Cheaper TB drugs for millions after global deal on patent rights agreed; The Guardian, July 18, 2023

 Kaamil Ahmed, The Guardian ; Cheaper TB drugs for millions after global deal on patent rights agreed

"Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has struck a deal to allow generic versions of its tuberculosis drug to be supplied to low-income countries – but the deal has been criticised for not going far enough to end the company’s monopoly on global supplies of bedaquiline.

The global patent of the drug ends on Tuesday 18 July, but in a number of countries Johnson & Johnson continues to control the market with secondary patents – for which small modifications are made to a product to extend a patent.

J&J’s decision will allow the Stop TB Partnership coalition to procure and supply generic bedaquiline to 44 low- and middle-income countries through its Global Drug Facility (GDF)."

The real US patent 'crisis'; The Hill, December 9, 2019

Brian Pomper, The Hill; The real US patent 'crisis'

"The true crisis in our patent system is the dire state of Section 101 jurisprudence, the area of law determining what is and what is not eligible for patent protection. For nearly 150 years, Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act was interpreted to allow inventions to be patented across broad categories and subject matters. These patents incentivized American R&D and innovation and led to countless technological and medical breakthroughs.

Starting in 2010, however, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that have upended longstanding settled law and narrowed the scope of patent-eligible subject matter...

Restoring clear patent rights will be essential to maintaining a strong and healthy U.S. innovation ecosystem...

So yes, patent quality is important, and we must provide the USPTO with the resources it needs to carefully weigh patent applications and make consistent, defensible and predictable decisions. But the real patent crisis we face is the inability of innovators to get patents for their new inventions under Section 101."

How to make sure we all benefit when nonprofits patent technologies like CRISPR; The Conversation via The Associated Press via WTOP, July 19, 2017

The Conversation via The Associated Press via WTOP; How to make sure we all benefit when nonprofits patent technologies like CRISPR

"(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Shobita Parthasarathy, University of Michigan

(THE CONVERSATION) Universities and other nonprofit research institutions are under increasing fire about their commitments to the public interest. In return for tax-exempt status, their work is supposed to benefit society.

But are they really operating in the public interest when they wield their patent rights in ways that constrict research? Or when potentially lifesaving inventions are priced so high that access is limited? The public partially underwrites nonprofit discoveries via tax breaks and isn’t seeing a lot of benefit in return.

Questions like these arose recently in the case of CRISPR, the promising new gene-editing technology. After patenting it, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard sold the exclusive right to develop CRISPR-based therapies to its sister company Editas Medicine. Critics worry that this monopoly could limit important research and result in exorbitant prices on emerging treatments."

Supreme Court decision allows resale of used ink cartridges despite patent holder restriction; ABA Journal, May 30, 2017

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; Supreme Court decision allows resale of used ink cartridges despite patent holder restriction

"A patent holder that restricts the reuse or resale of its printer ink cartridges can’t invoke patent law against a remanufacturing company that violates the restriction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The court ruled that Lexmark International’s patent rights are exhausted with its first sale of the cartridges, despite restrictions it tried to impose."

Former judge wants to head patent office, says he’ll “Make Patents Great Again”; Ars Technica, 2/9/17

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; 

Former judge wants to head patent office, says he’ll “Make Patents Great Again”

"Who's the director of the US Patent and Trademark Office at the moment? It's a tougher question than you'd think.

A patent blog that closely watches USPTO internal politics, IP Watchdog, raised the question earlier this week. Reports last month from Politico and The Hill indicated that Michelle Lee, a former Googler who was appointed in 2014 and is favored by the tech sector, would stay on under the administration of President Donald Trump.

Those reports, published right around Trump's inauguration, seem much less reliable now. IP Watchdog reports that Lee continues to be seen on the 10th floor of the Madison building, where the USPTO director's office is. Yet others continue to advocate for themselves, and on Feb. 3, Lee canceled a scheduled speaking appearance in San Francisco. Since at least Feb. 6, the Commerce Department's website has listed the position of USPTO Director as "vacant" (screenshot by IP Watchdog).

In an e-mail this morning to Ars Technica, a USPTO spokesperson said only, "I cannot provide a comment at this time.""

Who Will Head the Patent and Trademark Office Under Trump?; Inside Counsel, 12/15/16

Scott Graham, Inside Counsel; Who Will Head the Patent and Trademark Office Under Trump? :

"Michelle Lee’s tenure as undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property is scheduled to conclude in January. While it’s not out of the question that she could continue in the role under Trump, observers see it as unlikely because of her past association with the Silicon Valley technology community and Google Inc., where she was head of patents and patent strategy before joining the PTO. Trump has a chilly relationship with tech and—while he said little about patent policy during the campaign—he is expected to favor a candidate who supports stronger patent rights...

Harter has speculated that Vice President-elect Mike Pence could hold some sway on IP policy. As a congressman Pence was skeptical of patent reform measures, though he voted for the America Invents Act. Pence also figures to be fluent with the IP issues of pharmaceutical companies given Eli Lilly & Co.’s presence in Indianapolis."