M·CAM | mcam.admin
1
archive,paged,author,author-mcam-admin,author-1,paged-43,author-paged-43,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-theme-ver-4.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.9,vc_responsive
November 30, 2006 In News Archive

PUBPAT News: Monsanto Anti-Farmer Patents to be Reexamined at PUBPAT Request

Date:  Thu, 2006-11-30

Dr. David E. Martin November 30, 2006

MONSANTO ANTI-FARMER PATENTS TO BE REEXAMINED AT PUBPAT REQUEST: Patent Office Finds “Substantial Questions” Regarding the Validity of Each of Monsanto’s Four Widely Asserted Patents

NEW YORK — November 30, 2006 — In response to requests filed earlier this year by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), the United States Patent and Trademark Office will undertake a comprehensive review of four patents related to genetically modified crops held by Monsanto Company that the agricultural giant is using to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers. In its Orders granting the four requested reexaminations, the USPTO found that PUBPAT had submitted new evidence that raised “substantial questions of patentability” for every single claim of each of the four patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year’s crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

Now that PUBPAT’s requests for reexamination proceedings have been granted, Monsanto has the opportunity to make opening statements to the Patent Office, to which PUBPAT has the right to respond. After opening statements, if any, the Patent Office will proceed to determine whether the four patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605) are indeed invalid in light of the new evidence presented by PUBPAT in its requests. Third party requests for reexamination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the challenged patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.

“We are extremely pleased with the Patent Office’s decision to grant our requests to reexamine the patents Monsanto is using to bully American farmers,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “This is the first step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, none of which would ever have been issued by the Patent Office had they known of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted as part of our reexamination requests.”

Copies of the Patent Office’s Orders Granting Reexamination of the four Monsanto patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm.

November 16, 2006 In News Archive

M·CAM CEO gives lecture on patent financing at State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in Beijing

Date:  Thu, 2006-11-16

Beijing, China −− Nov 16, 2006 −− Dr. David Martin gave an historic lecture today at the State Intellectual Property Office in Beijing China during which he discussed the financial and investment implications of intellectual property policy in the global economy. In an unprecedented event, the SIPO and the Chinese government have become the first to seriously explore the integration of intellectual property rights and the financial consequence of innovation policy on business creation, national competitiveness, and transparency in capital markets.

November 9, 2006 In News Archive

M·CAM and Next Steps Research are sponsors for CVG’s 9th Annual Business Forum

Date:  Thu, 2006-11-09

Debra L. Fisher November 9-10, 2006 Dear Friends of M·CAM: I am pleased to announce that M·CAM and Next Steps Research are collaborating to sponsor the keynote speaker event for the Charlottesville Venture Group’s 9th Annual Business Forum on November 9-10 at the Darden Graduate Business School. The keynote speaker this year is Steven Burke, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, N.C. Biotechnology Center. This event has been and continues to be a highlight for the entrepreneurial community each year for Central Virginia. CVG has carefully selected speakers who ARE entrepreneurs, WORK WITH entrepreneurs, and can HELP entrepreneurs build their businesses. The theme is “Collaborate to Accelerate” – a relevant theme to anyone doing business in our local, regional, or global economy. I encourage you to consider attending the event – there are too many speakers and sessions to list here in this note, but I’ve listed some highlights below. You can also find additional information at CVG.

  • Entrepreneurial Boot Camp – NEW for 2006 – Fred Hutchison promises an interactive, educational, and relevant series of workshops for budding entrepreneurs or for those who’d like to gain access to some seasoned entrepreneurs.
  • Thursday night’s gala features Steven Burke, Senior VP from the North Carolina Biotechnology Center. Steven is a great speaker and will no doubt share some interesting perspectives on collaboration in the biotech industry.
  • Take advantage of the 90-second pitch opportunity at Thursday night’s gala to pitch your business, ideas, or needs.
  • Networking opportunities throughout the event will give you great opportunities to meet some new faces and build meaningful business relationships.
  • Friday’s panels will feature entrepreneurs sharing experiences and expertise to help attendees avoid pitfalls and build effective and efficient collaborations.
  • Friday’s Luncheon Speaker, Jim Brady from PayerPath, will relate his personal experiences with small emerging businesses as well as global giants – relevant to everyone here in Central Virginia!
  • Darden Business Concept Competition – this is the second year that CVG has had this as part of the Forum. Students will pitch their business concept to the crowd. A great event for potential angels, institutional investors, and VCs alike.

I hope that you have a chance to take part in the event. I look forward to seeing you there!

October 3, 2006 In News Archive

PUBPAT News: WARF Stem Cell Patents To Be Re-Examined At Request Of FTCR, PUBPAT

Date:  Tue, 2006-10-03

Dr. David E. Martin October 3, 2006 Santa Monica, CA – October 3, 2006 – The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted requests from a consumer group and public service patent attorneys to re-examine three overreaching patents on human embryonic stem cells held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the groups said today. The challenges were brought by the Foundation Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) against WARF patents that are impeding scientific progress and driving vital stem cell research overseas. In granting the requests to re-examine the three WARF patents, the PTO found that there were “substantial questions” regarding their validity. “We’re pleased the PTO has decided to re-examine these patents,” said John M. Simpson, FTCR’s Stem Cell Project Director. “The patents should never have been issued in the first place.” Simpson said WARF’s aggressive assertion of patents was not surprising. “They have a history of putting profits before public benefit,” he said. In the 1943 WARF refused to license vitamin D irradiation technology to manufacturers of oleomargarine and was threatened with a federal antitrust suit before relenting. In 1965 and 1975 the government again filed suits against WARF accusing it of impeding scientific advances through restrictive licensing practices. “They’ll tell you they’re all about technology transfer and supporting research. Actually WARF is run by managers with dollar signs in their eyes,” said Simpson. Third party requests for patent re-examination, like the ones filed by FTCR and PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time. “WARF has been allowed to profit at the expense of public health while many American scientists have been barred from conducting life-saving medical research. These over-reaching patents threaten our health, waste taxpayer money, and send valuable research overseas,” said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of PUBPAT. 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 the work unpatentable. To receive a patent, something must be new, useful and non-obvious. Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell scientist at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, had filed a statement supporting the groups’ challenges. “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.” 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. Now that re-examination has started, WARF may make an opening statement to the Patent Office, to which FTCR and PUBPAT can respond. After opening statements, the Patent Office will proceed to determine whether WARF’s patents are indeed invalid in light of the issues raised by FTCR and PUBPAT. 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. For an overview of state stem cell programs and pending legislation go to: http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/page.php?id=122. Copies of the challenges filed by FTCR and PUBPAT against the three WARF patents can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm

July 18, 2006 In News Archive

PUBPAT News: Groups Challenge Stem Cell Patents That Loot Taxpayer Funds and Force Research Overseas

Date:  Tue, 2006-07-18

Dr. David E. Martin July 18, 2006 University of Wisconsin Affiliate Claims Rights to All Embryonic Stem Cells Used for Research. Santa Monica, CA — July 18, 2006 — As the U.S. Senate continues debate today on legislation to increase public funding for stem cell research, a consumer group and public service patent attorneys filed challenges to three overreaching stem cell patents that significantly undermine research and waste taxpayer money. The patent challenges filed today call on the United States Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine and revoke three patents that give the rights to all human embryonic stem cells used for research to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). The groups estimate that the patents could result in hundreds of millions of dollars of research money being sent overseas each year. Already, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has funded scientists in other countries and calls the WARF patents a “major inhibition to productive scientific research.” “It is absolutely absurd that one person or organization could own the rights to life itself. But that is exactly what has happened because of these over-reaching patents,” said John Simpson, Stem Cell Project Director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). “The real debate in stem cell research is not about the science, but whether American scientists will be allowed to participate in the global laboratory.” The patents resulted from University of Wisconsin researcher James Thomson’s work to isolate stem cells. The basis of the challenges is that the patents on human embryonic stem cells should not have been granted in the first place, because the previous work of other scientists made the derivation of human embryonic stem cells obvious and therefore unpatentable. Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell scientist and renowned authority on stem cell research, submitted a declaration in the support of the patent challenges. According to consumer advocates at FTCR and attorneys at the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), the patents stymie research by allowing WARF to require researchers, including those receiving taxpayer grants, to pay royalties and seek approval before engaging in stem research. “WARF has been allowed to profit at the expense of public health while many American scientists have been barred from conducting life-saving medical research. These over-reaching patents threaten our health, waste taxpayer money, and send valuable research overseas,” said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of PUBPAT. “We’re calling on the United States Patent Office to revoke these overreaching patents.” 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. FTCR and PUBPAT called on Congress to pass a resolution supporting the patent challenges. “These patents should have never been issued in the first place,” said Dr. Loring of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research. “The real invention was made 25 years ago, when embryonic stem cells were first discovered — and the scientists who discovered them didn’t expect a payoff. James Thomson just followed a recipe written by other scientists, and there’s nothing patentable about that.” California voters approved the nation’s largest publicly funded research program in 2004 with Proposition 71 which allocated $3 billion in grants over the next 10 years. For an overview of state stem cell programs and pending legislation go to ‘Cures For California'(Link found below). FTCR and PUBPAT filed challenges against three patents previously granted to WARF. Copies of the Requests for Reexamination and Dr. Loring’s supporting Declarations can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm. The Patent Office will review the challenges and decide whether they raise issues that are substantial enough to justify re-examining of the WARF patents. If re-examination is started, WARF may make opening statements to the Patent Office, to which FTCR and PUBPAT can respond. After opening statements, the Patent Office will proceed to determine whether WARF’s Patents are indeed invalid in light of the issues raised by FTCR and PUBPAT. Third party requests for reexamination, like the ones filed by FTCR and PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time. Read John Simpson’s Op-Ed explaining the need for the patent challenges at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/co/?postId=6532

July 12, 2006 In News Archive

M·CAM CEO Discusses Global Economic Changes at the Arlington Institute

Date:  Wed, 2006-07-12

Dr. David E. Martin July 12, 1006 At the turn of the 19th century, Napoleonic exploits heralded the end of the “sovereign” and gave rise to tangible property commercial private banking and asset-backed finance. 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 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.

  • In 2005, the U.S. and international governments canceled or curtailed sovereign immunity from infringement liability previously afforded to government contractors.
  • In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department argued to encourage patent infringement when it feared the loss of Blackberry while the Commerce Department decried intellectual property abuses in China.
  • In 2008, all banks and financial institutions will have to test their loss reserves for their exposure to “intangible economy risks” under the Basel II Accords. Neither their internal systems nor external business practices are prepared — anywhere.
  • Over $1.5 trillion in uninvested capital in the Islamic world — to grow to as much as $3 trillion by year’s end — directly or indirectly stands ready to move into diversified currencies further destabilizing weakened dollars, yen, and euros.
  • Infrastructures designed to arbitrate to whom proprietary limited monopolies are granted have been shown to be unsustainable and overly provincial giving rise to the emergence of “sovereign-backed” monopolies the likes of which have never been seen.
  • The presumed hegemony of the Trilateral countries in terms of invention and innovation is increasingly challenged by the “Silk Road Axis”.

The Arlington Institute