Why University Patenting Is Not Common

The amount of patent filings for scientific and technological innovations is a relevant category in regards to producing the superpower index. The reason for this is because it is indicative of quaternary sector employment, which generally equates to higher income due to the high standard of research that can be gathered and then sold on to other countries at a high price. Additionally, a large number of patents enables a country to become dominant sellers of a product, therefore allowing them to be the main exporter, increasing the country’s cultural influence; this also allows a country to gain a large profit. The factor of population is significant here, as a large population may result in a large number of researchers, and therefore a large number of entrepreneurs, contributing to a countrys’ influence on global markets. The figure shows that the USA has the highest ranking in regards to this factor, highlighting its superpower status as the country has 391,000 patents and innovations compared to the lowest ranked country of Brazil, which only has 4,750.

Between 1790 and 1860, the Patent and Trademark Office of the federal government issued just 36,000 patents- licenses that give an inventor the exclusive rights to make, use or sell an invention for a set period of time

Notwithstanding constructing and ensuring our vast arrangement of protected innovation resources, AT&T Intellectual Property deals with an incredible licensed innovation authorizing and deals program. Find out about AT&T patent deals, patent authorizing, innovation permitting and mark authorizing. AT&T's theory is that solid, reasonable administration of licensed innovation is basic to encouraging constant advancement. Our authorizing project is centered on expanding access to AT&T advancements, while likewise guaranteeing that interests in examination and development are esteemed decently and

To balance these competing interests, Harvard agreed to receive an equity stake in the company, and Syndexa would pay Harvard a small up-front fee to license the patents that Hotamisligil had developed. For Syndexa one of the key parts of negotiations was centered on the research that the start-up intended to fund in Hotamisligil’s lab at Harvard. Harvard had major concerns with how the Syndexa-sponsored research will be separated from the other funds (government- or foundation-funded projects) that Hotamisligil receives. Harvard cannot funnel federally funded inventions to companies, however at the same time Syndexa was looking for assurance that they would have first crack at intellectual property for a technology that they funded. Another major issue extending negotiations was the conditions under which Syndexa would make royalty payments to Harvard for products that were not covered under Harvard patents, but discovered using Harvard technologies. To ensure that Harvard would receive a reasonable return on the patents it was licensing, Syndexa agreed to pay a small royalty rate if they developed a new therapeutic cure for diabetes using its Harvard license. Both parties agreed to the concept of an ‘identified product’, essentially a drug discovered through the use of patents, targets and assays being licensed from Harvard. Negotiations over what constituted an ‘identified product’ continued through the rest

gotten to the patent before them allowing for them to create a monopoly. The Capitalists if the

In the year 1790, the United States had begun to make a name for itself. The United States was ending its own revolution and the world was evolving around it. The country’s new found freedom created a need for self-reliance. The United States was out to prove its worth, that its institutions, democracy, and military were worth the efforts of so many. During this time the number of inventions created throughout the world was astonishing. Inventions like: the cotton gin, batteries, cupcakes, crackers, gas turbine, and bicycles are just a few inventions that were created during this time period. Donalad W. Banner, U.S. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, wrote The Book of Knowledge where he explained that before the patent was created

Proponents of patent reform largely focus on the cost of patent infringement litigation to the U.S. economy and companies. While some argue that the type of patents issued should be limited in order to uphold the intent of Article I, Section 8, others claim that standards for issuing patents should be strengthened in order to reduce the number of costly patent infringement lawsuits. The cost of litigation and standards for issuing a patent is the focus of the proceeding text and justification for patent reform in the United States.

In 2004 Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester (Mayo) announced that they would be releasing a diagnostic test that utilizes thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases. Mayo’s announcement came after they had purchased and utilized similar diagnostic tests based on Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (Prometheus) patents. After Mayo’s Prometheus sued Mayo claiming patent infringement. This paper will examine the Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. case that refers to the patent infringement law. We will examine both sides of the case by exploring Diamond v. Diehr, Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, Bilski v. Kappos, and Parker v. Flook’s relationship with the case. This paper will ultimately conclude in favor of Mayo because Prometheus’ patents effectively claim natural laws and are therefore not patent eligible.

It is intended both to provide thumbnail descriptions of the various intellectual property regimes to economists working in this area and to indicate where additional economic research might be useful. The other papers in this symposium provide important examples of ongoing research on the economics of intellectual property. Suzanne Scotchmer analyzes the complex effects of patent protection when innovation is cumulative. Rather than analyzing situations in which several firms vie to develop the same innovation-the approach of the "patent race" literature-her analysis examines circumstances in which only one firm can develop an initial innovation but others can also build upon it. She focuses on how the incentive to develop both the initial and subsequent inventions may be affected by the scope of patent protection. Janusz Ordover considers ways of adjusting the patent system that may help to both provide returns to the inventor, and encourage the diffusion of the innovation in the economy. His paper is part of a line of work that explores the place of the intellectual property system among the large number of institutions that affect the amount and nature of research and development that takes place. In the final paper, David

Legally issued by governments so patented inventions can inspire others and offer advantages because they are available to everyone but all proprietorship rights are reserved.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed on September 16, 2011, was the most significant reform to the patent system in the United States since the Patent Act of 1952, which redefined the patentability of patent to include being nonobvious in addition to new and useful (1). The demanding need for patent reform had been discussed and debated frequently both within the literature focusing on patent trolls and consistently in Congress with the introduction of many patent reform acts that were never enacted: the Patent Reform Act of 2006 at the 109th Congress, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 at the 110th Congress, and the Patent Reform Act of 2009 at the 111th Congress (2-5). The enactment of the America Invents Act in 2011 after the failure of previous reform attempts signifies its importance in addressing the pressing issues of the United States patent system. The America Invents Acts specifically aimed to confront problems that were impeding innovation: the ever-increasing expense of the patent process, the exploitation of the patent system by patent trolls, and the unnecessary complexity and inefficiency of the patent process as a whole.

Competition amongst researchers intensified and instead of collaborating with each other, they kept their research restricted, in hopes of striking it rich someday. As an example, there are currently 4,875 U.S. patents for Lyme disease in comparison to 808 for Parkinson’s disease, or 2,148 for Alzheimer 's disease. (Due to the similarity in symptoms, and the unknown cause of both Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s disease, some believe it is really just Lyme disease.) Nevertheless, with all the interest in a “hard to catch and easy to cure” disease like Lyme, the number of patents cannot be ignored; patents equal money.

Second, to ensure a maximum benefit to the public, drafters included a federal “March-in Right”. If a university “has not taken, or is not expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention[,]” the government may invoke its march-in right. Under this provision, agencies can require a university or exclusive licensee of a subject invention to license the subject invention to any responsible applicant.

The process from research to market usually first involves filing a patent, assisted by the tech transfer office. Once a patent has been acquired it can be licensed to larger companies with the resources to commercialize the product. Because of the Bayh Dole Act, universities can now earn revenue from patents filed by their researchers. This has incentivized universities to participate in tech transfer and constantly be on the lookout for likely successful applications of research. This is the reason all inventions must be disclosed to the university, so they can determine its possible revenue potential. This can be beneficial for multiple reasons. One, the inventor may not have the initial capitol or experience for filing a patent. The tech transfer office is comprised of professionals of IP, and the university covers the cost of filing the patent, which can cost over $25,000 and take years to obtain. Another advantage of tech transfer offices is they may recognize a role of this product in the market the inventor may not have originally foreseen. In this way the inventors (researchers) benefit from tech transfer but universities also benefit from possible revenue created when a product is successfully brought to market. For example, Northwestern University leads the nation in revenue from

The U.S. constitution gave Congress the power to “ promote the devellopment of the useful arts” by granting exclusive rights to inventers for a limited period of time. The purpose of a patent was to assurre the rights of the creators in exchange for not keeping these inventions secret, thus overall knowledge base grows.