Intellectual property rights and research disclosure in the university environment: Preserving the commercialization option and optimizing market interest

Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 138-143

  Patino, Robert ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; LAWYER; MARKETING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; WELLBEING;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DISCLOSURE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MARKETING; PATENTS AS TOPIC;

EID: 64549094258     PISSN: 15596109     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Blumenstyk G. 2008. A raw deal, in a researcher's eyes. Chron Higher Educ Money Manage 54:A1
2. California Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of California, University of Illinois, Chicago, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, University of Washington, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Yale University, and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). 2007. In the public interest: nine points to consider in licensing university technology.
3. Diamond v. Chakrabarty. 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
4. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. 2003. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22:151-185.
5. Fee Schedules. Published in the Federal Rules (37 CFR § 1.16). [Cited 02 Oct 2008]. Available from: http://www.uspto.gov/web/ offices / ac / qs / ope /fee2008october02.htm.
6. Hecht O.2006. Extensive use of provisional patent applications in university settings - a business perspective. Intellectual Property Today 32:30-32.
7. Klingler D. 2006. The promise of academic tech transfer in economic development. AngelouEconomics. Available from: http:/ / www.angeloueconomics.com/techtransfer.html.
8. KSR International Company v. Teleflex Incorporated. 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
9. Lach S, Schankerman M. 2003. Incentives and invention in universities. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9727,1-44.
10. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: distinction between 35 U.S.C 102 and 103. § 706.02, Sec. V. (1999).
11. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: processing amendments filed under article 19 and article 34 prior to or at the start of international preliminary examination in international applications having an international filing date before January 1, 2004 [R-6]. § 1871.01.
12. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure: time limit for establishing the international search report and the written opinion of the international searching authority. § 1843.05.
13. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). 2007. The under-understood nexus: higher education and economic development. NCHEMS Newsl 24:2-4.
14. Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980. Pub. L. No. 96- 517, 35 USC §§200-212.
15. Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights: advancement of examination. 37 CFR §1.102 (2008).
16. Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights: express abandonment. 37 CFR §1.138 (2008).
17. Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights: nonpublication request. 37 CFR §1.213 (2008).
18. United States Government Accountability Office. 2006. New drug development: science, business, regulatory, and intellectual property issues cited as hampering drug development efforts. GAO-07-49.
19. US Patent Act: conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1999).
20. US Patent Act: conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102 (1999).
21. US Patent Act: extension of patent term. 35 USC §156 (1999).
22. US Patent Act: inventions patentable. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (1999).
23. US Patent Act: presumption of validity; defenses. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (1999).
24. US Patent Act: specification. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2003).