Yale: the d4T story 1966: compound synthesized under a National Cancer Institute grant at the Michigan Cancer Center 1984: Yale scientists prove that d4T.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Consultative expert working group - proposals Barcelona
Advertisements

Negotiating Technology License Agreements Tamara Nanayakkara.
By Joseph P. Allen 2014 AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting.
New Patent Issue: BioPharma Royalty Trust by Eugene Li Summary of pages From Ideas to Assets - Part 22.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980: Policy Model for Other Industrial Economies? David C. Mowery Haas School of Business U.C. Berkeley & NBER Bhaven N. Sampat University.
Patent or Perish? Presented By: John F. Letchford Archer & Greiner, P.C. October 19, 2006.
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION AUGUST, 2014 Biologics & Biosimilars: An Overview 1.
Penn’s Innovations and the Global Poor Facilitating Access to Medicines in Developing Countries Universities Allied for Essential Medicines 22 Mar 2006.
MIT Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. PIH/David Walton.
Technology Transfer: The NIH Experience Steven M. Ferguson, CLP Deputy Director, Licensing & Entrepreneurship Office of Technology.
Public Norms and Private Ordering: The Contractual Creation of a Biomedical Research Commons Prof. Peter Lee UC Davis School of Law October 4, 2008 Prof.
What role to universities play in biomedical research and development? In the US, most basic biomedical research is performed at universities and funded.
University IP Policies and Access to Medicines Yale AIDS Network.
TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership
Introduction to Intellectual Property using the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) To talk about intellectual property in government contracting, we.
History of University IP Policies: Changing Objectives? Yale AIDS Network April 19, 2003.
Technology Transfer Niva Elkin-Koren Center for Law and Technology University of Haifa October, 2005.
Vilnius Lithuania BSc.: Biochemistry Neuropsychology J.D.: University of Oregon LL.M.:University College London Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Intellectual Property: Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) Director, Office of Intellectual Property.
Introduction to University Tech Transfer Fall Columbia Technology Ventures
Non-governmental Actors in the Compliance with and Monitoring of Multilateral Environmental Decisions.
The Role of Universities Amit Khera MS-1 University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Adapted from presentation by Hillary Freudenthal & Sam Chaifetz.
Safeguarding the Public Interest with NIH and EU Research Funding Sandeep P. Kishore Universities Allied for Essential Medicines Young Professionals Chronic.
Management of Intellectual Property at Iowa State University Contributing to Economic Development Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State.
WIPO Dispute Resolution in International Science & Technology April 25, 2005 Ann M. Hammersla Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Massachusetts Institute.
University Intellectual Property Transfer Mechanisms: Adaptation and Learning Maryann P. Feldman Johns Hopkins University.
Tech Launch Arizona Tech Transfer Arizona Rakhi Gibbons, Asst. Director for Biomedical and Life Sciences Licensing.
Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.
1 Knowledge | Innovation | Technology Overview of Risk Management in University Technology Transfer David N. Allen, Ph.D. Associate Vice President for.
Perspectives on the Sharing of Research Materials and Data Reid Adler Founder and Principal, Practical Innovation Strategy Washington, DC Presentation.
Essential Medicines and the University Challenge: Promoting Local Research for Global Impact For more information, please visit: UAEM home page:
American Free Enterprise. The Benefits of Free Enterprise.
UNCTAD/CD-TFT 1 Intellectual Property Rights and National Development Goals – Ensuring Innovation in Russia St. Petersburg/Moscow Study Tour 2008 Christoph.
John M. Simpson Stem Cell Project Director Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights Tel: URL:
Government Funded Inventions Mark L. Rohrbaugh, Ph.D., J.D. Acting Director Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health.
UNCTAD/CD-TFT 1 Exclusive Rights and Public Access – Flexibilities in International Agreements and Development Objectives The Public Health Example 21.
Intellectual Property Rights and Pharmaceuticals (Case study- Novartis’s claim in India) Background note prepared for PHM Vic Internet Workshop.
Intellectual Property Rights and Pharmaceuticals (Following Up the ‘Novartis case’ ) Background note prepared for PHM Vic Internet Workshop.
MARK BARNES SENIOR ASSOCIATE PROVOST AND UNIVERSITY CHIEF RESEARCH COMPLIANCE OFFICER September 14, 2012 Responsible Conduct of.
Licensing Early-Stage Academic Technologies to the Pharmaceutical Industry: Some Dos and Don’ts to Improve Success Gerald J. Siuta, Ph.D. President Siuta.
BY THE NUMBERS IOWA IN FY 2011 $55 Million: NSF funds awarded 25 th : National ranking in NSF funds 17: NSF-funded institutions 218: NSF grants awarded.
Life of a Stanford Invention. Functional Antibodies FM Sound Synthesis Recombinant DNA Google Notable Stanford Inventions.
Copyright: Knowledge Utilization Research Center Chapter 3 How Global Health Research Strengthens Research in Countries Knowledge Utilization Research.
WP1: IP charter Geneva – 23rd June 2009 Contribution from CERN.
“IP Universities” Istanbul, April 14 to 15, 2011 Albert Long Hall, BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY The U.S. Bayh- Dole Act Av. Uğur Aktekin The U.S. Bayh-
IP Offices and the Implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda: Challenges and Opportunities September 18, 2009 Geneva Irfan Baloch World Intellectual.
Donors, prize funds and patent pools. KEI & UNU- MERIT Maastricht Workshop on Medical Innovation Prizes January 28th-29th 2008 Michelle Childs, Head of.
Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril.
Academic Technology Transfer Operations and Practice Knowledge Economy Forum IV Istanbul, Turkey March 22-25, 2005 Alistair Brett Oxford Innovation.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE Intellectual Property Policies for Universities and Innovation dr. sc. Vlatka Petrović Head, Technology Transfer Office Acting Head,
Policy on the Management of Intellectual Property in Technology Transfer Activities at CERN CERN/FC/5434/RA Technology Transfer Network Meeting – 10 th.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 CHASE KASPER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The Role of Patents, Universities, and Non-Profits in the Promotion of Health Care Access Nina Gandhi.
Technology Transfer in The United States Paul Zielinski Director, Technology Partnerships Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology Chair,
US University Patenting and Licensing: Historical Evolution and Recent Trends David C. Mowery Haas School of Business U.C. Berkeley.
Knowledge Transfer Accelerating Innovation. slide 1 The Knowledge Transfer Group at the HR Induction Program (session II) 6 th September 2011 Enrico Chesta.
U.S. Licensing Regulation as a Model for Developing Countries Benton Martin Emory University School of Law Juris Doctor Candidate 2010.
Intellectual Property And Data Rights Issues Domestic & Global Perspectives Bayh-Dole act -- rights in data Henry N. Wixon Chief Counsel National Institute.
OTC FELLOWS PROGRAM INFORMATION SESSION Fall 2016.
Technology Transfer Office
Challenges in University Technology Transfer in Russia
Universities and the Commercial World
Intellectual Property Protection and Access to Medicines
Taking Discoveries from Lab to Marketplace
Penn’s Innovations and the Global Poor
University Technology Transfer Practices & the Bayh-Dole Act
Obligation to contribute to R&D costs Use of pharmaceutical inventions without authorization of patent owners James Love. CPTech 16 April 2004 Twelfth.
The Bayh–Dole Act: Where Are We Today?
Presentation transcript:

Yale: the d4T story 1966: compound synthesized under a National Cancer Institute grant at the Michigan Cancer Center 1984: Yale scientists prove that d4T is potent against HIV in cell cultures 1986: Yale files for a patent 1988: Yale issues BMS exclusive worldwide license 1994: FDA approval : BMS takes out process patents

BMS made $443 million on sales of d4T in 2002; $515 million in 2001, $578 in We don’t know what exactly BMS profits are from d4T, but according to the BMS 2002 Annual Report: “In 2002, our company earned $2,034 million from continuing operations on global sales of $18.1 billion, putting us among the most profitable companies in the Fortune 500.” The Money Trail

The Impact of d4T for Yale In 1999, Yale earned $46.12 million in royalties. About $40 million of this was from d4T. (But almost none of this comes from developing countries)

MSF’s request; Yale’s response Feb 14, 2001: MSF request to Yale: –Asking Yale if they “would consider the importation of generic versions of stavudine for use in providing treatment free of charge to people with HIV/AIDS unable to afford treatment an infringement of your intellectual property rights,” and if so, if Yale would “issue a voluntary license to allow the importation and use of generic stavudine in South Africa.” March 1: Yale replies: –Yale denies the request, indicating that they have granted an exclusive license to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), and cannot legally respond to MSF’s request without BMS’s permission.

MSF’s Reply March 9: MSF responds: –MSF suggests to Yale that their own policy states that a key objective is “ the benefit of society in general, ” and that they should follow their policy –MSF points out that d4T is not reaching those who need it in South Africa, and suggests that Yale has the ultimate power over their patent, and could breach their contract with BMS if need be. March 11: NYT story “ Yale Pressed to Help Cut Drug Costs in Africa ” March 16: GESO hands over petition and issues press release

March 14 th : Concessions! “ EMERGENCY PATENT RELIEF ” “ The Company will ensure that its patents do not prevent inexpensive HIV/AIDS therapy in Africa. The patent for Zerit, rights to which are owned by Yale University and Bristol-Myers Squibb, will be made available at no cost to treat AIDS in South Africa under an agreement the Company has recently concluded with Yale. ” In June, 2001, “ agreement not to sue ” signed with Aspen Pharmacare. PRICING BMS will sell its two ARVs at one dollar per day (15 cents per day for d4T and 85 cents per day for ddI) throughout Africa This is later extended to private sector.

What’s happening at other universities? U Minn: Abacavir Emory: 3TC Duke: Fuzeon Columbia: Cotransformation patent U of Washington: Hep B Vaccine Michigan State: Cysplatin and Carboplatin

What can a university do when it is deciding where and if to patent an invention? What can universities do when negotiating licenses with industry? What can be done if a university invention has already been patented and licensed to industry? Proactive vs. Reactive: How can universities ensure that their IP helps those who need it most?

Yale AIDS Network Founded, April 2001 Workshop at Yale, September 2002 Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (Student workshop, Spring 2003) Working Toward an Answer: Development Timeline Back up: How does university tech transfer work? Then: How should it work? How can it be changed?

Who funds university research?  Revenue from licensing patents makes up only 2-4% of university research budgets on average. Yale School of Medicine FY 2002 Research Funding Sources:

Currently, what do universities do with the products of research? PATENT  LICENSE  $$$ If they think an invention can be commercialized, they patent it (usually just domestically). Universities then license the patent to industry, which will further develop and market the invention. Universities may grant either exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to industry. - An exclusive license gives a single company the sole right to develop and sell the invention. - A non-exclusive license allows many companies to use and sell the invention. In either case, universities receive royalties and/or other payments in exchange for the license.

How big a role do universities play? Academic R&D is a small proportion of total U.S. R&. But, academic basic science research comprises 40%-50% of total U.S. basic research Nearly 60% of academic R&D is funded by the federal gov’t Source: NSF Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002.

Historical Perspective For most of the 20 th century, universities rarely patented their research output—resisted directed involvement and discouraged it as taboo (particularly medical patenting) Source: Mowery and Sampat (2001)

Most universities had no patent policy before WWII –Harvard and Yale examples –Need to request waiver Post WWII Trends –Substantial increase in federal funds for universities Source: Palmer (1948), NSF Science and Engineering Indicators, The non-patenting norm prevailed before 1950—in medical patenting till 1970s

Academic R&D in biomed sciences, and in turn patents, surged in the 1970s… Universities began direct management of patent portfolios Process of getting patents and rights to license remained cumbersome Decline in federal funding led to more aggressive patenting efforts Harvard ends stance against patenting medical innovations Source: NSF Science and Engineering Indicators, Percent of total academic patents in three largest academic utility classes

Bayh-Dole (1980): Patent & Trademark Law Amendments Act Goal: Increase technology transfer and utilization of federally-funded research What did it do? –Universities given right to retain the property rights to inventions made under federal funding –Exclusive licensing permitted –No distinction between downstream inventions and fundamental research discoveries Rationale –Commercialization: Basic nature of university research requires further development by industry –Industry won’t take on risk without exclusive licensing rights –Universities won’t transfer as much without financial incentives

Bayh-Dole Has Some Special Provisions for Preserving the Public Domain Funding agencies permitted to restrict patenting ex-ante only in “exceptional circumstances” that contradict goals of Bayh-Dole (such determinations can be challenged – and provision is cumbersome) Agencies can exercise “march-in rights” to compel licensing of a university patent if necessary to alleviate public health or safety needs –NIH has never exercised these rights – significant administrative obstacles –Current cases: Norvir and Xalatan NIH has sought to promote goals through hortatory statement. –For ex: For human genomic DNA sequencing information, NIH issued statement against patenting – effectively contributing to a “no-patenting” norm w/out forbidding it Reasonable pricing clause for commercialized federal research existed initially, but was repealed by the Clinton Administration

University Patenting – Phenomenon of the 1980s and 1990s Perspective: University patenting has grown faster than other patenting in the U.S. Source: Jaffe (2000)

Licensing Activity Has Surged… Number of Licenses Issued Annually Source: Bremer, 2001 speech - data from AUTM Licensing Survey

…as Have Royalties from Licensing Royalties to Universities/Hospitals in Millions of Dollars Source: Bremer, 2001 speech ( - data from AUTM Licensing Surveyhttp:// Bremer, 2001 speech - data from AUTM Licensing Survey

Why does any of this matter? Answering the initial question: How big a role do universities play? In the US, most basic biomedical research is performed at universities and funded by the federal government, usually the NIH. Until 1980, most inventions derived from university biomedical research were not patented. In 1980, C1ongress passed the Bayh-Dole act, which instructed universities (and others) to patent inventions made during government funded research. The import of (early stage) university research and federal funds – example: AIDS drugs and top 5 selling drugs

What are the goals of university technology transfer? The $$ Tension – in theory and in practice Yale claims that “The primary goal of commercializing Yale inventions is to disseminate and develop knowledge for the public good.” Yale calls generating revenue a subsidiary goal. Despite this, Yale and other universities run their tech transfer offices like commercial profit seeking ventures. But the “ethos” is recognized inside and outside universities and can be used to push for change.

Realities of University Tech Transfer Typically, university research is “upstream.” –Adds complexity to policy development –According to AUTM data, 2/3 of university licenses are given to small companies Licensing income is limited, but it is discretionary –On average, revenues from licensing patents make up 2%-4% of university research budgets –Bayh-Dole requires income sharing (inventor’s personal share often makes up 30%) –But, recall the house that d4t built… Resources for tech transfer are finite –Many university owned patents don’t get licensed; most licensed patents don’t result in big money for universities. AUTM Annual Survey: $1M (2000). –Practice of limited patenting in developing countries, given the high cost of securing such patents –Example implication: Avoid overly complex schemes that require resources for monitoring

Workshop at Yale – September 2002 Promising Trends Generating Discussion: Working Groups and Publications Licensing of compounds to treat Chagas disease in developing countries to OneWorld Health, a non-profit pharmaceutical company. Discussions produced a broad normative framework or basic principles regarding the role of universities Universities should systematically take “access” into consideration when patenting/licensing, given the institutional ethos which prompts their concern for the common public good In addition, workshop participants generated a litany of possible strategies that universities might use to facilitate or to ensure the accessibility of their innovations

Strategy Development – 2003 to present Multi-part approach Development of network / materials; support for activists “Best practices”  Developing Country License Pro-access policy statement? Additional ways to increase transparency / monitoring? Process Development of principles Meetings with tech transfer officers, university presidents, etc. Consultations with experts

Strategy Development – 2003 to present Goal: Getting universities to adopt policies and to utilize practices that will facilitate and accelerate access to essential medicines Focus: Developing Country License Seeking to maintain “open” markets through cross licensing -“reach through clauses” preventing enhancement patents from blocking market access Positive access requirements (reasonable pricing), particularly where markets are not “open” for some reasons Complexities of operationalization