M·CAM | All Post
22144
blog,paged,paged-48,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-theme-ver-4.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.9,vc_responsive
March 11, 2005 In News Archive

US Research Tax Credit To Face A Critical Review

Date:  Fri, 2005-03-11

Rob Wells March 11, 2005 excerpted from DOW JONES NEWSWIRES A large federal tax subsidy for corporate research – the research and experimentation tax credit – will face some intensified criticism next week before a Senate committee. New research of 200 public companies which received the credit over a period of five years suggests 20% of the firms might be “double-dipping,” or receiving the credit while also obtaining government-funded research directly or through contractors. Public filings of the companies show about 20% disclosed a situation “where one would want to clarify whether the companies are using it and double-dipping it or not,” said researcher Dr. David Martin. And interviews with chief executives, chief financial officers and research directors found companies generally didn’t factor in the credit before embarking on research, said Martin, president and chief executive of Virginia-based M-CAM Inc. Martin has provided research to the Senate Finance Committee as part of its effort to halt abusive donations of corporate patents to non-profits. The study also examined the stock performance of the companies receiving the credit. About half of the companies outperformed the S&P 500, while the other half didn’t, according to Martin. “That would suggest the credit is not having its intended effect,” he said. Martin is to release additional findings about the research credit at a March 16 Senate Finance Committee hearing. “The committee intends to have a serious review of the credit and how it is operating and if the IRS is able to administer it properly,” a Senate Finance Committee Republican aide said.

January 19, 2005 In News Archive

David Pratt Addresses Annual Meeting of PIPRA

Date:  Wed, 2005-01-19

January 19-20, 2005 David Pratt provided two lectures on the importance of IP quality management in public interest initiatives. M·CAM has been a technology underwriter of PIPRA partnering its support to the financial support from the Rockefeller and McKnight Foundations. PIPRA Purpose Statement

January 5, 2005 In News Archive

M·CAM CEO Named to AASTIIK Board Solidifying India – EU Partnership

Date:  Wed, 2005-01-05

January 5, 2005 Today, the Academy for Augmenting Sustainable Technological Inventions, Innovations and Traditional Knowledge (AASTIIK) was inaugurated in a ceremony chaired by Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, Director General of India’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Project coordinator, Prof. Anil K Dupta, together with EU partners Prof. David Smith (Wales, UK); Prof. Martin O’Connor (France); and, Prof. Larry Stapleton (Ireland) announced the strategic plan for this EU funded project which will serve as a global catalyst for IPR definition and protection serving numerous emerging market economies as they refine their roles in the global economy. AASTIIK Activity Chart

December 8, 2004 In News Archive

Lipitor Patent to Be Reexamined at PUBPATs Request

Date:  Wed, 2004-12-08

Patent Office Agrees There is a “Substantial Question” Regarding Blockbuster Cholesterol-Lowering Drug Patent’s Validity NEW YORK — The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an Order granting the Public Patent Foundation’s Request for Reexamination of Pfizer’s patent on Lipitor, touted by the pharmaceutical giant as being “the best-selling treatment for lowering cholesterol and the best-selling pharmaceutical product of any kind in the world.” In its Order, the Patent Office found that PUBPAT’s request raised “a substantial new question of patentability” regarding all 44 claims of the patent. During the past year, Pfizer filed numerous infringement lawsuits asserting the patent against websites offering generic or lower priced versions of Lipitor. Meanwhile, a one-month supply of Lipitor in New York costs from $105 to $132 and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that Pfizer made $2.4B from the sale of Lipitor in just the second quarter of 2004 alone. When it requested the reexamination in September, PUBPAT argued that “millions of Americans are not getting the cholesterol lowering treatment they need and deserve [because] the price for Lipitor is too high.” PUBPAT’s request pointed out that the challenged patent is relevant to the price of Lipitor in that “Pfizer is able to charge such a high price for Lipitor because the ‘156 patent stands as an impediment to the marketing of a generic atorvastatin pharmaceutical product (atorvastatin is the generic name of the compound marketed by Pfizer under the Lipitor brand name).” Pfizer has the opportunity to make an opening statement to the Patent Office, to which PUBPAT has the right to make a response. After opening statements, if any, the Patent Office will proceed to determine whether the patent is indeed invalid in light of the new questions raised by PUBPAT’s request. Third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time. “We are obviously very pleased with the Patent Office’s decision to grant our request to reexamine Pfizer’s Lipitor patent that they are attempting to use to prevent Americans from getting generic atorvastatin,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director and Founder. “This is the first step towards ending the significant financial and public health harms being caused to the public by this patent that should have never been issued.” More information about PUBPAT’s Request for Reexamination, including a copy of the Patent Office’s Order Granting the Request, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm . M·CAM Orange Book™

November 13, 2004 In News Archive

The cost of ideas

Date:  Sat, 2004-11-13

It is becoming ever more apparent that the patent system isn’t working excepted from: The Economist: November 13, 2004 pg. 71 … In America, several controversial business-method patent awards, notably Amazon’s one-click payment process, have fuelled the perception that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is under strain. A study by M·CAM, an intellectual-property consultancy, found that over 30% of patents make duplicate claims, raising questions about their validity. America’s PTO dismisses the criticism as anecdotal. “We’re seeing lots of new industries being born, that is why there are a lot more patent applications,” say Mary Critharis of the PTO. The number of patent applications to the PTO is growing at around 6% a year. The wait for a decision is on average 27 months – and much longer for complex applications in advanced sciences. Last year, the PTO received around 350,000 applications and currently has a backlog of over half a million to review. It is a global concern: foreigners account for around half of all patents granted. Similar growth is occurring elsewhere, including in countries that previously showed little interest in intellectual property. Applications to China’s patent office increased fivefold from 1991 to 2001. As countries such as China, South Korea and India spend more on research and development, they are filing more patents. …

November 9, 2004 In News Archive

M·CAM CEO Presents Economic Assessment of Software Patent Council Common Position at EU Parliament

Date:  Tue, 2004-11-09

November 9, 2004 Today, Dr. David Martin, M·CAM CEO and University of Virginia’s Darden Business School Batten Fellow, addressed a special roundtable in the Parliament in Brussels regarding the economic impact of computer implemented software inventions. This roundtable was organized by the Head of the Finnish Delegation to the European Parliament in the EPP-ED Group, Mrs. Piia-Noora Kauppi. Participant speakers in the roundtable included Mr. Tim Frain (Nokia), Mr. Erik Josefsson (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure – FFII), Mr. Mark MacGann (European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Association – EICTA), and, Mr. Florian Mueller (My SQL, AB). M·CAM’s presentation focused on the facts that:

  1. European companies and the European Patent Office are already awarding a considerable number of patents that fall within the non-patentable subject matter definitions of the proposed Council Common Position – a reality that, while potentially impacting EU enforcement, will do little to abate the pursuit of such patents in international markets;
  2. The “debate” about software patents is fueled by current ambiguity in the terminology of the Council Common Position as currently drafted; and,
  3. The EU Parliament should actively deploy the considerable economic consequence data on the economic development impact of its proposal by looking at legacy experience in other countries – notably the United States – where the patenting of software enabled technology and business methods was improperly deployed by a patent office incapable of handling such inventions and by courts who created patentability standards outside the scope of Congressional consideration of appropriate controls that would have prevented the abuse of such patents.