PUBPAT News: Consumer Groups Support Stem Cell Patent Rejection

Date:  Mon, 2007-07-02

Dr. David E. Martin July 2, 2007

CONSUMER GROUPS FILE COMMENTS SUPPORTING U.S. PATENT OFFICE’S STEM CELL PATENT REJECTION: University of Wisconsin Affiliate Has Narrowed Claims; Four Leading Scientists Agree Work Was “Obvious”.

Santa Monica, CA — July 2, 2007 — Two consumer groups have filed comments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office supporting its rejection of human embryonic stem cell patent claims asserted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) because the claimed advances are obvious in the light of previous stem cell research, the groups said today.

Last July the groups, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenged the patents because they are hindering stem cell research.

Four internationally known stem cell scientists, Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard University, Dr. Alan Trounson of Monash University in Australia, Dr. Chad Cowan of Harvard University and Dr. Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, filed declarations supporting the consumer groups and the PTO’s earlier finding that the work done by Dr. James Thomson does not deserve a patent.

In papers filed on Friday, FTCR and PUBPAT said that although WARF has narrowed its claims and made several arguments in its response to the PTO “none of the Patent Owners’ arguments have sufficient merit to overcome the rejections.”

“I very much believe Dr. Thomson deserves the scientific and public recognition he has received,” Dr. Melton’s declaration said. “However, he deserves that recognition because he undertook the arduous and timely task of getting fresh and high quality embryos to use as starting material for his work, and sufficient funding for such research, not because he did anything that was inventive… His perseverance and commitment deserve recognition and accolades. But I believe that had any other stem cell scientist been given the same starting material and financial support, they could have made the same accomplishment, because the science required to isolate and maintain human embryonic stem cells was obvious.”

WARF holds three stem cell patents, numbers ‘780, ‘806 and ‘913, based on work done by Thomson. The PTO granted the requests for re-examination and in March rejected all the claims of all three patents. WARF had the opportunity to respond to all three rejections. The rules applicable to the ‘913 case under a so called “inter partes” re-examination allow the challengers to comment on WARF’s response in that proceeding.

The two earlier patents are undergoing “/ex parte” /re-examination and those rules do not allow formal comment from FTCR and PUBPAT. Nonetheless, the case made by FTCR and PUBPAT in the ‘913 case is relevant to the other two.

“What Dr. Thomson did was admirable,” said John M. Simpson FTCR Stem Cell Project Director. “It just isn’t patentable.”

WARF narrowed its claims in its response to the PTO finding, seeking to patent only stem cells derived from “pre-implantation embryos.” This means that stem cells derived by other methods — such as therapeutic cloning — may not be covered. In January WARF eased its licensing requirements on stem cells, a move many observers believed was an effort to blunt widespread criticism of its aggressive patent policy from the stem cell research community.

Dan Ravicher, executive director of PUBPAT, said that while the challenge has already improved the situation for researchers, the patents are still not justified. In the ‘913 case the patent examiner cited five grounds for rejecting WARF’s claim, basing the decision on earlier publications and patents by Robertson, Piedrahita, Williams and Hogan. (Read the PTO decision here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/913rejected.pdf). In their formal comments FTCR and PUBPAT agreed with the examiner and rebutted WARF’s arguments making these five essential points:

Read FTCR and PUBPAT’s comments filed with the PTO here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/913Comments.pdf.

In his declaration Dr. Trounson speaks about the relevance of isolating mouse embryonic stem cells to isolating human embryonic stem cells: “In January, 1995, it was obvious to me and others in the art of ES cell derivation that the process taught by Robertson ’83 and Robertson ’87 for isolating mouse stem ES cells could be used to isolate human ES cells. The motivation to do so came at least from the general understanding in the field of the applicability of mouse studies to human research.”

Dr. Cowan’s and Dr. Loring’s declarations agree that the patent’s claims were obvious and apparent to anyone working in the field at the time.

Dr. Loring, who has long supported the patent challenges added: “Dr. Thomson is a valued colleague in the stem cell scientific community, and the challenge to his patents is not personal. His work was impressive, and contributed greatly to the field, but it wasn’t patentable.”

Dr. Trounson’s declaration also discusses work by Dr. Ariff Bongso, a stem cell scientist in Singapore, who successfully isolated human ES cells, but did not maintain the cultures for a long period of time. Dr. Bongso did not use feeder layers, but tried LIF to culture the cells. Dr. Thomson used feeder cells. Dr. Trounson’s declaration notes: “Two of the authors of Bongso et al. and I recognized by 1995 that by using feeder layers with or without LIF would work to successfully maintain isolated human ES cells over an extended period of time. We made this recognition well before Dr. Thomson published the results of his work, as it was obvious to us at the time that, had Bongso et al. simply not dispensed with the feeder layer in the passaging step, they would have successfully developed the claimed invention. A successful result of such an obvious modification was entirely predictable to us.”

Read the Dr. Melton’s declaration here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/MeltonDecl.pdf.

Read Dr. Trounson’s declaration here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/TrounsonDec.pdf.

Read Dr. Cowan’s declaration here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/CowanDec.pdf.

Read Dr. Loring’s declaration here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LoringDec.pdf.

Dr. Melton is currently the Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard University, and an Investigator at Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He is also a Co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. His biographical background is available here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/meltoncv.pdf.

Dr. Trounson is Director of the Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories (MISCL) and founded the Australian Stem Cell Centre in 2003. He is chairman the Government Affairs Committee of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and a member of the society’s board. His biographical background is available here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/trounsoncv.pdf.

Dr. Cowan is on the Principal Faculty of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and is an ad hoc reviewer for various journals, including Developmental Biology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Developmental Cell, and Cell Stem Cell. He is also a member of the International Stem Cell Initiative. His biographical background is available here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/cowancv.pdf.

Dr. Loring is a member of the faculty of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, where she directs human embryonic stem cell research. She is Director of the Stem Cell Resource, NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Training Course, and Co-Director of the NIH Exploratory Center for Human Stem Cell Research. Her biographical background is available here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/loringcv.pdf.

Starbucks reaches licensing deal with Ethiopia – Will promote three of country’s specialty coffees, but not pay royalties

Date:  Wed, 2007-06-20

Dr. David E. Martin June 20, 2007

Seattle, Washington – June 20, 2007 – Starbucks Corp. and the Ethiopian government said Wednesday they will work together to promote three of the African nation’s prized specialty coffees under a deal that supports the country’s bid to win trademarks it believes will benefit farmers.

For the full article see: MSNBC

EUPACO Report on Benefits and Costs of the Global Patent Paradigm

Date:  Wed, 2007-06-13

Dr. David E. Martin June 13, 2007

Social Contingent Liabilities and Synthetic Derivative Options: Benefits and Costs of the Global Patent Paradigm – an article by Dr. David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. and Fellow, Batten Institute, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia.

Abstract: At the turn of the 20th century, the emergence of efficient transoceanic and transcontinental commerce gave rise to central banks and gold standards enabling the industrial economy. At the dawn of the 21st century, we face the realization that the tangible economy and its attendant modes no longer can be represented or financed using the convention of the “balance sheet.” Value and risk are now the exclusive domain of the intangible and the asymmetric. Presaged with the collapse of the 2001 WTO debates in Doha, heralded with the recent global stock market multiple personality disorder, and against the growing drumbeat of currency strain, global finance is about to experience the collapse of the tangible, industrial market paradigms and the emergence of the intangible, asymmetric risk capital era. Public policy makers, economists, patent offices and financial institutions are all viewing this transition with relative opacity, limited by their commitments to incumbent models.

For a Printable version of this article (PDF)

For more information see: EUPACO Report

M·CAM announces release of M·CAM DOORS™ Version 7

Date:  Fri, 2007-06-01

M·CAM June 1, 2007

Charlottesville, VA – June 1, 2007 – M·CAM, Inc.® releases M·CAM DOORS™ Version 7, the gold standard intellectual property risk management system. M·CAM DOORS™ Version 7 has been re-designed from the ground up for superior performance and reliability. In addition to the world’s largest standardized database of patents and patent related information, M·CAM DOORS™ Version 7 now provides access to NASA small business awards, Government Interest information for US innovations, new statistical and geographic visualization features, and enhanced customization capabilities.

About M·CAM:

M·CAM, Inc. is the international leader in creating financial solutions for the knowledge economy. From managing investment and business financial risk arising from the assets of the knowledge economy, M·CAM has worked for over a decade in bringing accountability and reliable risk assessment to the world of intangible risk finance. Unique in its dedication to three equally important dynamics — financial engineering, standardization of risk assessment and management, and public policy — M·CAM has created an environment in which it has emerged as the standard-bearer.

For further information about M·CAM, contact Debra Fisher at (434) 979-7240 ext. 366 or info@m-cam.com. M·CAM Inc., 210 Ridge-McIntire Road, Suite 300, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

David Martin speaks about IP&R at the International Workshop on Building Global Value chain around Green Grassroots Innovations and Traditional Knowledge

Date:  Thu, 2007-05-31

Dr. David E. Martin May 31 – June 2, 2007

Tianjin, China – May 31 – June 2 – David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. speaks about the ethical use of Intellectual Property Rights in the context of traditional knowledge, and the impact of IPR on emerging economies at the International Workshop on Building Global Value chain around Green Grassroots Innovations and Traditional Knowledge co-sponsored by the Indian and Chinese governments and Tianjin University.

Topics include:

For more information see: Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institution.

Article on InfoDev

M·CAM CEO Serves on Panel to Discuss Research on Benefits and Costs at the EUPACO-2 Conference in Brussels

Date:  Tue, 2007-05-15

Dr. David E. Martin May 15-16, 2007

Brussels, Belgium – May 15-16, 2007 – David E. Martin, CEO, M·CAM, Inc. speaks about patent system benefits and costs at the European Patent Conference (EUPACO): Towards a New European Patent System.

This year EUPACO brings together over 30 experts to discuss patent issues such as:

For more information see: EUPACO

M·CAM Engaged to Expand Ampex Licensing Program

Date:  Mon, 2007-05-14

Dr. David E. Martin May 14, 2007

Redwood City, California – May 14, 2007 – M·CAM Engaged to Expand Ampex Licensing Program.

Ampex Corporation (Nasdaq:AMPX – News) today announced that it has entered into an agreement with M·CAM, Inc. to develop an intellectual property commercialization and monetization strategic plan which is intended to accelerate and broaden the Company’s licensing program. M·CAM and its founder, Dr. David Martin, have developed proprietary software and other technology that identifies possible new licensing opportunities, strategic partnerships and other business relationships where a client’s intellectual property might bring added value. Ampex and M·CAM intend to work together to capitalize on the market opportunities that the strategic plan identifies.

International speakers assemble to discuss the European Patent System

Date:  Thu, 2007-05-03

Dr. David E. Martin May 3, 2007

Brussels, Belgium – May 3, 2007 – International speakers assemble to discuss the European Patent System.

Over thirty renowned international speakers assemble on 15 and 16 May in Brussels’ Metropole Hotel to discuss the future of the European Patent System. Among the topics being discussed are the recently published plans of the EU Commission for a new European patent system, and recent important decisions in the US Supreme Court, and new data and research from the USA about the impact of the patent system on the high-tech sector.

David Martin, CEO of M·CAM, will be presenting data on the costs and benefits of patents: “As the global fusion economy continues to evolve, assumptions underpinning industrial and intellectual property rights need to be assessed to test their adaptability for use today. In an era of unprecedented capability for multi-stakeholder competition or cooperation, EUPACO serves as an ideal forum to review the consequences for past policy and emerge a resilient model for future development and growth.”

For more information see: FFII.

David Martin Presents with Moustapha Sarhank and Steffen Schubert at the Miller Center of Public Affairs

Date:  Mon, 2007-04-23

Dr. David E. Martin April 23, 2007

Charlottesville, Virginia – April 23, 2007 – David E. Martin, Moustapha Sarhank, and Steffen Schubert present “Are Western Leadership Concepts Appropriate in Islamic Cultures?” at the Miller Center of Public Affairs for The Forum on Islamic Leadership. The Forum was sponsored by the Darden School of Business Tayloe Murphy International Center and the Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Topics Include:

For more information see: Miller Center of Public Affairs

Dave Martin, Moustapha Sarhank, and Steffen Schubert speak about Islam and International Commerce on Insight, on WMRA, Your NPR Station

Date:  Fri, 2007-04-20

Dr. David E. Martin April 20, 2007

Dave Martin, Moustapha Sarhank, and Steffen Schubert Speak About Islam and International Commerce on Insight, on WMRA, Your NPR Station

Harrisonburg, Virginia – April 20, 2007 – David E. Martin, Ph.D., founder of M·CAM, Inc., an international intellectual property rights firm based in Charlottesville; Moustapha Sarhank, honorary chairman of Sarhank Group for Investments, a holding company with headquarters in Egypt and Switzerland; and Steffen Schubert, founding CEO of the Dubai International Financial Exchange speak about Islam and International Commerce on Insight, on WMRA, Your NPR Station.

From the WMRA website:

Mention “Islam” and what springs to mind for most Americans is not “Commerce.” But David Martin thinks that is about to change. On this edition, Insight host Tom Graham interviews Martin, Sarhank, and Schubert about their belief that the future of world commerce may be based in the Middle East.

Insight is the combination of talk shows and documentaries available on WMRA weekdays at 3 p.m., just before All Things Considered. Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday Insight features locally originated interviews hosted by journalist Tom Graham and often including live listener call-ins. On Tuesdays and Thursdays Insight presents in-depth special reports produced by a variety of the most respected documentary makers in public broadcasting.

Islam and International Commerce Speech

Real Player

M·CAM Announces New Board Members

Date:  Fri, 2007-04-20

PUBPAT News: Patent Office Grants PUBPAT Request to Reexamine Opsware Remote Computer Management Patent

Date:  Wed, 2007-04-18

Dr. David E. Martin April 18, 2007

PATENT OFFICE GRANTS PUBPAT REQUEST TO REEXAMINE OPSWARE REMOTE COMPUTER MANAGEMENT PATENT: Government Agency Believes There are ‘Substantial Questions’ About Whether The Patent Was Preempted by Open Source Projects

New York, NY — April 18, 2007 — The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation’s (“PUBPAT”) formal request to review a patent held by Opsware Inc. (NASDAQ: OPSW) related to remote computer management that was preempted by the work of open source projects. In its February filing, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,124,289), described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patent and asked that the patent be revoked. In response, the Patent Office has now found that PUBPAT’s filing indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of the Opsware patent.

The challenged Opsware patent claims methods for automatically configuring or installing software on a plurality of computing devices having different respective sets of software and/or configurations of operating parameters. When Opsware announced the issuance of their patent, Ben Horowitz, CEO of Opsware, was quoted as commenting, with respect to the ”˜289 patent: “This patent solidifies and protects the work we’ve done to greatly advance the automation of data centers.”

The work that Opsware claims to have done, however, may be found in publicly available references, including open source software projects that are directed to configuring and installing software on computers, and that were available and in public use in the United States more than a year before the filing date of the ”˜289 patent. Moreover, the ”˜289 patent may impact the developers and users of open source projects, including Cfengine, LCFG, Quattor, and BCFG.

“Individuals, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and businesses throughout the United States rely on these open source software tools to manage their computers,” said PUBPAT’s Executive Director Dan Ravicher. “We are glad that the Patent Office has begun a process to review the evidence we submitted that proves the technology claimed in the ”˜289 is not the work of the inventor named in the ”˜289 patent, but rather, is the work of open source developers, who have provided their code for the benefit of the public good.”

A copy of the Patent Office’s Order granting PUBPAT’s Request for Reexamination of the Opsware remote computer management patent can be found below this post:

PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Request to Reexamine Patriot Scientific Microprocessor Patent Granted by U.S. Patent Office

Date:  Tue, 2007-04-10

Dr. David E. Martin April 10, 2007

PUBPAT REQUEST TO REEXAMINE PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC MICROPROCESSOR PATENT GRANTED BY U.S. PATENT OFFICE: Government Agency Determines ‘Substantial Questions’ Exist Regarding Patent Licensing Company’s Widely Asserted Patent

New York, NY — April 10, 2007 — The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation’s (“PUBPAT”) formal request to review a patent held by Patriot Scientific Corp. (OB: PTSC) that the company, which boasts of “primarily focusing on deriving revenue from licensing patents”, is widely asserting against producers of computer microprocessors. In its February filing, PUBPAT had submitted prior art that the Patent Office was not aware of when reviewing the application that led to the issuance of the patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336) and described in detail how the prior art invalidates the patent. In response, the Patent Office has now found that PUBPAT’s filing indeed raised “substantial questions” regarding the validity of the Patriot Scientific patent.

Despite no longer making any product or service itself, Patriot Scientific is asserting the patent against those that produce or distribute microprocessors, either alone or with a computer. Patriot Scientific’s assertion of the patent has included the filing of infringement lawsuits and the sending of over 150 letters threatening litigation. PUBPAT challenged the patent because Patriot Scientific’s aggressive assertion of it is causing substantial public harm by threatening to levy additional costs on the production of microprocessors, which could make every computer Americans buy more expensive. Having now granted PUBPAT’s request to review the patent, the Patent Office will turn to decide whether the patent deserves to exist or not.

“We are very pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that there are indeed significant questions regarding with the validity of the Patriot Scientific patent,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “This is the first strong step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by the company that is little more than a corporate front for contingency fee patent attorneys to sue and threaten productive members of society.”

Copies of the U.S. Patent Office’s Order Granting PUBPAT’s Request for Reexamination of the patent Patriot Scientific is widely asserting against microprocessors can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/patriotscientific.htm.

PUBPAT News: PTO Rejects Human Stem Cell Patents At Behest of Consumer Groups

Date:  Mon, 2007-04-02

Dr. David E. Martin April 2, 2007

PTO REJECTS HUMAN STEM CELL PATENTS AT BEHEST OF CONSUMER GROUPS: Re-examination Was Initiated by Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and Public Patent Foundation

Santa Monica, CA — April 2, 2007 — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has upheld challenges by consumer advocates to three over-reaching patents on human embryonic stem cells and rejected patent claims by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.

“This is a a great day for scientific research,” said John M. Simpson. FTCR stem cell project director. “Given the facts, this is the only conclusion the PTO could have reached. The patents should never have been issued in the first place.”

The challenges were filed last July by FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) because the three WARF patents were impeding scientific progress and driving vital stem cell research overseas. FTCR and PUBPAT argued that the work done by University of Wisconsin researcher James Thomson to isolate stem cell lines was obvious in the light of previous scientific research, making his work unpatentable. To receive a patent, something must be new, useful and non-obvious. The PTO agreed with the groups.

Its decision said, “It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to the method of isolating ES cells from primates and maintaining the isolated ES cells on feeder cells for periods longer than one year. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to isolate primate (human) ES cells, and maintained in undifferentiated state for prolonged periods, since ES cells are pluripotential and can be used in gene therapy.”

The PTO decisions were dated Friday, March 30 but were received today. WARF has two months to respond to the PTO ruling and seek to change it. Third party requests for patent re-examination, like the ones filed by FTCR and PUBPAT, are ultimately successful in having the subject patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.

Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, filed statements in support of the re-examination requests.

“The real discovery of embryonic stem cells was by Martin Evans, Matt Kaufman, and Gail Martin in 1981, and none of these scientists considered patenting them,” said Loring. “It is outrageous that WARF claimed credit for this landmark discovery nearly 15 years after it was made.”

In the face of the challenges by FTCR and PUBPAT WARF announced in January that it would ease its licensing requirements on human embryonic stem cells.

“Now that the PTO has ruled, WARF should simply drop all its claims,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT Executive Director.

The groups said the patents’ dubious validity is underscored by the fact that no other country in the world honors them. As a result, U.S. researchers have sent research monies abroad where they can avoid paying royalties to WARF.

California voters approved the nation’s largest publicly funded stem cell research program in 2004 with Proposition 71, which allocated $3 billion in grants over the next 10 years.

More information about FTCR and PUBPAT’s challenges to the WARF stem cell patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,843,780, 6,200,806 and 7,029,913), including copies of the Patent Office’s Orders rejecting the patents, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm

Read John Simpson’s Op-Ed explaining the need for the patent challenges at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/co/?postId=6532

PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Takes On Key HIV/AIDS Drug Patents

Date:  Mon, 2007-03-26

Dr. David E. Martin March 26, 2007

PUBPAT TAKES ON KEY HIV/AIDS DRUG PATENTS: Non-Profit Submits Prior Art to U.S. Patent Office and Asks For Revocation of Four Gilead Sciences Patents

New York, NY — March 26, 2007 — The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that it has filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging four key HIV/AIDS drug patents held by Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD). As part of its requests, PUBPAT submitted prior art that the Patent Office did not review before granting the patents to the Foster City, California, biopharmaceutical giant. PUBPAT also explained how the submitted prior art invalidates the patents and asked that the Patent Office initiate a process to revoke them.

Roughly 40 million people worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1.2 million Americans. The patents challenged by PUBPAT, U.S. Patents Nos. 5,922,695, 5,935,946, 5,977,089 and 6,043,230, relate to the drug known generically as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a key weapon in the battle against HIV/AIDS. Gilead markets TDF in the United States under the brand name Viread and as a part of its Atripla combination product.

“Every person afflicted with HIV/AIDS has the right to obtain the best medical treatment available, without any improper obstacles placed in their way,” said the Requests for Reexamination submitted by PUBPAT. “More specifically, American men, women and children suffering from HIV/AIDS are entitled to access the best pharmaceutical treatments available without undeserved patents making those treatments either too expensive or too limited in supply.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow anyone other than Gilead distribute TDF in the United States because Gilead claims the four challenged patents give them the exclusive right to do so. Gilead has applied for similar patents on TDF in other countries throughout the world, including India, where they have received fierce opposition by non-profit AIDS patient groups.

“Gilead is using the four patents our requests show are invalid to prevent anyone else from offering TDF to HIV/AIDS patients in the United States,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “Since the patents are undeserved, they are unjustified barriers preventing American HIV/AIDS patients from getting the medical treatment that they need and deserve.”

The Requests for Reexamination filed by PUBPAT against the Gilead Sciences TDF patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/gileadhivaidsdrug.htm

M·CAM speaks on “Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning in the World of Finance” at the IRAHS Symposium in Singapore

Date:  Tue, 2007-03-20

Dr. David E. Martin March 20, 2007

Risk Assessment/Horizon Scanning (RAHS) is the art and science of detecting “weak signals” emanating from the total security environment so as to forewarn policymakers, the private sector and the public about approaching “shocks” such as terrorism, pandemics, energy crises and other easy-to-miss trends and ostensibly distant events. The Symposium is being put on by The Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS). CENS is a research unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. CENS is devoted to rigorous policy-relevant analysis of a range of national security issues. The CENS team is multinational in composition, comprising both Singaporean and Foreign Analysts who are specialists in various aspects of national homeland security affairs.

RAHS Presentation – David Martin

M·CAM Executives and Darden Professors teach a one-week intensive Darden Graduate School of Business Administration course titled: Patents and Corporate Valuation

Date:  Mon, 2007-03-12

M·CAM CEO participates in panel discussion at the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS) Media Briefing in Washington, DC

Date:  Thu, 2007-03-01

M·CAM President, Ned Goldstein, named to Ampex (NASDAQ: AMPX) Board of Directors

Date:  Mon, 2007-02-19

PUBPAT News: PUBPAT Executive Director Testifies Before U.S. House of Representatives on Patent Reform

Date:  Thu, 2007-02-15

Dr. David E. Martin February 15, 2007

PUBPAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TESTIFIES BEFORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON PATENT REFORM

NEW YORK — February 15, 2007 — Public Patent Foundation (“PUBPAT”) Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, will testify today to the U.S. House of Representatives on the subject of patent reform. Ravicher will begin with an opening statement and then answer questions from Representatives on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, including Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Howard Coble (R-NC), at the oversight hearing on “American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform” scheduled for 2:00 pm this afternoon.

“The interests of the non-patent holding public are almost always absent from any meaningful participation in decision making about the patent system, despite the fact that they bear the brunt of its burdens,” Ravicher stated in written testimony submitted as part of his testimony at the hearing. “As with any body of law that applies to and affects all Americans, patent policy should be made with consideration of all of the public’s interests, not just the specific interests of patent holders, patent practitioners, and large commercial actors.”

Patent reform has been a topic of extensive discussion in Washington the past few years, with both the House and Senate introducing bills and holding hearings on the subject. Many of the most frequently discussed proposals aim to improve patent quality, such as by limiting the ability of patent applicants to file unlimited numbers of continuation applications and by creating a post-grant opposition procedure allowing the public to more efficiently challenge the validity of issued patents. In his written testimony, Ravicher commented on these specific proposals and also raised several other ways in which the patent system should be reformed.

More information about PUBPAT’s testimony to the House of Representatives on patent reform, including a complete copy of Mr. Ravicher’s written statement, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/advocacypolicy.htm. The hearing can be seen live by webcast via the House of Representative’s website below this post: