Intellectual property patents defined

There are at least three very important flaws in the basic mechanism proposed by Project BioShield II (and Transferable Intellectual Property Rights in general). First, the way the reward for the innovator is financed through a patent extension is inefficient and inequitable. Second, the incentive mechanism is poorly defined, and does not offer a clear methodology to determine how large a reward to pay for a given innovation. Third, the mechanism discriminates against small firms. 

I would like to comment on intellectual property as that issue was raised earlier. Akzo Nobel had more than 100 contracts with universities. In most of those the intellectual property was assigned to the university. We would write and file the application, covering all costs for patent execution on behalf of the university. In response, Akzo Nobel would obtain the first right of refusal for a royalty-bearing license with limits on royalties defined. The universities maintained the right to license to others in different fields of use. 

I. The claim would repeat all the material of the preceding compound claim, again defining Markmh structure I. Staking claims is as repetitious as digging postholes. Repetitions, however, avoid gaps in the metaphorical fence with which a patent surrounds intellectual property. 

In practicing intellectual property law, one may work to define and protect the intellectual property created by another, or seek to limit the scope of protection claimed by another in order to maintain the unfettered use of subject matter that is already in the public domain or not adequately described in a patent. Thus, one involved in a career involving intellectual property law participates in promoting the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, U.S. Constitution.)... 

The words of a patent claim define the scope of the intellectual property right represented by the patent. Under US patent law, [t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention . Similarly, under the EPC, [t]he claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description . The claims, then, are like a deed to a piece of property defining what intellectual property is within the patent and what intellectual property is outside the patent. 

The typical patent application consists of the claim itself, a precise description of specifications, and the rationale for protection. In the specific field of EvoEng patents filed to date have claimed produced molecules with known function and utility, state-of-the-art production processes of molecules with known utility, or a selection process for useful traits in an already characterized strain. As explained in Fig. 3.1, the process of EvoEng consists of 3 steps amplification, diversification and selection. Protection claims may be directed towards the steps in the cycle, specific conditions of the cycle, or improvements to previous patents (e.g. the specific and defined mutation conditions used to obtain variation and/or definite selection with respect to flmess toward an EO). The penultimate example of EvoEng intellectual property is the SELEX technique (WO 91/19813), discussed in Sect. 3.3.1 and its follow-up patents regarding variations and improvements (Leimkiihler and Meyers 2004, 2005). 

---