Universities Provide Ideas, Receive Licenses

When people think of inventors, often times they focus on individuals, disregarding the support that those inventors may have received along the way.  However, it should not be forgotten how colleges and universities also play an integral part in advancing technology by playing a supporting role.

A recent article on OnlineAthens brought to light how innovations at American universities result in a multi-million dollar business.  For example, researchers at the University of Georgia developed a new type of Bermuda turf grass, named TifSport.  This is so cutting edge, that it will actually be used during the semi-final matches of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. 

While the listed inventor is Wayne Hannah, UGA was able to speak with industries that may be interested in commercializing TifSport.  Then, UGA was able to license the product and collect large royalties when the product hits the market.  This process is repeated by many colleges and universities throughout the country, and several products can attribute their roots to the collegiate level.

The top 10 list of Universities, as reported by the Association of University Technology Managers, are listed below.  In addition to the name of the school, the list also includes the number of deals they amassed in fiscal year 2007:

1. University of California System – 231

2. University of Washington – 203

3. University of Georgia – 125

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology – 116

5. Iowa State University – 113

6. North Carolina State University – 106

7. Purdue Research Foundation – 99

8. University of Michigan – 91

9. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill – 89

10. Stanford University – 88

While this list is impressive, it should be noted that the University of California System actually represents a number of schools and not a single university.

With Patents Expiring, Eli Lilly Looking for Deals

As the pharmaceutical industry is preparing for the expiration of several key patents, Eli Lilly & Co. is apparently ready to try and diversify their portfolio.  According to Forbes.com, Lilly’s Chief Executive has stated that they will pursue deals that cost between $5 billion and $15 billion, while staying away from any bigger acquisitions.  Lilly will also reportedly stick to acquiring drugs, rather than branching out in the medical device or diagnostic fields. 

This news may not come as a surprise, as the company will lose patent protection for Zyprexa, their best selling drug, in 2011.  Lilly will also lose patent coverage for Cymbalta, Humalog, and Gemzar in 2013.

Any of Lilly’s potential deals will follow what has already been a slew of deals in the pharmaceutical industry.  In January, Pfizer agreed to buy Wyeth for $68 billion.  Meanwhile, Merck & Co. will buy Schering-Plough Corp for $41.1 billion.  Lastly, Roche has paid $46.8 billion in cash to buy the 44% of Genentech that it didn’t already own.

Apple Patents ‘Safe’ GPS System

Apple recently filed a patent that would use biometrics for extra security on the iPhone.  Yet, a more recent patent application reveals that Apple may be applying those same concepts to make the roads a bit safer.

As reported on AppleInsider, the 11-page application notes that the use of navigation systems in a moving vehicle has raised many safety concerns.  The patent focuses on decreasing these concerns, by calling on a touchscreen-based navigation system that would either be self-mounted or hardwired into an automobile.  This system would rely on speakers and microphones for voice-enabled operation, such as navigation.

The patent also reveals that it could deny access for individuals and “lock down” the system based on biometric sensors.  One potential application of this technology would be allowing parents to block their high schoolers from using the GPS systems while the car is motion.

Because the patent is so general, it’s not known whether Apple is trying to break into the GPS-navigation market, or if these concepts will be applied to an iPhone App.  Yet, these ideas should not be ignored because they could potentially make the road safer by decreasing the distractions.

Combination Products Need Careful Patent Strategy

As health care products continue to evolve in the 21st century, combination technologies are becoming more and more common.  In fact, the market for combination products has doubled in five years and some have predicted the industry will rise to $10 billion this year.  While 90% of that total can credited to the sales of drug-eluting stents, plenty of other products, such as orthopedic implants to regenerate bones, are coming out of the woodwork.

These facts set the stage for an interesting article that recently appeared on Mass High Tech.  Author and patent attorney, Joanna Toke, argues that these combination products face unique hurdles in entering the marketplace, and mastering a patent and regulatory strategy is necessary for success.  She has outlined a step by step process that every company should follow when developing one of these products, and we will discuss the highlights of her article.

First, a company must have comprehensive patent coverage to protect their technology.  This means coverage of the device, the biologic, and the device/biologic combination.  Then, once improvements to the technology are made, a company should also make it a goal to also patent those improvements in order to completely insulate their technology.

Next, Toke states that picking the right law firm is critical, as they must have experience in both biologics and medical devices.  Knowledge of both fields is necessary as the firm needs to effectively prosecute patents directed toward each aspect of the product.

Then, the attorneys should conduct a search to determine whether the company is free of third-party patents and can practice its invention.  Once this search is completed on every aspect of the device, the product can be designed to avoid infringing other discovered patents.

Finally, when a product is submitted to the USFDA for approval, it is assigned to a particular center within the FDA.  But inventor beware, as products may be wrongly assigned to unfavorable offices.  Therefore, companies should explain why the combination product should be sent to a particular destination in order to avoid costly delays.

While this definitely not every step that a company must take to ensure that their IP is protected, Toke’s article is definitely a start in the right direction.

TAG to Close After Lawsuit Defeat

Looking for evidence of how infringement lawsuits can cripple a company?  Well, look no further than TAG Co., as it recently lost a suit against Sensormatic Electronics.

According to the Miami Herald, TAG is shutting down after it was found that the company had stolen Sensormatic’s trade secrets, while also infringing two Sensormatic patents.  TAG had started manufacturing its own antitheft labels, and introduced their line of disposable tag in 2006.  But after only three months, Sensormatic filed a lawsuit against TAG.

The court’s decision found that TAG had obtained Sensormatic specifications to make its antitheft labels.  Also, the court found that a TAG consultant copied 24,000 pages of documents when he left Sensormatic.  Not helping matters was the fact that Mark Krom, the president of TAG, as well as other company managers, are former Sensormatic employees.

Sensormatic was awarded $200,000 in damages, as well as an injunction against TAG from selling “any products produced with information taken from Sensormatic.” 

After the legal defeat, TAG’s owner, Adurion Global Opportunities Fund, decided to pull the plug on the company.  It is expected that at least 60 people who worked at TAG will lose their jobs.

Sony to Patent Robot Accessories

A new patent has recently surfaced that details the possibility of a robot being used with a video gaming system.  The patent was filed last June by Sony Computer Entertainment, and it shows a robot with a camera that will enable the machine to decipher the surrounding environment.  Kotaku.com also reports that the robot would have a microphone, giving it the ability to determine orders and react to sounds.

Some are wondering what Sony could do with a robot for video games, and there aren’t many details of how this robot could be used.  Yet, the patent details an information processing system which lets the robot respond to commands even though the player’s viewpoint is different than the robot’s.

If this robot is ever manufactured, it will not be until Sony receives an influx of cash.  Sony recently froze their company wages in an effort to cut company loses.

New Geotargeting Patents from Google

Three recent Google patents have surfaced, and they seem to give insight into some search engine results.  The three patents are titled: “Ordering of search results based on language and/or country of the search results;” “System and method for providing preferred country biasing of search results;” and “System and method of providing preferred language ordering of search results.”

According to HuoMah, the first patent reorders to factor in the the lanuage of the user.  Google accomplishes this task by receiving the search term, identifying languages for the results, then adjusting the order based on determined languages and presenting it to the user.  But it should be noted that regional languages also count as a factor in the search results.  As the application states:

Acceptable languages include languages specified by the user, as well as other acceptable languages. For instance, a French-preferring user might also accept search results in English. Acceptable languages can also include related languages and dialects. For example, Portuguese search results might be acceptable to a user who generally prefers Spanish.

The other patents give weight to a user’s country as well, by performing the same tasks but factoring in one’s country before displaying the results.

It’s interesting to note that the application also made a reference to  classical dead languages, as well as psuedo-languages such as Klingon.  While the amount of people looking to search the web in Klingon is probably small, its nice that the option is still out there.

Microsoft Sued Over Xbox, Halo

PalTalk Holdings Inc. is currently suing Microsoft over its Xbox video gaming system.  According to Boston.com, PalTalk  alleges Microsoft of infringing on two patents for inventions developed by MPatch Interactive Inc. 

PalTalk is especially targeting the Halo games for Xbox, since their patents relate to controlling interactive applications on multiple computers.  However, Microsoft said that although they did review these inventions and patents, they ultimately chose a different path in developing the games.  As a lawyer for Microsoft said, “Microsoft had many meetings with MPath regarding their technology, and Microsoft found the technology to be very valuable.”  Paltalk’s patents supposedly cover an older dial-up method of communicating between computers, but Microsoft says they don’t cover how the Halo games work.

Microsoft is not only challenging the validity of the patents, but they are also challenging how much the patents are worth.  Microsoft said, “the patents aren’t worth much, certainly not $90 million.”  This claim may have some validity, as PalTalk purchased the patents from MPatch for a mere $200,000.

Engineered Crops Becoming Seeds of Contention

While biotech companies are busy trying to manufacture genetically modified crops, those same biotech companies are in the middle of a brewing seed battle.

As reported in a recent article in the New York Times, biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from completing research on the effectiveness and environmental impact of genetically modified crops.  The main issue that prevents scientists from conducting research is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement.  This agreement ensures that the growers will abide by the company’s patent rights and environmental regulations, but it prohibits growing crops for research.  Therefore, researches must seek permission from companies in order to perform experiments on genetically engineered seeds.

It’s important to note that many of the scientists that are protesting this policy do not object to the technology of genetically modifying seeds.  Rather, they are opposed to how these companies can control research since many scientists cannot publish their findings until they are reviewed.  Further infuriating the scientists is how these policies do not allow the dissemination of information on how to best use the seeds.

William S. Neibuer, the vice president of crop research for DuPont, remarked that he defended his company’s policies.  He said that they are protective of their genetically engineered seeds because they were regulated by the government.  “We have to protect our relationship with governmental agencies by having very strict control measures on that technology.”

In a recent statement that was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists objecting to this current policy wrote, “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions.”  In the meantime, the E.P.A. scientific advisory panel plans to hold two meetings this week.  One meeting will look into the broad subject of insect-resistant biotech crops.  The other meeting will be more specifically geared to a request from Pioneer Hi-Bred, which will discuss how much of a farmer’s field must be set aside to prevent insects from becoming resistant to insect-resistant corn.

Social Networking for Patents?

Times are rough at the USPTO.

Back in 2007, The Washington Post reported that if the agency shut its doors to catch up on the backlog of applications, it would take their 5,500 examiners at least two years, and countless cups of coffee to catch up.

Keeping up with the demand for patents is critical, as innovation and technological progress drive our economy.  Earlier this year, researchers launched a “peer-to-patent” pilot project.  Some have suggested that the addition of a social networking patent site could make the peer-to-patent program extremely efficient.

Obviously such a site would not mirror MySpace or Facebook, but the idea of a social network for patents could solve the time-consuming process of searching for prior art.  This necessary process can help determine whether or not the claims made in a patent are original, or if they have already entered the public domain.  If the claims of a patent are found quickly in prior art, a patent examiner can promptly move on to the next claim.

While the specifics of such a system would have to be planned out rather carefully, it could vastly improve the amount of time it takes an examiner to search through prior art.  Unfortunately, since the USPTO has yet to make a presence on other social networks, such a change is still nowhere in the foreseeable future.

Next Page »