Anderson

One criticism of technology transfer offices is that some may have difficulty making enough money through deals to cover their overhead.   Surely, the benefits of a technology transfer office shouldn’t be limited to revenue generated and there are other opportunities to benefit a university such as practical training opportunities for students.   Moreover, the local community may even benefit through new jobs and tax revenue.   An article in the Recorder came across my desk this morning concerning University of California, San Diego's (UCSD) technology transfer office titled, "UC-San Diego Director Touts its Plethora of Patents."   It describes an interview with a technology transfer office at a high performing University of California campus.   Another notice I received concerns a webinar about how smaller technology transfer offices can “overperform.”    San Diego, located in southern California, has long been known as a hot bed for bio...

There is nothing in any other IP regime analogous to the generic/proprietary divide with respect to the exploitation of patent rights in the pharmaceutical industry. The relatively short period of patent protection, 25 years at the most, in light of the multi-generational staying power of some drugs, means that there is potentially big business in commercially exploiting the public domain after a drug has come off patent. Add to this the symbiotic relationship between proprietary and generic products; without the patent protection undergirding the former, the latter would never come to be. While a first view of the proprietary/ generic landscape might lead one to think that it is a zero-sum game, i.e., a company that is engaged in proprietary products will not also be involved in the generic market, and vice versa, the commercial reality is much more complex and nuanced. There is no pharmaceutical company that better reflects the challenges of trying to master both these product mark...

Some have criticized Donald Trump for backing off of some of his campaign promises.  However, in a press conference on January 11, 2017, Trump reiterated his concern with drug prices stating that drug companies "are getting away with murder."  I don't know if he could have expressed himself in stronger terms.  Notably, the Washington Post reported that the stock of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies dropped after the press conference and that concerns were expressed by one biotechnology insider that venture capitalists may move away from biotechnology companies.  This is troubling given the competition that already exists for venture capital funds from software startups and the promise of expensive to develop biologics.  Moreover, some successful securitization deals have greatly benefited a few universities.  The move to take a big step toward drying up the pipeline for new biologics may not be the best approach.  What are som...

The Trump presidency is looming ahead, but what of intellectual property policy.   Interestingly, BNA reported that a Republican Congressional Representative from California ( Issa ) called on Trump to keep Michelle K. Lee as head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.   There also have been grumblings about pushing for legislation to undermine and reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent eligible subject matter.   Recently, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) sent an advice letter to Trump regarding intellectual property.   Notably, the AIPLA letter covers patent, trademark and copyright law in some relative detail, and also gives some advice regarding trade secret law, domain names and other matters.   The copyright focus of the letter relates mostly to Copyright Office leadership choice and modernization.   The trademark focus is on consistency of decision making concerning section 2(a) on dispara...