Corey Salsberg Image

Corey Salsberg

Vice President and Global Head of IP Affairs


Corey Salsberg is the Vice President and Global Head of IP Affairs for Novartis, one of the world’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical companies. He also serves as Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and as a Board Member of California Lawyers for the Arts and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO).

A graduate of Stanford Law School and Yale University, Mr. Salsberg is a seasoned attorney with over two decades of legal, policy and advocacy experience. He is one of the founders of the Inventors Assistance Program, a WIPO-WEF initiative that supports under-resourced inventors through pro bono services; Pat-INFORMED, a global database of medicine-related patent information; and the IP PACT, a groundbreaking set of principles that sets forth the patient-centric approach to IP shared by its signatories.

A recognized thought leader and frequent contributor around the world, Mr. Salsberg has testified before the United States Senate and other government bodies and agencies; spoken at WIPO, the WHO, and before high-level panels of the United Nations; and is regularly featured in media, including recent appearances in the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, the Observer, National Law Review, Roll Call, STAT, Law360, Bloomberg, Reuters, Pink Sheet, IAM, IP Watchdog, and Managing IP.

Recent Articles by Corey Salsberg

Presenting the Evidence for Patent Eligibility Reform: Part IV – Uncertainty is Burdening Litigants and Courts, Threatening U.S. Competitiveness and National Security

The current unreliability of patent-eligibility law, documented thus far here, here and here, has also created undue burdens on litigants and the courts. In this final installment, we detail how the current unreliability burdens litigants and the courts and how it is a fundamental threat to U.S. competitiveness and national security. Patent infringers now routinely raise Section 101 as a defense, often merely as a strategy to complicate and prolong the litigation, rather than as a good-faith defense with a likelihood of success. For example, one analysis found that, from 2012 to 2014 (when Alice was decided), Section 101 was raised in just two Rule 12(b)(6) motions across the country each year. In the year after Alice, that number rose to 36 motions, and by 2019, accused infringers were filing over 100 such motions each year.

Presenting the Evidence for Patent Eligibility Reform: Part III – Case Studies and Litigation Data Highlight Additional Evidence of Harm

Systemic-level studies and data regarding impact on investment and innovation, as detailed in Part II of this series, are not the only way to demonstrate the substantial harm that the current state of patent eligibility has inflicted on the U.S. innovation ecosystem. Other robust evidence shows that current Section 101 law has harmed innovation by removing the incentives to develop and commercialize particular inventions of public importance. As another form of harm, the vagueness and breadth of the Alice/Mayo framework have also enabled accused infringers to transmogrify Section 101 into a litigation weapon in inappropriate cases that has created unnecessary burdens and costs on innovators and the courts.

Past Events with Corey Salsberg