Monetizing Your Intellectual Property: Protecting Ideas that Generate Income
-
Upload
knobbe-martens-olson-bear -
Category
Education
-
view
831 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Monetizing Your Intellectual Property: Protecting Ideas that Generate Income
Monetizing Your Intellectual
Property: Protecting Ideas that
Generate Income
Kathleen Mekjian, Ph.D., J.D.
Brenden Gingrich, Ph.D., J.D.
The recipient may only view this work. No other right or license is granted.
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 2
Kathleen Mekjian, Ph.D., J.D.
3 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Overview
• Patents – Value/Patentable Subject Matter
• Inventorship and Ownership
• Loss of Rights and Avoiding Pitfalls
• Sufficiency of Disclosure/Timing
• Freedom to Operate
• Procedural and Monetary Considerations
• The Prometheus v. Mayo Supreme Court Decision
4 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
The Value of Patents
• Bring Tremendous Value to Company
– Can be Critical to Obtaining Investment
– Can Provide Revenue
– Cross-Licensing
• Secure Market Position / Exclusivity
– They are Swords (Offensive)
• Can Exclude Competitors from your Business
• Can Protect your Products from Duplication
– They are Shields (Defensive)
• Demonstrates sophistication and professionalism
• Your Competitors (domestic and foreign) are Getting Them!
5 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Patents - The Basics
• Patents protect (1) novel, (2) useful, and (3) non-obvious processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter
• Gives the patent owner the exclusive right to exclude others from selling/offering to sell, using, making, or importing the invention
• Term is 20 years from filing date
• In exchange for this “legal monopoly,” inventor must disclose how to practice the invention
6 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Value of Patents
• “Strong” versus “Weak(er)” Patents
– Value comes from excluding
• Lots of alternatives = weaker patents
–Antibody with a particular CDR
• Critical step = very valuable
–Growing antibodies in CHO cells
–Humanized antibodies
7 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Deciding What to Claim
• Purpose of IP
– V.C. specific (clear/fast exit . . .fast approval)
– Your product (now or future)
– Competitor’s product (now or future)
– License or cross-license (scope v. fast allowance)
– Litigation (focused/validity)
• Protection for commercial embodiment
– Link between customer demand and claims
• Broad v. narrow= scope v. validity
8 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
How to Claim Strategically
• Seek protection with value
– Start with relevant market
• Cover your product
• Cover design-arounds
9 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Commercial Product
Block Competitive Alternatives
Patent Scope
10 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Block Competitive Alternatives
Commercial Product
Patent Relevant Scope Market
11 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Multi-Faceted Approach
Patent 1 Scope
Patent 3 Scope
Relevant Market
Patent 2 Scope
Commercial Product
12 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Directly Pursue Competition’s Space
Patent 1 Scope
Patent 3 Scope
Relevant Market
Patent 2 Scope
Commercial Product
Patent 4 Scope
13 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Inventorship
• Who is an “inventor”
– Conception = touchstone of inventorship
• Arriving at a definite and permanent idea of the invention
– Laboratory hands v. Joint inventor
• A joint inventor must make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention
– Improvements, etc. may lead to joint inventorship
14 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Ownership
• Inventors own the invention – undivided interest in the entire patent
• Types of agreements that affect ownership rights
– Employment Agreements
– Consulting Agreements
– Development Agreements
– Manufacturing Agreements
– Collaboration Agreements
– Visitor’s Confidentiality Agreements
– Government Interests
• U.S. laws “inventor friendly” in terms of presumption of ownership
15 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Inventorship & Ownership - Cautionary tips
• Beware of Unintended Co-Inventors
– Contractors, Manufacturers, Collaborators, etc.
– Co-Inventors Own Equally & Can Dispose Unilaterally
• Leaving Off Inventor Can Render Patent Unenforceable!
• Illustrations of the Importance of Ownership Rights
– The Google story – how Stanford was successful
– Roche v. Stanford – how Stanford was unsuccessful
16 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Loss of Rights – “Loose Lips Sink Ships”
• Disclosure of your invention may preclude ability to patent (novelty and obviousness provisions of the patent laws)
• One year grace period in U.S. (but not many foreign jurisdictions!)
• America Invents Act - changes in law relevant to novelty take effect March 2013
17 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Loss of Rights
• Abstracts
• Posters
• Oral Presentations
• Manuscripts v. Online Publication
• Grant Applications
• Theses/Dissertations
• Offer for Sale
18 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Loss of Rights – Precautionary Measures
• Do Not Disclose Invention Outside of Confidentiality
– Use Confidential Disclosure Agreements (CDAs) for discussions with potential collaborators, licensees, investors (when possible), etc.
• Protect confidential information (e.g., mark it as “confidential” or don’t disseminate it)
• File patent applications before presentations, talks, publishing, meeting with collaborators, licensees, investors, etc.
• Maintain records of research and development (e.g., lab notebooks)
• Use caution with content of submissions and reports (assume they will be publicly available immediately)
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 19
Brenden Gingrich, Ph.D., J.D.
20 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
• Major issue for patents in the “unpredictable” arts
• Must describe the invention
– Demonstrate “possession” of the invention
– Genus claims require:
• Structure / Function relationship
• Representative number of species
• Must enable invention
– Make and use without undue experimentation
– In vivo treatments need in vivo data
• Data from well-accepted animal model is sufficient
When to File – do I have enough data?
21 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
When to File – do I have enough data?
• Scope of protection needed is a consideration
– What is the purpose for the IP?
• Protection of product
–Narrower patent may be sufficient
– Therapeutic, diagnostic, research tool
• Blocking competitors
– Broader patent may be needed
– In which countries is protection needed?
• Different standards in different countries
22 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
• Purpose of protection is a consideration
– Your product today
• Accelerate allowance
• Parallel filings
– Your product in the future
• Serial filings
• Maximize PTA / PTE
– Funding – exit strategy items first
– Litigation / Licensing
When to File – now or later?
23 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Patentability / FTO Searching
• Patentability Searching
– Optional step to gain understanding of prior art
• Patents and published applications
• Non-patent literature
– Most useful for narrow, targeted applications
• Prosecution costs reduced by focusing claims
24 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Patentability / FTO Searching
• Freedom to Operate / Right to Practice Searching
– Evaluate patent landscape
• Who are potential partners / threats
– Develop strategy for blocking patents
• License
• Design around
• Invalidity / Non-infringement opinion
• Wait for expiration
25 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Patentability / FTO Searching
• §271(e)(1) “safe harbor”
– “It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention … solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the FDA
– Created as part of balance between brand-name and generic drug companies
– Courts have extended the “safe harbor” to early product research and development
26 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Filing Procedures – impact of the AIA
• America Invents Act (Patent Reform)
– File Early, File Often
– “First to File”: increases importance of filing early
• Effective March 16, 2013
Invention
Conception
3rd Party Disclosure
or Patent Filing
Invention
Reduction to Practice File Application
“swear behind”
1 day
27 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Filing Procedures
• Provisional Applications
– Official fees: $250 / $150 for small entity
– Establishes priority date for disclosed material
– One-year pendency, no examination
– Can file numerous provisional applications
– Does not publish, can re-file if more time is needed
28 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Filing Procedures
• U.S. Utility Application
– Official fees:$1250 / $530 small entity
– Can claim priority to one or more provisional applications within 1 year of filing
– Examined in ~18-24 months
– Issues 2-5 years
29 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Filing Procedures
• PCT Application
– Official fees: $4154 (no small entity discount)
– “International” application
• Provides priority in 144 member countries
• No such thing as “International Patent”
– Searched and provisionally examined (non-binding)
– Enter “National Phase” within 30 months of priority
30 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Timeline for Filing
12 Months 18 Months
Utility / PCT National Phase
3rd Provisional
(optional)
1st Provisional
2nd Provisional
(optional)
• Typical Filing Strategy
31 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Timeline for Filing – AIA strategy
• Strategy to provide extra year of patent term in U.S.
12 Months 18 Months
Voluntarily Publish
Application
National Phase
Re-file Provisional
1st Provisional
U.S. Utility
12 Months 12 Months
PCT
32 © 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved.
Supreme Court’s Prometheus Decision
• Discovered correlation between specific drug metabolite levels and safety / efficacy
• Patentable subject matter
– Exceptions: natural laws / phenomena, products of nature, abstract ideas
– “Specific applications” of natural laws are patentable
• Holding: administering, measuring, and then correlating metabolite level to need alter drug dose is not patentable
• Implications for diagnostics
– e.g., inflammation as diagnostic for heart disease