Although some have criticized this law as distracting public colleges from their true calling of generating knowledge (unless it supports global warming or evolution ), this mapped out summary (link below) of only some of patents licensed under Bayh-Dole demonstrates how the commercialization of government-funded research has both helped fund further cutting edge research and created jobs where no one knew there was even an industry.
Posts Tagged ‘biotechnology law’
Some IP Stories Do Not Have Much “It” Factor. Just like there used to be, and I guess still are, “It Girls” in showbiz and fashion, there are “It Issues” in IP law. I know these decisions/controversies are very important to the parties involved, but I just couldn’t get enthusiastic about these stories. However, since you may wish to investigate them further, I thought I would send out a short list.
1. The legality of Michelle Lee’s appointment as Acting Deputy Director of the PTO (or whatever her title will turn out to be). More interesting would be the story of why Terry Rea was not offered the position (if she even wanted it).
2. What “and/or” means in a patent claim. Although the PTO usually does not object to its use, it is probably better to write something like “at least one of A or B”, or “A or B or a combination thereof”.
3. In case you have not noticed, prosecution history estoppel can limit the scope of a design patent. ‘Nuff said.
Michelle Lee joined the USPTO as Director of the Silicon Valley Patent Office in 2012 (and apparently got her Reg. No. that year), after working as Deputy General Counsel of Google, and at Fenwick & West and Keker & Van Nest. She has a deep technical (EE) and legal background that involves PTO operations insofar as she has also served on the Public Advisory Committee.
Her experience with “Patent Trolls” at Google has caused her to paint herself into an anti-patent position in recent years. I hope she will come to realize that not all NPE’s are extortionists (See links below for reports and comments from forums she has attended.)
Interestingly, she was nominated by Peggy Focarino, the PTO Commissioner of Patents, to the Secretary of Commerce, who then appointed Michelle to be Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for IP. Since there is no Director of the USPTO (as well as no Deputy Director), Michelle will effectively be the Acting Director of the USPTO (I guess)—until a new Director is nominated and confirmed by the Senate. That could be a while, to say the least.
Here are some quotes from Michelle Lee regarding the patent system:
This is a guest post from the Chisum Patent Academy and is posted with their permission.
The Chisum Patent Academy is pleased to provide you with Donald Chisum’s new 58-page monograph surveying background developments and commenting on the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in No. 13-298, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Dec. 6, 2013).
“The Supreme Court often intervenes to resolve splits among the various courts of appeal. Here a split exists within a circuit that the circuit itself is unable to resolve. The circuit judges’ varying interpretations of a body of recent and not-so-recent Supreme Court precedent riddled with fuzzy language and inconsistent results caused the split. Now, the Court has the opportunity (and the obligation) to clean up a mess that is, to a major extent, of its own making.”
The full monograph is available here.