-
Featured Authors
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
-
Meta
Tag Archives: Stanford v. Roche
Bayh Dole Act a Failure? Part II: The Comments
By Guest Joseph Allen Yesterday we posted the reply of Robin Rasor, President of the Assn of University Technology Managers, to a Washington Post opinion piece by Vivek Wadhwa asserting that the university/industry technology transfer model established under the Bayh-Dole Act had failed and should be replaced. The article set off a series of comments, the most interesting of which occurred when Mr Wadhwa challenged Rasor to document the statistics she used asserting the Bayh-Dole Read More >
Joint Statement of BIO, AAU, ACE, APLU, AUTM and COGR
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the appeal of Stanford University against Roche Diagnostics. This case is of significant interest to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Association of American Universities (AAU), American Council on Education (ACE), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), and Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) because of its potential impact on university technology transfer, on development and commercialization of university-generated Read More >
Media Coverage of BIO’s Intellectual Property Conference in Seattle
Stanford v. Roche: An Academic/Industry Collaboration Gone Wrong A Landmark Case: The Aftermath of Myriad Genetics Ethical Issues: Staying in the Frying Pan and out of the Fire
BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Seattle Meeting Topics
Join us for BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Meeting in Seattle April 13-15. You can find the session topics below. Whose Rights Are They, Anyway? Implications from and a Discussion on Stanford v. Roche The pending Supreme Court review of Stanford v. Roche has brought out multiple perspectives on the disposition of ownership rights in federally funded inventions under Bayh-Dole. This session will explore the different interpretations of the Act’s provisions, and their practical implications Read More >
Patently BIOtech
Leave a comment
Email This Post
Tags: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, BIO, biosimilars, biotechnology, Brazil, China, double patenting, emerging markets, Erik Iverson, ethics, Gates Foundation, humanitarian, in house IP attorneys, India, Intellctual Property, Intellectual Property Counsels, IP Counsels' Committee, Korea, Myriad, Patent Agents, research collaborations, Seattle, Stanford v. Roche
Tags: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, BIO, biosimilars, biotechnology, Brazil, China, double patenting, emerging markets, Erik Iverson, ethics, Gates Foundation, humanitarian, in house IP attorneys, India, Intellctual Property, Intellectual Property Counsels, IP Counsels' Committee, Korea, Myriad, Patent Agents, research collaborations, Seattle, Stanford v. Roche
BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsels’ Committee Spring Conference and Meeting: Seattle
Over the past eight years, BIO’s semiannual IP Counsels Committee Conference has become a popular and growing event among our members’ IP and legal professionals. Our upcoming 2011 Spring IPCC Conference in Seattle, WA on April 13-15 will be an excellent opportunity for IP professionals to hear, listen, and learn about current and projected topics related to biotechnology IP. We invite you to join us in an informal, fun and informative setting to meet fellow in-house Read More >
Patently BIOtech
Leave a comment
Email This Post
Tags: BIO, biosimilars, biotechnology, Biotechnology Industry Organization, double patenting, emerging markets, Ethics for In-House IP Attorneys, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Counsels' Committee, IP Counsels' Committee, IPCC, Myriad, Seattle, Stanford v. Roche
Tags: BIO, biosimilars, biotechnology, Biotechnology Industry Organization, double patenting, emerging markets, Ethics for In-House IP Attorneys, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Counsels' Committee, IP Counsels' Committee, IPCC, Myriad, Seattle, Stanford v. Roche
