclusive rights because it prevents innovation and provides no benefit to the public really should do their homework. They run about throwing this study from an agenda driven economist or that study from a disgruntled economist as if these fictitious mental exercises that ignore reality are evidence of some kind. At the same time they ridicule and pick apart the Studies that reach a contrary conclusion, and simply ignore facts. In this space we really don’t need to be doing any Studies. We just need to observe history. The numbers simply do not lie. Granting exclusive rights has resulted in 13 times the number of drugs to treat rare disease.

All in all I would characterize the mood of the PTO officials I spoke with as up-beat and the mood of the stakeholders in attendance was generally positive, but with reservations about the mechanics of Track 3. After the event I too would be upbeat if I were among the senior ranks at the USPTO. Those aspects that were viewed as negative or needing more work or clarification seemed few, were identified over and over again and should be addressable. That being the case it seems the majority of the proposal is acceptable and the community remains hungry for these types of creative initiatives, which sadly is all we have given that Congress continues to be AWOL on even relatively meaningless reforms, let alone reforms that could actually do some real good.

“In our amicus brief, BIO urged the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s rigid new test for determining whether a method or process is eligible for patenting. We are pleased that the Justices crafted a narrow opinion that does just that. The Court was clearly conscious of the potential negative and unforeseeable consequences of a broad and sweeping decision,” stated BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood. “This ruling specifically states that the ‘machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility’ and recognized that the lower court’s ruling could have created uncertainty in fields such as advanced diagnostic medicine techniques.”

There is some irony that on the day we mark the 30th anniversary of the decision that launched the modern biotechnology industry we are still awaiting a decision on a patentable subject matter case — Bilski v. Kappos. Bilski has the potential to not only kill business methods, but also the software industry, the biotechnology industry and much of the medical innovation we see growing by leaps and bounds. So for today I toast the Supreme Court decision that launched the biotech industry, created millions of jobs and has lead to innumerable cures and treatments. I just hope that tomorrow (or whenever the Supreme Court issues its Bilski decision) it is not all for naught.

Katehi also has some interesting suggestions regarding what the Patent Office could do to help Universities, both in speeding up the patent process and in keeping costs lower. I learned a lot from speaking with Katehi, which supplemented my knowledge based on my experiences at Syracuse University. What I am continually piecing together suggests that there is no great surprise why most Universities do not do a better job with respect to technology transfer. There are things that are clearly considered best practices in the private sector that seem to elude Universities for the most part. The University of California system seems to be out in front and trying to bring the best practices of the private sector into Universities. It is no wonder they do a better job than most with technology transfer.

Wednesday was my day to walk through the BIO Exhibit Hall. I had already decided to blow off the Al Gore “media availability.” I am not sure exactly what that is, but as near as I can tell it meant I would get to listen to the first 5 minutes of Al Gore’s keynote address. I’m not a big Gore fan, and there were so many cool innovations to learn about. I love to talk shop and nothing quite captures me like innovation, innovators and those who speak the language of business. So… sorry Mr. Vice President, this nerd decided to join the other nerds in the Exhibit Hall. The decision to skip the Gore media availability was sealed when I learned of an tech transfer iPhone app that needed some investigation. Hey, I can’t help it, I’m an electrical and computer engineer at a BIO Convention?!?! I needed some computer angle somewhere!

What follows are pieces of Director Kappos’ remarks at the session prior to taking questions and answers. While it is probably unfair to call these remarks prepared remarks, it was clear that he referred to his notes as he provided detailed information and statistics. He also seemed to be reading what he said when he spoke about the ACLU case against Myriad Genetics, but who can blame him given the USPTO was a nominal party to the case and it will be appealed to the Federal Circuit. It is also worth mentioning that during the Q&A there were a few interesting things that came up, chief among them was Kappos’ explanation of the long odds facing a small entity claiming to be the first to invent but who filed the patent application second. Kappos likened the odds of such a Junior Party prevailing to the odds of being bitten by a Grizzly Bear and a Polar Bear on the same day. He then went on to say that you have to go back to FY 2007 to find a prevailing small entity Junior Party in an interference.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2010, I had the pleasure of conducting an exclusive, on the record interview with Jim Greenwood, former Congressman and current President & CEO of BIO. It was a treat to chat with Jim Greenwood. Our conversation lasted about 35 minutes, and we talked about his decision to leave Congress to take over at BIO, exciting new technologies BIO companies are working on, healthcare reform, the importance of patents to start-up companies and capital investment requirements. We also learn that he is an avid bird watcher and has started to become a bit of a gym rat.

Presentation of the third annual George Washington Carver Award will recognize significant contributions by an individual in the field of industrial biotechnology, including applications in biological engineering, environmental science, biorefining and biobased products. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is accepting nominations for the 2010 George Washington Carver Award, which will be presented at the 2010 World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing, June 27-30, 2009 in Washington, D.C. The deadline for nominations is April 12, 2010.

Notwithstanding the above, I am conflicted in my feelings. It seems that one of the deals included in the Health Care Bill, provisions aimed at biotechnology, are unquestionably good. This is not the type of deal where residents of Nebraska get the rest of us to pay for them, or where seniors in Florida get to keep prescription coverage courtesy of the federal government while seniors everywhere else lose. The provisions favorable to the biotech community will spur innovation, lead to new cures and undoubtedly prolong life. If only Congress could have passed these provisions and scrapped the rest.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has just announced that David Kappos, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, will be a featured speaker at the Intellectual Property Super Session taking place during the 2010 BIO International Convention. The May 3 event, entitled “Leveraging IP to Spur Global Biotechnology Innovation, Investment and Jobs,” will examine the role that intellectual property systems play in attracting biotech investment and how some countries are successfully leveraging their patent policies to foster economic growth.

WASHINGTON, DC (December 24, 2009) – Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO Jim Greenwood released the following statement on today’s vote by the Senate to pass The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: The health care reform bill passed today by the Senate includes many provisions which serve as early Christmas presents for patients living with debilitating…

A study released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) provides first-of-its-kind data on the importance of university/industry research and development partnerships to the U.S. economy. The study of university technology licensing from 1996 to 2007 shows a $187 billion dollar positive impact on the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) and a $457 billion addition to gross industrial output, using…