Tuesday, 14 November 2017
As previously discussed, China has been criticized for outright theft of trade secrets as well as requiring the disclosure of trade secrets to do business in China. Keith Zhai, Bloomberg Technology, has reported in an article, “China Says Foreign Firms won’t be Forced to Turn Over Technology,” that a senior Chinese official has stated that market access in China will not require disclosure of trade secrets. Notably, the article also states that China “pledged . . . to treat all companies equally" and the timing of the announcement came “close in time” to Trump’s exit from China. It will be interesting to see if there are meaningful changes.
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
About the Speaker
Professor Graham Richards is a pioneer of British technology transfer. The university spin out that he established -- Oxford Molecular Group, was the first university spin out after the UK introduced a regulatory change that attributed the IPR generated in a university context to the university itself. Under the leadership of Professor Richards, Oxford Molecular Plc grew from a £350,000 start-up to a £450 million public company. He is also a founding member of the Technology Transfer Office of the University of Oxford and he was a director there for over 20 years. Another flagship project is the publicly traded company IP Group Plc. Originally created out of the necessity to attract further funding for the chemistry department of the University of Oxford, it is nowadays one of the most important investors in technology generated by universities. IP Group Plc is a FTSE 250 company with a market cap of £1 billion.
How to Join
Please sign up here with your professional email account. The program organizers will not accept a registration from a personal email address.
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Covestro, a chemical company which uses digital technologies to build better products, has joined the LOT Network. As previously discussed, the LOT Network was started to thwart patent trolls. Essentially, each member agrees to provide a license to the other members of the network if their patent is transferred to a patent troll. Covestro’s press release states:
“With the convergence of the chemical industry and digital technologies, our sector has increased exposure to PAE litigation,” said Gilbert Voortmans, Vice President, Head of Intellectual Property Rights at Covestro. “Innovation is core to our business, and we feel it’s important to take a stance against anything that could interfere with the fair use of intellectual property.”
Interestingly, this is the first chemical company to join the LOT Network, according to the press release. We’ll have to see whether other companies in industries generally thought not to be subject to troll suits will join the network, particularly as digital technologies influence almost all industries. Moreover, I count around 170 members listed on the LOT Network website, including companies ranging from Alibaba to Crate and Barrel to Wells Fargo to Uber to Target to Honda. I wonder if universities should create something like the LOT Network to protect themselves from future suits by university based patents.
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
U.S. Senator McCaskill has introduced a Bill that would remove sovereign immunity as a defense against Inter Partes Review of patents for Indian Tribes. The Bill is refreshingly short. It states:
To abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter partes review of patents.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Abrogation of tribal immunity in certain patent claims.
(a) Definition.—In this section, the term “Indian tribe” has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703).
(b) Abrogation of immunity for purposes of inter partes review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe may not assert sovereign immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted under chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code.
As previously discussed, the Bill is directed at Allergen’s recent attempt to use sovereign immunity of Indian Tribes to insulate patents from Inter Partes Review at the PTO by transferring its patents to the tribe in exchange for cash. Notably, Judge Bryson (of the Federal Circuit), sitting at the trial court level, recently asked Allergen to demonstrate that its transfer is not a “sham." Judge Bryson further found the Allergen patents to be obvious.
Saturday, 28 October 2017
In their article, the authors argue that eponymously-named enterprises result in better performance as measured by the return on assets (3% percent greater). The authors develop an explanation for this finding, centering on what they call signaling, noting that--
“[s]pecifically, eponymy creates a stronger association between the entrepreneur and her firm that increases the reputational benefits or costs of having the market hold a favorable or unfavorable impression of her ability (or of the quality of her firm). Consequently, high-ability entrepreneurs are more drawn to eponymy than are low-ability ones.”Contrary to common perception—
“Our key assumption is that greater levels of the signaling activity (i.e., a stronger association between the firm and the entrepreneur herself) are not directly costly, but instead increase the reputational impact of successful or unsuccessful outcomes.”Lying at the heart of their results is what kind of person is more likely to choose to put his or her name on an enterprise. An eponymous company name puts at stake the reputation not only of the entity, but the person behind it. This may especially so when a start-up is involved. What seems to be suggested is a bit of self-selection. People of higher ability are more likely to select an eponymous name for their company, and customers are likely to understand the signal in this manner, thereby viewing the company more favorably (at least for the intermediate term, although it seems to leave open the question of the long-term value as a positive market signal).
One further point merits attention, even if it is less central to the heart of the study. The authors find that 19% of the entities studied (consisting of a database of approximately 1.8 million firms) adopted an eponymous name. Interestingly, the authors are of the view that this is a “relatively uncommon” event. To the contrary, this blogger was surprised about how large this number is. From his anecdotal experience in the trademark registration world, the percentage of companies that seek to register an eponymous mark is much lower than 19%. It suggests that entrepreneurial companies are less likely to seek trademark protection of their eponymous company name. if that is the case, perhaps trademark practitioners need to do a better job of alerting their clients to the potential value of an eponymous company name.
Photo on lower left by Keith Cooper licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
By Neil Wilkof
Friday, 27 October 2017
The LA Times recently published an article, "UCLA’s Efforts to Patent a Costly Patent Cancer Drug in India Hurts the Poor, Critics Say,” concerning Pfizer’s drug, Xtandi. Xtandi, which is used to treat prostate cancer, was developed (with U.S. government funding) and licensed out by University of California, Los Angeles. Recently, in a royalty securitization deal, UCLA received more than $500 million in exchange for future royalty rights from Royalty Pharma. Notably, UCLA is now seeking patent rights for Xtandi in India, which it states it has a contractual obligation to do. The article states:
“What’s special about this case is the fact that the University of California is going against their own licensing policy by aggressively seeking a patent in India on this drug,” KEI Director James Love said.
That policy, as UCLA summarized in a statement to The Times, is “intended to facilitate all populations having access to medications and other products and services made possible by UCLA innovation.”
But UCLA also noted the “concerns about prescription drug pricing” among the activists and others and said it was willing to explore the problem further.
The school said “we are convening a working group to evaluate our approach to technology licensing in ways that benefit California, the nation and the developing world” while also continuing to give drug companies enough incentive to commercialize its discoveries, just as Medivation did with Xtandi.
In the meantime, the activists contend that a daily dose of Xtandi is selling in India for roughly 40 times a person’s daily income in that nation, which they called “excessive and shamefully unaffordable.”
Notably, the University of California is a signatory to the In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology White Paper. Point 9 of the White Paper states:
Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such as those of neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving particular attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agricultural technologies for the developing world
Universities have a social compact with society. As educational and research institutions, it is our responsibility to generate and transmit knowledge, both to our students and the wider society. We have a specific and central role in helping to advance knowledge in many fields and to manage the deployment of resulting innovations for the public benefit. In no field is the importance of doing so clearer than it is in medicine.
Around the world millions of people are suffering and dying from preventable or curable diseases. The failure to prevent or treat disease has many causes. We have a responsibility to try to alleviate it, including finding a way to share the fruits of what we learn globally, at sustainable and affordable prices, for the benefit of the world’s poor. There is an increased awareness that responsible licensing includes consideration of the needs of people in developing countries and members of other underserved populations.
The details involved in any agreement provisions attempting to address this issue are complex and will require expert planning and careful negotiation. The application will vary in different contexts. The principle, however, is simple. Universities should strive to construct licensing arrangements in ways that ensure that these underprivileged populations have low- or no-cost access to adequate quantities of these medical innovations.
We recognize that licensing initiatives cannot solve the problem by themselves. Licensing techniques alone, without significant added funding, can, at most, enhance access to medicines for which there is demand in wealthier countries. Diseases that afflict only the global poor have long suffered from lack of investment in research and development: the prospects of profit do not exist to draw commercial development, and public funding for diseases suffered by those who live far away from nations that can afford it is difficult to obtain and sustain. Through thoughtful management and licensing of intellectual property, however, drugs, therapies, and agricultural technologies developed at universities can at least help to alleviate suffering from disease or hunger in historically marginalized population groups.
This appears to be another case of a company making a decision based on pricing that will likely undermine confidence in the patent system, particularly undermining technology transfer from universities. Universities should exercise care in licensing to ensure that they have the final word on enforcement as well as patenting in other countries (see follow-up patenting noted by Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette). Let’s not kill the "golden goose." Perhaps UCLA can use part of the $500 million for a fund for people who need access to the drug in India.
Wednesday, 25 October 2017
There are few topics in the world of innovation and technology that are as dynamic as open source software and defensive patent pools. Open Source Software (OSS) is well-established in sectors as diverse as aviation, health, telecommunications, finance, publishing, education, and government. As nations increasingly rely on knowledge assets to grow, the adoption of OSS will have profound economic consequences. This talk identifies the mechanisms inherent to OSS that help fuel innovation in knowledge-based economies. In doing so, it conceptualizes the role of patents from an Open Innovation Paradigm and looks at the role that defensive patent pools can play in fostering collaborative exchange and open growth.
About the Speaker
Keith Bergelt is a pioneer in intellectual property finance. He is currently the CEO of Open Invention Network (OIN), which is a defensive patent pool and community of patent non-aggression enabling freedom of action in Linux. At OIN, Mr. Bergelt is responsible for coordinating the establishment and maintenance of a patent ‘‘no-fly” zone around Linux. As such, he is responsible for safeguarding an open and competitive landscape in key technology markets, such as back-office transaction processing and mission critical IT.
Prior to his extensive private sector experience, Mr. Bergelt served for 12 years as a diplomat with postings at the United Nations in NY and the American Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, where he was involved in the negotiation of IP rights protection in Asia. He holds a BA degree from Duke University, a JD from Southern Methodist University School of Law and a Masters of Business Administration degree from Theseus Institute in France.
Please sign up here with your professional email account. We do not accept a registration from a personal email address.