Posts in Licensing

One of the critical issues in the Stanford case that is glossed over (or at least not addressed directly) by the Supreme Court majority (as well as others in the patent “blogosphere”) is what happens when you have a present assignment (or at least a contractual obligation to assign) of invention rights that don’t exist at the time of the assignment (aka “future invention rights”). Should (as the Federal Circuit held) Roche (or more appropriately its predecessor, Cetus) by using the language “I will assign and do hereby assign” (aka the “Cetus Assignment Clause”) trump what may have been an earlier obligation by a Stanford University researcher (Mark Holodniy) to assign invention rights to Stanford University (aka the “Stanford University Assignment Obligation”)? I would argue, as did Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion and Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion (joined by Justice Ginsburg) that a “yes” answer to that question defies logic, reason, and prior case precedent (other than the Federal Circuit’s 1991 case of FilmTec Corp. v. Allied Signal, Inc. whose logic, reasoning, and adherence to prior case precedent was challenged by both Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, as well as Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion).

It doesn’t roll off the tongue quite like the famous Shakespearean line — “to be or not to be: that is the question” — the opening line of Hamlet’s soliloquy in Act 3, Scene 1, but the question that some inventors will ask themselves is whether they should seek out licensing opportunities or follow the path of manufacturing and selling.  Truthfully, many inventors probably don’t ask this question and instead jump past this fundamental question and straight for the licensing revenue, but is that the best thing in the long run?  Licensing takes a lot of work out of the monetization equation and minimizes risk, but foregoing manufacturing and pursuing licensing can significantly cut down on profit realized by the owner of the invention rights.

During fiscal year 2009, 596 new companies were formed as a result of university research, which is one more than the 595 formed in 2008 and 41 more than the 555 formed in 2007. The increase, while modest, does come despite a downturn in the U.S. and global economy, proving that even during a down economy good technology and innovation can and does create jobs. The AUTM survey also shows that invention disclosures continue to rise, patent applications are up, and during fiscal year 2009 there was a surprisingly high increase in foreign filings over fiscal year 2008.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; faculty and student inventors, the public, and American industry have an enormous stake in the Court’s decision. The appeal pits university patent administrators against university inventors. If the administrators win, university inventors will have no invention rights—not in the work they do at the university, and not in the work they do in the community. This is a crucial juncture for every researcher who has ever or might someday work in federally funded research. Likewise, it presents a tipping point for innovative industry and anyone with a vested interest in American research.

Bayh-Dole was created because of a glaring problem– billions of hard earned tax dollars invested annually in government R&D were being squandered by ineffective government patent policies. If this research cannot be taken out of the labs and turned into products, the public is being short changed. Even so, it was a long, tough road to travel, and we only succeeded by the smallest of margins. Turning around long standing government policies, no matter how ineffective, is never easy.

In May 2009, Genzyme Corporation acquired the worldwide rights to a potential breakthrough treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) along with three marketed oncology products from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. In February, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and AstraZeneca forged a new collaborative research agreement, featuring a significant licensing component, that makes use of their respective talents and resources to generate new Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) drug candidates for the clinical development pipeline.