Posts Tagged: "prostate"

NIH Director Collins Stands Up to the March in Mob

The problem with this theory is that the Bayh-Dole Act does not provide agencies the authority to regulate product prices. The law allows universities and contractors to own inventions made with federal funding so that they can be effectively commercialized. Congress included safeguards in case a dominant company licensed a breakthrough technology with the deliberate purpose of suppressing it, perhaps because it threatened an existing product. If good faith efforts are not being made to bring the invention to “practical application” so it is available on “reasonable terms” the funding agency can march in requiring that another company be licensed “upon terms that are reasonable under the circumstances.” Agencies can also march in if the developer is not able to produce enough product to meet public health or safety needs. In none of these situations is the government empowered to march in just because it doesn’t like a price.

Joseph Allen

June 27, 2016

Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

The first patent received by an HBCU was on April 11, 1978, assigned to Shaw University of Raleigh, NC. Between 1969 and 2012, HBCUs received 100 utility patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in various fields, including energy, advanced manufacturing technology, nanotechnology and breast cancer treatment. Although this is a very small portion of patents issued by the USPTO during that period, the rate at which HBCUs have received patents has increased exponentially in recent years. In 2010, HBCUs received 10 patents; in 2011, 17 patents; and in 2012, 24 patents.

Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann

February 17, 2014

Judge Dyk Suggests En Banc Review of CAFC Preamble Law

I would also like to take issue with Judge Dyk’s statement that it would simply be easier, and better, to say that anything in the preamble is limiting. Yes, that would certainly be easier and probably a better approach than the nebulous standard presently in place, but I doubt that would be to the Supreme Court’s liking given they seem to detest bright line rules, even when they make sense. I also protest such an approach because that has, as far as I can tell, never been the law, or at least not at any time during my practice career. So regardless of whether it is a better test it absolutely should not be applied retroactively to affect those rights obtained under the belief that what is in the preamble is not limiting.

Gene Quinn

September 14, 2010