Slow patent process continuing to hurt nanotech enterprises.
Via the Chicago Tribune, a quick update on the progress of efforts at the USPTO to increase the speed of processing patents on nanotechnology. The conclusion in a nutshell: not much has happened.
Alan Gotcher, president and chief executive of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. based in Reno, Nev., whose firm is working with nanomaterials to improve battery performance, said he’s been filing for nanotech patents since the late 1980s and the lag in processing them has become a problem recently.
‘The impact is one of perception,’ Gotcher said. ‘When you don’t get a response from a patent application filing, you don’t know what else is going on.’
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, October 29, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Permalink: Slow patent process continuing to hurt nanotech enterprises.
No Comments
stanford chemistry offers forward thinking pregnancy policy for graduate students
I am somewhat behind in my journal reading, so while this may be somewhat older news it was something that I wanted to share with the blog-o-sphere.
According to C&EN News (Chemical and Engineering News – November 7, 2005 issue), Standford University’s chemistry department recently implemented a very forward thinking pregnancy policy (PDF of policy) for graduate students.
The pregnancy policy provides that graduate students receive 12 weeks of paid leave “to accomodate late-stage pregnancy, childbirth, and the care of a newborn.” The pregnancy policy also allows graduate students to maintain full-time student status (important for school loans and financial aid) and provides for the facilitation of return to classwork, research and teaching duties.
Jackie Tyson, executive director of the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students, said she was very pleased about the move at Stanford because most universities do not have formal policies. “Many women have felt penalized by having to ask, and the reality is that a lot of men still leave everything to women or most everything to women, so this has a real impact,” Tyson said.
This is an incredibly powerful step Stanford has taken – as the spouse of a former graduate student, I know how stressful and trying it can be to juggle a pregnancy, graduate work and research. Stanford’s policy will hopefully spur similar policies at every university and academic research institution.
It always comes back down to the simple things – treat people fairly and with compassion and you will reap the rewards ten-fold.
For additional information, follow the links:
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, November 26, 2005 at 7:26 am
Permalink: stanford chemistry offers forward thinking pregnancy policy for graduate students
Comments Off
cambia pushes for “open source” biotechnology innovation
from Bio-IT World:
CAMBIA, an independent, nonprofit institute based in Canberra, Australia, has set up BIOS (Biological Innovation for Open Society), which aims to extend the concepts of open source to biotechnology and other forms of innovation in biology. Last week CAMBIA introduced under an open source license biotechnology tool kits that it developed. The technologies include TransBacter, a new method for transferring genes to plants, developed as an alternative to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, and GUSPlus, a new reporter gene for use in molecular biology.
The problem I see is that biotechnology and biotech products are not like open source software code that can be duplicated, manipulated and changed at whim by anyone with some training and a computer. Biotechnology research requires a laboratory, research tools (microscopes, pippettes etc.) and significant regulation and compliance resources. None of these items are free or even within the range of being “affordable” for most start ups or small biotechnology companies that are not funded or capitalized.
As biotechnology is an inherently unpredictable field or “art” — start up biotech companies are able to attract funding and/or capital, in some cases, only because they are able to hedge such unpredictability by using patents to wall off a protected commercial market for the product IF and WHEN it is ever approved. Rather than increasing the number of companies in this area, such an open source biotechnology strategy would appear to stifle investment and put a company at a significant disadvantage.
Any thoughts?
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, February 15, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Permalink: cambia pushes for “open source” biotechnology innovation
1 Comment
Chimera Claim Rejected
According to a Washington Post article, a human-animal hybrid is not patentable. Apparently a human hybrid is too close to a human. However, since the famous case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, patents have been awarded to bacteria, yeast, and even animals. Chakrabarty’s most famous quote on patenting allows “anything under the sun that is made by man.”
Of course, the controversy will certainly continue. See the legal column written by the inventor of the Chimera, The Human Chimera Patent Initiative (starting on page 4 and continuing on page 7). For more information, you may be interested in the Mother Jones article, Gods and Monsters.
UPDATE 2-23-05: Patently-O: Patent Law Blog has a great post that gives more information.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, February 14, 2005 at 9:47 am
Permalink: Chimera Claim Rejected
Comments Off
Merck Defeated in Federal Circuit
According to the Report on Law.com, Federal Court Invalidates Patent on Merck’s No. 2 Drug:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., invalidated the patent for the once-a-week version of Merck’s Fosamax, which dominates the market for osteoporosis drugs. Under the ruling, generic competition could begin as soon as early 2008, instead of 2018.
Merck shares were down considerably after the ruling.
“It’s a big deal,” said Barbara Ryan, a managing director at Deutsche Bank Securities. “Merck obviously has a lot of issues facing it, including the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market and the loss of the Zocor patents in the middle of 2006.”
For more on patent issues and prescription drugs, you can see an article by me in OKJOLT, “Are Patents Really Limited to 20 Years? – A Closer Look at Pharmaceuticals” (html) (word) (pdf). The article was published about a year and a half ago, so it’s a little dated, but it’s interesting nonetheless (in my humble opinion).
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, February 2, 2005 at 9:10 am
Permalink: Merck Defeated in Federal Circuit
1 Comment
Save Money on Patents – File Electronically
Russ over at Anything Under the Sun Made By Man recently posted Silver Lining to Fee Increases.
With the new legislation on fees for patents, comes some structural change. Now you can save 50% on filing fees by using electronic filing. While it requires learning the software, it may actually save time as well as money. For more information, go to the USPTO site. If you have technical problems, here is a good place for help.
You may also want to review a previous PHOSITA post, File A PCT Patent Application In Your Pajamas.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, December 14, 2004 at 9:24 am
Permalink: Save Money on Patents – File Electronically
Comments Off
Inventor Tax Update
As many of you already know, the fee increase for the USPTO is official. As of last Wednesday, fees have increased again. That’s two fee increases in a little over 2 months. President Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005 on December 8, 2004, effective immediately.
Unfortunately for inventors, these fees will continue to fund non USPTO programs.
In a current lawsuit, one inventor claims this is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution states “The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This inventor reasons that fee diversion is actually a tax on inventors, which fails to promote progress. Since the fees paid by inventors currently provide funding the general welfare, this is an interesting position.
For more information on the lawsuit (which was filed in 2001), click here.
For prior PHOSITA postings on the legislation and related issues, click on the appropriate link below:
- Inventor’s Tax – November 18, 2004
- Another USPTO Fee Increase? – November 11, 2004
- Tech Lobbyists Spending Millions – May 20, 2004
- Patent Office Revised Fee Chart – May 3, 2004
- Senate Judiciary Committee Passes PTO Anti-Fee Diversion Bill – April 29, 2004
- Patent Office User Fee Diversion - March 8, 2004
- Higher Patent Office Fees? Interesting – February 23, 2004
- President Bush’s Budget Patent Friendly – February 3, 2004
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, December 13, 2004 at 9:48 am
Permalink: Inventor Tax Update
Comments Off
All Business Have Intellectual Property
Oklahoma Inventors Congress has a link to an article discussing the various aspects of intellectual property associated with ordinary businesses.
The article is on mondaq.com (free registration required). It is directed to U.K. readers, so don’t take every detail as absolute truth. It is certainly wise to consult a professional who deals with that area of law before making any crucial decisions.
Part 1 answers the following questions:
- What is Copyright?
- Who owns Copyright?
- Who owns the Copyright in websites?
- How do you protect Copyright?
- What are designs?
- How do you protect designs?
Who owns a design?
Part 2 answers the following questions:
- What is a Trade Mark?
- Who owns a Trade Mark?
- How can you protect a Trade Mark?
- What is a Domain Name?
- Who owns a Domain Name?
- How can you protect a Domain Name?
Part 3 answers the following questions:
- What is a Patent?
- Who owns a Patent?
- What is Know-how?
- Who owns Know-how?
- How do you protect Know-how?
How do you protect an Invention?
This article is a very useful overview of intellectual property for small business owners. Just be sure to check with a professional before acting on the statements (for instance, Business Methods are patentable in the U.S.).
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, December 9, 2004 at 5:03 pm
Permalink: All Business Have Intellectual Property
Comments Off
pto nanotechnology classification to improve nanotechnology patents
As PHOSITA previously reported, the USPTO has instituted a new classification for nanotechnology, Class 977–nanotechnology, to provides for disclosures:
- related to research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length of scale of approximately 1-100 nanometer range in at least one dimension, and
- that provide a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size.
The Small Times has a quite detailed discussion of the new classification and its impact on nanotechnology patents.
Experts say the action will lead to stronger, more defensible patents and encourage innovation by increasing confidence in the patent system. They added that the action was necessary because of the difficulty in classifying nanotechnology inventions.
The article goes on to cite several ways that it will help patentees and the patenting process by:
-
Making it easier to search for prior art patents and patent applications.
-
Making it easier to spot or identify interfering patent applications — i.e. applications claiming the same invention or substantially the same invention.
-
Providing examiners a group mentality — a group having historical knowledge and depth of knowledge in the scientific area.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, December 2, 2004 at 5:34 pm
Permalink: pto nanotechnology classification to improve nanotechnology patents
Comments Off
outsourcing and trade secret issues
Outsourcing is a highly contentious and potentially cost-saving measure that is constantly in the news these days. Sending work off-shore (or, more specifically, outside the U.S.) provides a company the benefits of oftentimes highly educated labor forces that can complete specific tasks at substantially reduced costs.
Outsourcing is rife with potential IP conflicts and pitfalls. Computerworld has posted an in-depth look at one such pitfall: outsourcing and its effect on trade secrets.
Taking work offshore may cut costs, but it still comes with a not-so-hidden price. Asian countries, including the No. 1 outsourcing destination, India, have weak or untested intellectual property laws, inefficient courts, and financial and public records mechanisms that make it difficult to conduct employee background checks.
That doesn’t mean that intellectual property sent to reputable offshore developers is more likely to be stolen and sold than it is here. Sophisticated U.S. and Canadian companies have lost valuable intellectual property in their home countries because of dishonest employees and hackers. Employees in India and elsewhere aren’t any more dishonest than workers here. But because overseas court systems and laws aren’t as strong as in those the U.S. and evaluating potential employees is more difficult overseas, the odds of intellectual property theft could be higher.
U.S. businesses are also sending valuable code to regions of the world with high piracy rates. In China, for instance, 92% of the software installed on computers is pirated, according to a recent study by IDC and the Business Software Alliance. In India, the piracy rate is 73%, and in the U.S., it’s 22%, the lowest rate in the global study.
Those jumping on the outsourcing band wagon may want to consider some of the issues outlined in this article.
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, November 20, 2004 at 9:06 am
Permalink: outsourcing and trade secret issues
Comments Off
