This announcement is from the GTG web site:
Genzyme will pay GTG a signing fee of $7.5M – of which $5M will be in cash and $2.5M will be in the form of “in-kind” Genzyme intellectual property now offered to GTG. Genzyme will also pay GTG a fee of $1M per year for the life of the non-coding patents (currently till 2015).No tags for this post.
From the Economic Research Service arm of the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture):
The Economic Research Service has a newly available online-searchable database on agricultural biotechnology patents. The database is freely available for use by all. This database identifies and describes U.S. utility patents on inventions in biotechnology and other biological processes*with issue dates between 1976 and 2000*that are used in food and agriculture. The database also provides information about the ownership of these patents, whether patents are held in the public or private sector, and changes in patent ownership due to firm mergers, acquisitions, and spinoffs. The database can be accessed at www.ers.usda.gov/data/AgBiotechIP. The attached PDF file provides a brief summary of information contained in the data.No tags for this post.
In PHOSITA, the guest blogger presented some interesting stories about the inventors and the genesis of a variety of inventions, such as Ivory soap, the TV remote control, and the rickshaw. My favorite is about how the inventor of the shopping cart promoted its acceptance. The postings are in three parts.
Read part 1.
Read part 2.
Read part 3.
Those who know me or have read any of the economics-based publications I’ve co-authored already know that my answer to the question is “usually not”. Rarely in developing countries and not even very much in developed countries (outside of commercial entities). My colleagues (Phil Pardey in particular) and I fear that the “patents are evil” debate detracts from the real issues of research progress, namely funding and infrastructure. Probably nowhere are these problems more acute than in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
A recent article by Beintema and Stads and published by IFPRI (International Food and Policy Research Institute), a Future Harvest Center based in Washington, D.C., underscores the problem. In “Investing in Sub-Saharah African Agricultural Research: Recent Trends“, the authors show that investments in SSA agricultural research have stagnated over the last two decades. Moreover, donor funding (World Bank, various developed countries) and government accounts for essentially all of the research money, which is becoming scarcer, irregular and more donor-dependent. Combined with poor research management and lack of national science and technology policies, there will be further erosion of research capacity as donor funding decreases.No tags for this post.
I have been asked many times to give an opinion about a patent and sometimes asked if a particular use is infringing on a patent. Mostly there seems to be confusion or misunderstanding about what is an “opinion” and the necessity or not for an opinion. In U.S. patent law practice, an “opinion” is either a “non-infringement opinion” (you are not infringing the patent in question) or an “invalidity opinion” (the patent in question is invalid because of prior art) and serves a singular purpose: to protect the client against charges of willful infringement. A finding of willful infringement can inure triple damages and attorney fees for the infringer.
A variety of reasons (e.g., cost - opinions can cost tens of thousands of dollars) may encourage or discourage a client from wanting an opinion. But what are the ramifications of a decision to forego an opinion or to claim that the opinion is privileged and not disclose it? Could this infer that the client knows it is infringing?
In one of the most important Federal Circuit patent cases this year, Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corporation, et al., the Court emphatically said, “no adverse inference that an opinion of counsel was or would have been unfavorable flows from an alleged infringer’s failure to obtain or produce an exculpatory opinion of counsel.”No tags for this post.
Unfortunately, one of my favorite sites (www.pat2pdf.com) has gone to a pay site. There are only two sites right now that I know of where U.S. patents can be downloaded as PDF files (without having to download a single page at a time). They are:
A nice grid of many of the sites that have patent searching capabilities, some of which are free to use and others of which are pay sites, can be found here.No tags for this post.
IP Strategy Today is an on-line journal published by bioDevelopments-International Institute, in collaboration with individuals at SWIFTT with financial support by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latest issue contains three articles dealing with intellectual property rights and human health issues:
(1) Keusch GT. 2004. Intellectual Property and Licensing and their Impact on Global Public Goods for Health Options for Public Sector and Academic Leadership. IP Strategy Today No. 10-2004. pp. 1-22.
(2) Saha R, K Satyanarayana and CA Gardner. 2004. Building a “Cottage Industry” for Health (and Wealth) The New Framework for IP Management in India. IP Strategy Today No. 10-2004. Pp. 23-58.
(3) Oehler J. 2004. The Role of Milestones in Licensing Deals to Assure Access to Health Products in Developing Countries. IP Strategy Today No. 10-2004. Pp. 59-70.