IP: Are bioscience patents worthwhile?
A recent discussion on a major television network business program addressed the purported deficiencies of the U.S. patent system.
January 15, 2013 at 03:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A recent discussion on a major television network business program addressed the purported deficiencies of the U.S. patent system. The commentators and panelists expressed some dislike for patents in general, espousing a “you didn't invent that” philosophy which argues that many inventions only build on prior research, most of it by other inventors, and so patents constitute an unreasonable reward for the inventors' efforts. The bioscience community is acutely aware that this is only partly true—every inventor builds on the prior work of others; however, improvements in the field can require monumental achievement in the laboratory and in the development process to bring such inventions to the market. This should remind the bioscience community that the business community sometimes needs to remind politicians and the public of the importance and value of patents.
First, here are some data from the U.S. Patent Office. According to a 2012 study, “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus,” the most IP-intensive industries were directly or indirectly responsible for 27.7 percent of all jobs in the economy. IP-intensive industries directly accounted for 27.1 million American jobs, or 18.8 percent of all employment, in 2010. IP-intensive industries accounted for $5.06 trillion in value added, or 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Every two jobs in IP-intensive industries support an additional one job elsewhere in the economy. The percentage of process product and process innovations for which patents were considered an effective mechanism for appropriating the returns to innovation was 54.7 percent in medical equipment, and 50.2 percent in pharmaceuticals. From this data, the impact that intellectual property in general and patents in particular have on our economy should be clear.
Another recent report studied how global biotechnology benefits from patents. This study, “Taking Stock: How Global Biotechnology Benefits from Intellectual Property Rights,” was commissioned by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Among the reported data was that the number of biotechnology patents filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the U.S. alone from 1977 to 2009 increased from virtually none to well over 10,000. Not surprisingly, this growth in biotechnology-related patent applications has outstripped the rate of growth for other industries. Clearly, biotechnology companies are making significant investments in biotechnology patenting.
Yet another study, the “Battelle/BIO State Bioscience Industry Development 2012,” demonstrated the vitality of the bioscience industry through the recession, at least when compared to other industries. Salaries for the bioscience industry also outpaced those of the private sector in general by a very significant margin.
These studies and many others all provide significant support for the importance of patents to the biotechnology industry and the economy in general. The recent 2.3 percent medical-device tax imposed by the Affordable Care Act, which just went into effect, is a sign that the industry and patents for the industry will continue to come under increasing scrutiny by politicians and some members of the public as sources of revenue. Remember that in the recent past, Congress took dollars from the PTO, effectively a tax on inventorship.
Recent experience indicates that intellectual property and the bioscience industry could increasingly come under legislative pressure both as sources of revenue and as part of a misguided attempt to “free” markets. It is important that the biotechnology patent community stay vigilant in reminding legislators, lobbyists and the community at large of the importance of this industry and of the patents that serve it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250