"The Biotechnology Toolkit" provides introductory materials on the core elements in the enabling environment important to bring life sciences breakthroughs from the theoretical stage to the market as new, innovative products and services.

On December 23, 2010, BayhDole25 filed an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University vs. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., et al., (Stanford vs. Roche), currently pending. The case raises critical questions about the appropriate division of Intellectual Property rights relating to federally funded research under the Bayh-Dole Act, where the lower court decision, if not reversed, could chill academic–industry research cooperation and reduce the overall effectiveness of federally funded research, harming job growth and U.S. global competitiveness.

BayhDole25's latest paper: "Access to Early Capital," expands on "The Biotechnology Toolkit" to provide more resources relating to sources of capital for biotechnology entrepreneurs, latest trends, and continuing challenges in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Today here in Washington DC, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), together with BIO, Venable LLP, and a number of other Academic organizations, are coming together to celebrate the success of the last 30 years of experience under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, signed into law on December 12, 1980.

"The IP Tool Kit: Understanding the Tools Critical for Continued U.S. Competitiveness in the Global Knowledge Economy," provides introductory materials on intellectual property issues critical to the continued competitiveness of the U.S.

The Broken Symmetry blog published an interesting discussion of the limits of prize systems for inventions entitled: "Why the Venetians didn't use the prize system for inventions" at this link.

BayhDole25 is pleased to provide for download selected chapters from the new PIPRA/MIHR publication: Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (eds A. Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen, et al). MIHR: Oxford, U.K. and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A., 2007.

BayhDole's own Susan Finston contributed the chapter: "Technology Transfer Snapshots from Middle-Income Countries: Creating Socio-Economic Benefits through Innovation." (See attachments to this posting.)

By Susan Finston, Board Chair, BayhDole25, Inc.:

On April 12, 2007, I attended the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conference, Innovation Policy and the Economy, organized by Adam Jaffe, Joshua Lerner, and Scott Stern.

The NBER half-day conference took on a central question facing U.S. policymakers in the coming months: does the U.S. patent regime and related technology transfer system harm innovation and growth by favoring right-holders to the detriment of overall growth? Despite the repeated insistence by Robert Litan (Kauffman Foundation, Brookings) that "the system is broken," other speakers, most notably Edward Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), provided compelling data that the U.S. economy continues to promote innovative technologies and to create jobs.

While the entire morning was useful and interesting for those with an interest in innovation and economic policy, the first session on university research and commercialization, provided the most fireworks, to the extent possible at a gathering of generally collegial academics, government officials and consultants. This blog focuses on that discussion.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Microsoft vs. AT&T. Because BayhDole25 had filed an amicus brief in the case, I attended the oral argument.

It was very interesting to see what aspects of the case were the most important to the Justices and what points were stressed by the attorneys (Ted Olsen for Microsoft, Daryl Joseffer for the U.S. Department of Justice, and Seth Waxman for AT&T). Microsoft seemed to gain substantial sympathy for the view that an affirmation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision would create open-ended liability for U.S. corporations commercial activities abroad.

On January 23, 2007, BayhDole25 filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Microsoft vs. AT&T (Microsoft) case currently pending. The case raises critical questions as to the appropriateness of patent protection for software and other intangible inventions, placing at issue the core assets of researchers at universities and research institutions, as well as other biotechnology and high-technology entrepreneurs seeking to bring new products to market.