-
Featured Authors
Archive
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (3)
- September 2012 (3)
- August 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (7)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (5)
- August 2011 (4)
- July 2011 (8)
- June 2011 (16)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (9)
- March 2011 (14)
- February 2011 (9)
- January 2011 (15)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (6)
- October 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (14)
- March 2010 (4)
- January 2010 (5)
- November 2009 (3)
- October 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (9)
- June 2009 (9)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (9)
- March 2009 (9)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- November 2008 (1)
Category Archives: Patently BIOtech
NIH Licensing Efforts Target Start-Ups
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new short-term licensing arrangement they hope will encourage licensing of NIH and FDA inventions to start-up companies. The NIH Start-Up Exclusive License Agreements targets start-up companies less than 5 years old, with less than $5M in raised capital, and fewer thans than 50 employees. By offering an exclusive license, they hope to accelerate the technology transfer process. However, this temporary pilot program runs only until September 30, Read More >
Exclusive Licenses Do Not Discourage Follow On Research
A recent study presented at the Patent Statistics for Decision Makers Conference organized at the United States Patent Office questions the logic behind a nonexclusive license preference often found in U.S. government technology transfer policy. In “The Role of Exclusive Licensing in Follow-on Research of Academic Patented Inventions” presentation the authors demonstrate that, contrary to the belief by some, exclusive licensing does not impede future research. The authors ask two questions. First, does exclusive licensing affect licensee follow-on research? Read More >
BIO’s Prometheus v. Mayo Amicus Brief Filed
BIO filed an amicus brief in the Prometheus v. Mayo Clinic case. In this case the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether diagnostic and personalized medicine claims that depend on a correlation of observed phenomena should be excluded from the patent system at the outset, as patent-ineligible abstract ideas or “laws of nature.” BIO’s brief argues that these judicially-created exclusions from patent-eligibility have traditionally been used only under narrow circumstances, and that their Read More >
IPCC Features Update on Patent Reform Implementation
The BIO Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Fall Conference featured an update on the implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act by Janet Gongola, Associate Solicitor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Some provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act took effect immediately when it was signed into law in September. Ms. Gongola reported that of the 20 provisions that must be implemented by the PTO, eight have been implemented and another ten are Read More >
The Critical Importance of International Patent Protection for Small Businesses
As part of the implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently held two public hearing on international patent protection. Stanley C. Erck, President and CEO of Novavax, Inc., testified on behalf of BIO in support of an initiative to reduce filing and prosecution costs for international patent protection of biotech inventions. In his testimony, Mr. Erck explained the important role patents play in the biotechnology industry. The Read More >
