General Biotechnology

On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bowman v. Monsanto – the first case to directly present the question of how the Exhaustion Doctrine should apply to patents relating to biotechnology and digital technology inventions.  The Petitioner, Vernon Hugh Bowman, asserts that the Exhaustion Doctrine should be extended to advanced agricultural technologies where the technology itself is contained in genetically modified seeds that may be reproduced through successive generations of seeds without limitation, and that companies like Monsanto can instead rely on remedies found in contract law to protect its commercial interests.  The Respondent, Monsanto Corporation, supported by the U.S. Government, (not surprisingly) disagrees, contending that an extension of the Exhaustion Doctrine of this magnitude would undercut effective patent protection for inventions that may reproduce perfectly over generations, undermining R&D in innovative technologies.  
During the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument on February 19th, the Justices focused on the broad scope of the exception sought by the Petitioner to patent rights for GM seed as an extension of the Exhaustion Doctrine to biotechnology and digital technology inventions, and did not appear persuaded either that the only reasonable use of the soybeans by Bowman was to plant them or that right holders would find effective modes of protection through contract law.  The Justices noted that this was the first case to present the intersection of the Exhaustion Doctrine and effective protection for inventions that may be reproduced across generations – that intersection to be the issue of greatest interest to the Court in  Bowman v. Monsanto, where the Court may be unlikely to create a sweeping exception to patent rights for biotechnology or digital technology inventions that has not been contemplated by the Congress.

Full details at the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

Full details at the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

Abstract – In this article, we address the issues that are involved when developing a strategy for commercializing a discovery that is novel, useful, and non-obvious to someone skilled in the art.  Patent(s) may be used as one means of providing a competitive advantage, and in addition this method is quite common as a means to monetize the intellectual asset.  Alternatively, a more “open-source” method may be employed as is more typical in dealing with software products or services – thereby opening up the field to collaboration and widespread use.  However, other means must then be developed to monetize the asset whether it involves a “hardware” component, software, or both. We argue that to answer these questions, one needs to be very strategic in framing the business model that would be most successful in commercializing the particular discovery keeping in mind that wide dissemination of the innovation is the objective. We focus on issues prevalent for innovation in biopharma, medtech, and medical IT, where high risk, long life cycle, capital-intensive investments are required for commercial introduction.

Full details at the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

Full details at the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology

This chart shows the pharmaceutical drugs with the most patents still in force. The drugs with the most active patents

I will be in Pittsburgh from April 4-5th to give  a talk at Carnegie Mellon’s business school, Tepper, and at

This is a guest post from Susan K Finston, President of Finston Consulting. Do you have a response to Susan’s post?

Last week, at the 12th Annual ePharma Summit in New York City, Philadelphia based…(PRWeb March 13, 2013)Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/BehaviorMatrix/OncologyStudy/prweb10525610.htm

This antiviral therapeutics market research report is now available to purchase at Research and Markets. The report reviews…(PRWeb March 13, 2013)Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/3/prweb10526473.htm