Jim Greenwood,
President & CEO of BIO

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. Over the last year, as I have increasingly written about biotechnology patent and innovation policy, I have admired Greenwood’s work at BIO and have even opined that I wished all of our industry organizations were run as such a well oiled machine. If all innovation and patent industry groups were run as efficiently and capably as BIO, we would likely have better, more coherent patent laws.

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.

Jim Greenwood, BIO President & CEO

Late last night the United States House of Representatives passed the Senate Health Care Bill that has been debated for nearly a year.  Like the clear majority of Americans who oppose the bill, I think this was the wrong thing to do and will ultimately be a disaster.  I realize there are 30 million Americans without health insurance, but they will remain without health insurance for the next 4 years, so it is hard to believe that anything will change for the better for the uninsured in the near term.  The debate also seems to completely ignore the 270 million Americans who have health insurance.  Yes, costs are rising and need to be reigned in, but creating another entitlement is the wrong thing to do, particularly when Social Security and Medicare alone are collectively going to already be in the red to the tune of $50 trillion in coming years. See Statement of Judd Gregg (R-NH).  But at least BIO was able to get provisions into the bill that will truly spur biotech innovation.

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.  Among the many events for BIO International, there will be BIO Career Fair, which is free to all job seekers.  Additionally, BIOPark will host academics, tech transfers and early stage companies looking to showcase innovative technologies.

“BIO is thrilled that Director Kappos, a renowned thought leader in IP policy, will be joining us at the 2010 BIO International Convention. His comments will provide attendees with new insight into global IP issues, the future of patent reform and the effect of patent policy on scientific discovery,” said BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood.

For many months we have been hearing about the government attempts to “reform” health care in the United States, and this weekend the United States Senate is actually working, yes Senators working on a weekend, as the contentious debate continues. Even a relatively rare Presidential visit to Capitol Hill is scheduled for later this afternoon, presumably so President Obama can rally the troops for whatever lies ahead. While patent policy has not taken center stage in these debates, it is hard to ignore the under current that rages through the debates. Health care costs too much, so costs need to be contained. Of course, market initiatives like a national heath insurance market, which would lower premiums for everyone overnight, are not being considered. Likewise, attempts to prevent those without insurance from clogging up emergency rooms for simple matters like runny noses, sprains, colds and a litany of other ailment is not on the table either, so rather than discussing health insurance premium reform and government sponsored clinics in areas where there is the highest density of uninsured, we are debating a host of other things and trying to squeeze the private sector. I have long wondered why there has been such an all-out patent war against pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, but the ACLU patent challenge against Myriad Genetics and the assault on biologic from some corners of government has me thinking that the preferred way to control costs in the minds of some politicians is to either stop or dramatically slow medical technology progress through revised patent and innovation policy. That is a mistake, an enormous mistake. We enjoy an ever increasing life span and higher quality medical care than anywhere in the world because of technology and innovative advances in an array of disciplines, and that MUST be preserved.

A press release issued earlier today by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) explained that a new article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) urges Congress and the White House to revisit pending biogenerics legislation that would grant biotech companies an a 12-year exclusivity period for biologics. The press release explains that the experts, who are Harvard researchers and unidentified patent experts are adding “to an emerging consensus, including the Federal Trade Commission, which has concluded that 12 years of market exclusivity for biologics is unnecessary.” I suppose anyone can say anything in a press release. I am still troubled by the arrogance on display by PCMA though. Either they do not know what a “consensus” is, or they are simply intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to further their own agenda. In either case it is appalling that the discourse relating to patents and exclusive rights has devolved to the point where the truth no longer matters and the masses are mislead by things that simply are not true.

A little over a week ago, in a blog post written by Microsoft’s Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez started what will certainly become one of the most profound debates the patent and innovation industry has seen in a very long time, and perhaps the most profound debate that has occurred since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued whether the fledgling United States of America should grant strong patent protections or weak patent protections. Famously, Madison won the day convincing Jefferson that if the new nation wanted to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and attract the best and brightest we needed strong protections. Jefferson was initially very skeptical, not wanting the US to turn into England, where patents were handed out as favors from the Crown to loyal subjects who were rewarded for being loyal or otherwise a friend to the Crown. Jefferson acquiesced and his views later substantially changed to the point where he realized that meaningful protections were indeed necessary and critical. This all could unravel before our eyes as a new push from Microsoft seeks to take patent harmonization to new heights with the ushering in of a global patent system and a global patent. The World Intellectual Property Organization will hold an international symposium in Geneva on September 17 and 18, 2009, which will focus on operational deficiencies in global IP systems.

Earlier today James Love and James Glassman published what can only be described as an intellectually dishonest op-ed piece on RollCall.com.  The two James either simply do not understand patent law, the biologics legislation they detest or have an agenda that requires lying and obscuring the truth using scare tactics and falsehoods.  I don’t really know whether they are as clueless as their op-ed makes them appear, of if this is an orchestrated effort to persuade public opinion using obviously incorrect conclusions that are thrown about as if they were objective fact.  To be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less whether they are malicious, misinformed or just stupid.  What I do care about is that their opinions are completely and utterly wrong, the supposed facts they rely on are false and those of us who understand patent law and this particular piece of legislation must do whatever is necessary to prevent to commandeering of patent policy to achieve whatever ill-conceived social agenda they seek to promote.  The cause du jour cannot and must not lead us to make bad innovation policy that will unravel the Constitutional mandate to foster innovation.

Jim Greenwood

On Thursday morning, August 13, 2009, CNBC aired a segment titled Fixing America’s Health Care System on Squawk Box, which is CNBC’s longest running program.  Appearing on the program were Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who is a former FDA deputy commissioner, Tommy Thompson, former Health & Human Services Secretary and Wisconsin Governor and Jim Greenwood, a former Republican Congressman who is currently CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).  Despite the tone of the questioning, the segment is well worth watching and will no doubt dispel the myths and lack of understanding by open-minded individuals who question why the biotechnology industry wanted 12 to 14 years of exclusivity for biologics, when the FTC said zero years of exclusivity would be sufficient, President Obama wanted no more than 7 years of exclusivity and Congress opted for 12 years of protection.  Co-anchor Joe Kernan started off the questioning by saying: “How did you get 12 years? Why exclude biotechnology from the cost pressures that everyone else is going to have to live under?”  But I guess that type of hostility is to be expected when an NBC “news” organization gets three Republicans in the room.