Join us for BIO’s Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Meeting in Seattle April 13-15. You can find the session topics below.
Whose Rights Are They, Anyway? Implications from and a Discussion on Stanford v. Roche
The pending Supreme Court review of Stanford v. Roche has brought out multiple perspectives on the disposition of ownership rights in federally funded inventions under Bayh-Dole. This session will explore the different interpretations of the Act’s provisions, and their practical implications for small business grantees or biotech companies who wish to collaborate with federal grantees.
A Landmark Case: The Aftermath of Myriad
This session will provide an update on the status of the case and the arguments that have been made by the various amicus groups, with particular emphasis on the US Government’s brief. We will also explore the impact of “gene patents” on up-and-coming technologies, especially whole genome/whole exome testing.
The Business Case for International Humanitarian Approaches to IP Management and Collaborations
Erik Iverson, Associate General Counsel, Global Health, Gates Foundation
Best Practices in Research Collaborations: Joint Inventorship Pitfalls and Ethical Issues in Joint Representation
Don Ware of Foley Hoag will lead a discussion of pitfalls that may arise from prosecuting joint inventions conceived in the course of research collaborations among multiple institutions, including companies, universities and hospitals. Irene Pleasure, Associate General Counsel and Director of Patent Law at Genentech, will provide the in-house perspective on managing patent issues in research collaborations. David Hricik, Professor of Law at Mercer University School of Law and co-author of the treatises Patent Ethics – Prosecution (2009) and Patent Ethics – Litigation (2010), will address the professional responsibilities of patent attorneys involved in the prosecution of jointly-owned patent applications.
How to Stay in the Frying Pan and Out of the Fire: Hot Topics in Ethics for In-House IP Attorneys
Professor David Hricik and Barbara Fiacco of Foley Hoag will present on developments in ethics law for in-house IP counsel, including law firm conflict issues, how to protect the attorney-client privilege, ethical dilemmas created by 21st century social media, in-house counsel ethical pitfalls, and recent developments in IP malpractice law. The game-show format of this panel will be thought-provoking and fun, and will encourage audience participation. CLE Ethics credit is being requested.
Learn How to Navigate IP Landscape in Emerging Markets
BIO members have indicated a strong desire to hear about challenges and key developments in emerging markets such as Korea, China, Brazil and India. Specific challenges, lay of the land, how to negotiate better in these markets.
This panel will include new developments on the Boehringer Ingelheim Federal Circuit Case, collaboration of multiple parties/how to avoid double patenting rejections and possible coverage of the Sun v. Lilly case.
The Next Chapter: Biosimilars Beyond the Health Care Reform Act
Will Policy Issues Slow the Pace of Implementation? Will the FDA Look to Europe for Guidance on Antibody Biosimilars? Emerging Markets, Emerging Strategies? The panel will cover recent developments in biosimilar, including policy issues based on move to repeal healthcare reform, the recent FDA public hearing on biosimilars, further debate on the meaning of exclusivity, the necessity of clinical trials, the possibility of interchangeability, and developments in Europe with respect to antibody biosimilars.
Filed under: IP Counsels' Committee, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, BIO, biosimilars, biotechnology, Brazil, China, double patenting, emerging markets, Erik Iverson, ethics, Gates Foundation, humanitarian, in house IP attorneys, India, Intellctual Property, Intellectual Property Counsels, Korea, Myriad, Patent Agents, research collaborations, Seattle, Stanford v. Roche | Leave a comment »