IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "duke university"

College, University Trademark Enforcement Campaigns Not a New Phenomenon

This activity has drawn a lot of attention and some commentators have gone so far as to decry these actions as “trademark bullying” carried out by powerful university interests and detrimental to the prospects of small businesses. According to trademark lawyer Josh Gerben, founder and principal of the Gerben Law Firm, not every trademark enforcement campaign by a university constitutes bullying. “Universities have a lot of value in their trademarks and they have a legal requirement to police the marketplace to protect their trademarks,” Gerben said. “In some instances, universities just appear to forget about the public relations consequences of taking legal action, and, while the action may be legally justified, it is done in  a way that makes the university appear to be a bully.”

Is Brookings Pushing an Efficient Infringer Narrative with Biased Panel Discussion?

Unfortunately, there’s every indication that today’s event at Brookings will feature more of the same kind of misguided rhetoric on perceived issues with the patent system which don’t truly exist. The evidence for this starts with the moderator for the day’s final roundtable discussion, titled Realigning Incentives to Increase Patent Quality. The moderator for this discussion will be Tim Lee, senior reporter of tech policy for Ars Technica. Lee has written in the past on the effects of “ridiculous patent litigation” and has given space to viewpoints which want to limit patentability in certain sectors, such as in business methods. Lee has also been very critical of appellate court decisions in patent cases in recent years to the point that assertions he’s made on case law regarding the patentability of software inventions border on the ridiculously absurd. This individual, who has a clearly anti-patent viewpoint, will be controlling the discussion during the final panel roundtable on patent policy.

Pity the Patients if Exclusive Licensing is Undermined

We’ve learned from experience that just because a theory’s off base doesn’t mean it won’t take root, particularly when it involves patents and medicine. “No Vaccines Before the Next Zika Outbreak?: A Case for IP Preparedness”  by Professor Ana Santos Rutshman, a faculty fellow in Health Law and Intellectual Property at DePaul University, Co-Director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliances at Duke University, and consultant to the World Health Organization, previews  her upcoming UCLA law review article. It could be titled “Developing Treatments Without Patents: Let’s Give it a Try.” The article blames exclusive licensing for the lack of a Zika vaccine citing the failed deal between the Department of the Army and Sanofi. The remedy: banning exclusive licensing for federally supported inventions related to specific diseases while imposing price controls on other life science discoveries. Before this bandwagon rolls, let’s look at the quality of its construction.

Forward Looking Personalized Medicine, Patent Law and Science

Social policy concerns have influenced the AMP v Myriad debate. The Supreme Court, to the extent it must make a ruling for our times, informed by societal context, should dispassionately consider all the available empirical evidence, from the academic work cited here, to the claim scope limits resulting from massive sequence publication projects and recent court cases, and the thriving innovation ecosystem in personalized medicine at and among for profit and not for profits, and render a clear forward compatible decision for us all.

Cloaking Device Inventor Says Deflector Shield Realized

Like so many other popular science fiction books, movies and franchises, Star Trek has inspired many innovators to ask the question “why not?” Although Star Trek did not have a monopoly on inspiration for cloaking devices, a technology that was first awarded a U.S. patent earlier this year, it is hard to imagine a more powerful motivation for the pursuit of deflector shields. And earlier today the company that owns the first patented cloaking device claims to have successfully created a deflector shield body armor suit.

Patent Granted on Long-Acting Drug for Multiple Sclerosis

The conjugates covered by this patent could enable less frequent and better tolerated dosing of one of the most widely used treatments worldwide for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, interferon-beta-1b. The invention described in the European Patent relates to methods for the preparation of conjugates of poly(ethylene glycol), and derivatives thereof, with interferon-beta-1b. Compared to the corresponding unconjugated bioactive components, the conjugates of the invention have increased stability (i.e., longer shelf life and longer half-lives in vivo). In addition, compared to conjugates of the same bioactive component prepared with polymer chains that are attached randomly to solvent-accessible sites along the polypeptide chains, the conjugates of the invention have increased receptor-binding activity and increased potency.

An Inconvenient Truth: Patents Do Not Deter Research

Carrier goes on to detail the comprehensive research of Professor John Walsh who in 2007 surveyed 1125 biomedical researchers in universities, government labs and nonprofit institutions. Walsh received 414 responses and the responses were overwhelmingly clear. Carrier explains that only 3% of respondents indicated that they stopped pursuit of a research agenda based on an excess of patents present in the space. Furthermore, Carrier explained that a mere 5% of respondents even regularly checked for patents related to their research and “no respondents reported that they had abandoned a line of research because of a patent.”

Patent Reality Check: The Hypocrisy of Duke University on Patents

There are few things in this world that irritate me more than hypocrisy. Did you know that since 1976 Duke University has had 716 issued US patents, 266 of which in some way, shape or form relate to genetics and 156 of which relate in some way, shape or form relate to both genetics AND cancer. While Duke University throws Myriad Genetics under the bus over its patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes tied to breast and ovarian cancer, Duke has its own patent on identification and sequencing of the BRCA2 cancer susceptibility gene. How convenient!

NEWSFLASH: Duke Researchers Say Patents Block Competition

Last week, on Thursday, April 15, 2010, while many individuals were scrambling at the last minute to file income tax returns in the US, Duke University released a study that, not surprisingly, says patents block competition. WOW! Thank you so much for clearing that up Duke! What would we have ever done without the learned elite at Duke University telling us that patents block competition. Seriously… what was your first clue? For goodness sakes I hope you didn’t take much time or energy coming to that conclusion, given that is exactly what patents are supposed to do. You see, they provide exclusive rights, which means the owner of the right has the ability to exclude. So let’s all breath a sigh of relief that the money spent on an academic study actually reached a conclusion that is true and accurate. Now, if the conclusions drawn from the study were only as commonsensical as the discovery of patents conveying exclusive rights.