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
© 2024 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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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