Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

Service Leader's Blog

:

Quick Launch

Home
 
AIPLA
Biotechnology
 
September 16
We're Back!

This Fall, the Services Sub-Committees are back at work.  We are looking forward to the Annual Meeting in DC and hope to see many of you there!  Here is a summary of our recent and upcoming activities:
1. Case Law Reviews
 
Lynn Tyler reviewed AbbVie Inc. v. The Mathilda and Terrence Kennedy Institute for Rheumatology Trust, Case No. 2013-1545, 2014 WL 4100584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) on the issue of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the ‘442 patent) are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting based on U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (the ‘766 patent). As a matter of first impression, the court held that obviousness-type double patenting remains a viable defense notwithstanding the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act and the associated change in patent term from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from application.
 
2. Webinars
Our next Biotech Committee webinar will take place on November 18th, 2014 at 12:30 pm ET.  The title of the webinar will be “PTE Around the World: India, China and Korea.”  Our speakers will be Tarun Gandhi of Chadha & Chadha, Li Feng of Finnegan and Yoon Suk Shin of Lee International.  Our moderator will be Carla Mouta of Finnegan.  The webinar will be free and no CLE will be available.  Stay tuned for details on how to register.
 
Our last CLE webinar which took place on July 31st was a huge success with over 110 attendees.  The topic of the webinar was Patent Term Adjustment and Patent Term Extension in the U.S. and it was a reprise of the topics discussed during the Biotech Committee’s CLE session during the Spring Meeting by our speakers Jim Kelley and Robert Ashbrook.  I was the moderator.  The title of the webinar was “PTA and PTE: Laws that extend the lives of patents”  If you missed the live webinar you can purchase a recording through the AIPLA online store for $45.
 
We are also preparing a webinar in the Fall to cover the recent Federal Circuit case AbbVie v. Janssen and how it impacts written description law for antibodies claimed functionally.
 

4. TSC Liaisons

Carine Doyle our liaison from the Women in IP Law Committee and Roy Issac our liaison from the Diversity Committee summarized ways in which AIPLA members can become more involved in the activities of the Women in IP Law Committee and the Diversity Committee.  Carine's summary is published in this month's Biotech Buzz.  Roy's summary will appear in an upcoming Biotech Buzz.
 
Stay tuned for further updates!
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
 
 
Thank you,
 

 

July 15
Happy Summer!

Even during the Summer, the Services Sub-Committees are keeping busy.  Here is a summary of our recent and upcoming activities:
1. Case Law Reviews
 
D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.  In AbbVie v. Janssen, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed the requirement that genus claims must be supported by either: (1) a “representative number of species within” or (2) a description of the “structure-function relationships” between the species sufficient to define the genus.  Genus claims drawn to purely functional characteristics, without either of these two standards, risk invalidity challenges for lack of written description.
 
Christopher Persaud  In Tobinick v. Olmarker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, in the context of an interference, although the construction of copied interfering claims should be primarily based on intrinsic evidence from the patent from which the claims were copied, the specification of the interfering patent application must still provide written description for the copied claims as required under 35 USC 112.
 
2. Webinars
Our next CLE webinar will take place on Thursday July 31st at 12:30 pm ET.  The topic of the webinar will be Patent Term Adjustment and Patent Term Extension in the U.S. and it will be a reprise of the topics discussed during the Biotech Committee’s CLE session during the Spring Meeting by our speakers Jim Kelley and Robert Ashbrook.  I will be the moderator.  The title of the webinar will be “PTA and PTE: Laws that extend the lives of patents”
The description is below:
Discussions will include current issues in patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE), recent statutory and regulatory changes to PTA calculations, proposed changes to the regulations, the Novartis v. Lee case and its aftermath, and strategies for maximizing PTA and PTE in light of all these changes. 
To register, please click HERE
 
3. Take-home Points from the ACI Conference on Dietary Supplements.
 
I recently attended the ACI Conference on Dietary Supplements in New York City.  Below is a summary of the main things that I learned during the conference about the regulation of Dietary Supplements:
 
·         A big issue with dietary supplements is that they cannot make claims that they treat or cure a disease.  Dietary supplements cannot be marketed in ways that suggest that they do so.
·         Structure/function claims are permitted—that dietary supplements have an effect on the structure and/or function of the body.
·         The FTC regulates marketing claims—not the FDA.  The FDA only regulates safety and labeling.
·         FDA requires dietary supplements to have substantiation that label claims are truthful and not misleading—21 CFR Section 403(r)(6).
·         Both the FDA and FTC make it clear that express or implied disease claims are forbidden.
·         For a given claim the FTC requires 2 controlled clinical studies on humans.
·         Investigational New Drug (IND) application at the FDA is not needed if the purpose of the dietary supplement is to improve the structure/function of the body, but an IND is needed if the purpose of the dietary supplement is to treat a disease—then the supplement is treated like a drug.
·         Example of structure/function: dietary supplement has an effect on bone mass—no IND needed
·         Example of treatment of disease: dietary supplement has an effect on osteoporosis—IND is needed, even if the dietary supplement was not intended to be sold as a drug when it was developed
·         Once you are going the IND route you are excluded from having your product treated as a dietary supplement
·         If you are forced to go the IND route, IP protection becomes crucial because now you have a drug
·         A substance may be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) if it meets the following:
                1) there must be general recognition among experts that a particular substance is safe for its intended use
                2) the experts must have based their judgment either on scientific procedures or the fact that the substance was commonly used in foods prior to January 1 1958
·         To establish something is GRAS you need publications at least 6 months prior to GRAS review that establish that the substance is safe for its intended use
4. TSC Liaisons
Carine Doyle our liaison from the Women in IP Law Committee and Roy Issac our liaison from the Diversity Committee are summarizing ways in which AIPLA members can become more involved in the activities of the Women in IP Law Committee and the Diversity Committee.  These summaries will appear in an upcoming Biotech Buzz.
 
Stay tuned for further updates!
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
 
Thank you,
 
June 22
Services Sub-Committees Updates

​The Services Sub-Committees have been busy since the Spring Meeting.  Here is an update of recent and future activities:

1. Case Law Reviews

Lynn C. Tyler and Sean M. Phipps wrote a review of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786, 2014 WL 2440535 (U.S. June 2, 2014).  This case is especially relevant to Biotech practitioners since it effectively dashed all hopes of being able to rely on claims combining diagnosis and treatment, due to divided infringement.

2. Biotech Education

Ryan Chirnomas and Betsy Haanes wrote an in-depth review of obviousness-type double patenting caselaw.

3. Webinars

Our next CLE webinar will take place on July 31st at 12:30 pm ET.  The topic of the webinar will be Patent Term Adjustment and Patent Term Extension in the U.S. and it will be a reprise of the topics discussed during the Biotech Committee’s CLE session during the Spring Meeting by our speakers Jim Kelley and Robert Ashbrook.  The title of the webinar will be “PTA and PTE: Laws that Extend the Lives of Patents” and I will be moderating the webinar.
We hope you can join us.  We will send out an email invite for the webinar soon with a link for registration.
 
Wishing you all a safe and happy summer!
 
Debora
April 15
Hope to see you in Philadelphia

 
As you know, the AIPLA Spring Meeting will be held in Philadelphia this year from May 15-May 17, and it is quickly approaching.  Here is a summary of our activities as we prepare for the Spring Meeting:
1. Case Law Reviews
 
Roy Issac wrote an informative review of Novartis v. Lee on the issue of Patent Term Adjustment.
D. Benjamin Borson reviewed Senju Pharmaceutical v. Apotex  on the issue of claim preclusion following reexamination.
 
2. Webinars
 
Please join us for our next Biotech Committee webinar on Tuesday April 22, 2014 at 12:30 EST.  The topic of the webinar will be “Patent Term Extension Around the World.”  The speakers will discuss various issues relating to Patent Term Extension for biological and pharmaceutical products in Australia, Japan and Europe.  The speakers will include Trevor Davies from Allens in Australia, Ayako Kobayashi from TMI in Japan, and David Read from Bartle Read in London.  I will moderate the discussion.  This webinar is a complement to the series of articles by members of the International Subcommittee that have recently appeared in the Biotech Buzz.  These articles have covered Patent Term Extension in several countries.  To register for the webinar please click HERE.
We hope to continue to highlight Patent Term Extension in more countries in future webinars.
 
3. AIPLA Spring Meeting in Philadelphia on Thursday May 15 to Saturday May 17, 2014.
 
We will hold a joint session between the Biotech Committee and the Food & Drug Committee during the Spring Meeting.  The title of the session will be “A cat has nine lives…How many lives does your patent have left?”  Our two speakers will be Jim Kelley from Eli Lilly, past Chair of the Biotech Committee, and Robert Ashbrook from Deschert.  I will moderate the panel.  The speakers will discuss current issues in Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Patent Term Extension (PTE).  Topics to be discussed will include the changes to PTA calculation brought about by the America Invents Act (AIA) and by recent court decisions such as Exelixis v. Kappos.  The effect on PTE of recent court decisions will also be discussed.  The speakers will also cover the proposed changes to the calculation of PTA that are being considered in pending legislation, such as the Goodlatte bill.  Strategies for maximizing PTA and PTE in light of all these changes will also be discussed.
 
The joint session between the Biotech Committee and the Food & Drug Committee will take place on Friday May 16 from 3:30-5:30 pm.
 
90 min of CLE will be offered, followed by a 30 min Committee Business Meeting.
 
4. TSC Liaisons
Kelly Lu our liaison from the Law Students Committee and Wen Xie our liaison from the New Lawyers Committee summarized ways in which AIPLA members can become more involved in the activities of the Law Students Committee and the New Lawyers Committee.  These summaries will appear in our Mary Biotech Buzz.
 
Stay tuned for further updates!
 
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
 
 
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
 
Thank you,
 
Debora Plehn-Dujowich
March 16
Gearing Up for the AIPLA Spring Meeting

Here is a summary of our various activities as we gear up for the AIPLA Spring Meeting which will be held in Philadelphia this year from May 15-May 17:
1. Case Law Reviews
 
Lynn C. Tyler and Michael R. Brunelle wrote an informative review of Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc. on the issue of claim interpretation.
 
2. Webinars
 
Please join us for our next Biotech Committee webinar on Tuesday April 22, 2014 at 12:30 EST.  The topic of the webinar will be “Patent Term Extension Around the World.”  The speakers will discuss various issues relating to Patent Term Extension for biological and pharmaceutical products in Australia, Japan and Europe.  The speakers will include Trevor Davies from Allens in Australia, Ayako Kobayashi from TMI in Japan, and David Read from Bartle Read in London.  I will moderate the discussion.  This webinar is a complement to the series of articles by members of the International Subcommittee that have recently appeared in the Biotech Buzz.  These articles have covered Patent Term Extension in several countries.  We hope to continue to highlight Patent Term Extension in more countries in future webinars.
 
3. AIPLA Spring Meeting in Philadelphia on Thursday May 15 to Saturday May 17, 2014.
 
We will hold a joint session between the Biotech Committee and the Food & Drug Committee during the Spring Meeting.  The title of the session will be “A cat has nine lives…How many lives does your patent have left?”  Our two speakers will be Jim Kelley from Eli Lilly, past Chair of the Biotech Committee, and Robert Ashbrook from Deschert.  I will moderate the panel.  The speakers will discuss current issues in Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Patent Term Extension (PTE).  Topics to be discussed will include the changes to PTA calculation brought about by the America Invents Act (AIA) and by recent court decisions such as Exelixis v. Kappos.  The effect on PTE of recent court decisions will also be discussed.  The speakers will also cover the proposed changes to the calculation of PTA that are being considered in pending legislation, such as the Goodlatte bill.  Strategies for maximizing PTA and PTE in light of all these changes will also be discussed.
 
90 minutes of CLE will be offered.
 
The joint session between the Biotech Committee and the Food & Drug Committee is scheduled for Friday May 16 at 3:30-5:30 pm.
 
Stay tuned for further updates!
 
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
 
 
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
 
Thank you,
 
Debora Plehn-Dujowich
February 16
Let it snow!

Whether you are in sunny California or buried under snow in Philadelphia like me, or wherever you may be around the world, I hope that this blog post finds you well.

After a wonderful experience at the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute in Phoenix, where the Biotech Committee had the most colorful booth during the Expo, we are back and more energized than ever!

 

Here is a summary of our various activities:

​1. Case Law Reviews
 
Melanie Szweras (our co-Subchair of the Case Law Reviews Subcommittee) and Amar Rana wrote an informative review of Abbvie Corporation v. Janssen, Inc. regarding Abbvie's infringement action against Janssen in Canada.
 
Dorothy Auth and Qian Wang wrote a summary of SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Lab, SA, regarding whether the claims at issue were directed to a mental process and thus excluded from patent eligible subject matter under Section 101.
 
2. Webinars
 
As previously announced, a webinar was held on Wednesday January 22, 2014 on “GMO-Related IP Challenges and Strategies.”  I was the moderator for the webinar.
The webinar was a big success, and was accompanied by a social event held in San Diego, suggested by Community Leader Ling Zhong and attended among others by Issues Leader Vicky Norton.  We hope to tie in more social events with webinars in the future, in collaboration with Community Leader Ling Zhong.
3. TSC Liaisons Updates
 
Every month we will feature updates from our new Target Substantive Committees (TSC) Liaisons on the activities of their respective Committees.  This month, we have summaries from the TSC Liaisons from the New Lawyers Committee, the Law Students Committee and the Women in IP Law Committee.
 
Our new TSC Liaisons are:
 
Law Students – Kelly Lu
Kelly Lu will receive her J.D. from the George Washington Law School in December 2013.  Kelly has been a law clerk and a summer associate at Finnegan’s D.C. office since May 2012.  Prior to law school, Kelly was a senior associate at an intellectual property consulting firm, where her work included patent and scientific literature searching for prior art, validity, freedom-to-operate, and IP landscape projects.  The technology ranged from diabetes care, drug infusion devices, orthopedic implants, to catheters.  Kelly received her Bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of California, San Diego.  Born in Taiwan, Kelly is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.
 
New Lawyers – Wen Xi
Wen Xie will graduate from the George Mason University School of Law this December and currently holds bachelor’s degrees in Biomedical Sciences and Public Health from UC Berkeley.  Wen currently works as a registered off-site patent agent for Cole Sadkin, LLC, in Chicago and has worked on patent procurement for applications in the fields of biotechnology, chemistry, and software arts.  She is also a legal intern for the United States Trade Representative's Office of Intellectual Property where she has researched the role of IPR on promoting quality technology transfer for green and sustainable technologies.  Fluent in Mandarin, she worked as a student associate for King & Wood Mallesons in Beijing, serving both the Mergers & Acquisitions and Intellectual Property Departments to conduct IP due diligence for clients undergoing cross-border joint ventures and acquisitions.  Prior to law school, Wen worked for two years at the Department of Justice where she was active on a litigation team that defended the Department of Health and Human Services in private actions.
 
Women in IP Law – Carine Doyle
Carine M. Doyle is Assistant General Counsel at Monsanto Company.  Her practice includes the areas of intellectual property and patents.  She received her J.D. from St. Louis University (2007); and her B.A., in Biology, with honors, from Gettysburg College (2004).  Prior to her employment at Monsanto, she was an Associate at Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C., where she handled patent prosecution in the mechanical, chemical, biological, medical device, computer and electronic arts,  trademark prosecution, and litigation in various fields including, patent, white-collar crime, commercial, creditors’ remedies, tax, and employment matters.  She was chosen as a 30 Under 30 in St. Louis award recipient by the St. Louis Business Journal in 2012,  as a Top Patent Prosecutor by The Patent Research Review and Patent Buddy in 2011 and 2012, and as a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2012 and 2013.
 
Diversity in IP Law – Roy Issac
Roy specializes in transactional patent practice for pharmaceutical, biotechnology and high technology companies. His practice includes patent drafting and prosecution, opinion drafting, due diligence, as well as counseling clients for strategic patent portfolio development and management.  Roy’s intellectual property experience includes counseling clients in strategies for developing valuable patent portfolios, preparing and prosecuting patent applications, preparing validity opinions, conducting freedom to operate and due diligence investigations, formulating strategies for oppositions and counseling clients in design around strategies.  Roy holds a J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law, and a Ph.D. in Organic and Biological Chemistry from Purdue University.
 
Corporate – Jim Kelley
Jim Kelley is Senior Director – Assistant General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis, Indiana where he leads a group of 8 patent attorneys who deal with all IP aspects relating to discovery, development, and commercialization of Lilly’s biological products.  Jim has a diverse educational and work history.  He earned technical degrees in Cell Biology, Public Health, and Chemical Engineering.  He conducted basic biochemical research at a major Midwest university for seven years and he worked at start-up biotech companies in Minnesota and Detroit before joining Lilly as an engineer almost 25 years ago.  He attended Law School while working as a technical service engineer supporting the production of clinical trial and launch materials for some of Lilly’s biological products – HUMALOG®, XIGRIS®, FORTEO®, and recombinant glucagon.  He joined Lilly’s patent group during the last year of Law School in 1995.  Jim has played a significant role in Lilly’s external advocacy in the United States, having led or participated in the drafting and filing of 12 amicus briefs on behalf of Lilly and other amici since 2003 on topics ranging from written description to eligibility and from obviousness to exemptions from infringement liability.  Jim’s involvement with AIPLA changed from “merely dues-paying” to “very active” in 2009 when he got the opportunity to be Vice Chair of the Biotechnology Committee and later became the Chair and led the Biotechnology Committee to earning the Committee of the Year Award for 2013.
 
4. Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) Legislative Update
On February 12, the Patent Public Advisory Committee held its quarterly meeting at the USPTO.  Dana Colarully, Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs gave the Legislative Update.  I was able to attend via teleconference.
 
He first discussed several Copyright issues.  “The Satellite Television Law: Repeal, Reauthorize or Revise?” is before the House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.  A number of hearings on Copyrights are also before the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.  Next up for discussion will be Notice and Takedown Provisions (Section 512).
 
There are also various proposals and approaches to address abusive patent litigation.  In an announcement by the White House on June 4, 2013, 5 Executive Actions were listed:
 
1. Making “Real Party-in-Interest” the New Default
2. Tightening Functional Claiming
3. Empowering Downstream Users
4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study
5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders
 
The White House also made 7 legislative recommendations:
1. Require applicants to disclose the “Real Party-in-Interest”
2. Permit more discretion to the court to award fees to prevailing parties
3. Expand the PTO’s Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods
4. Protect off-the-shelf use by consumers and businesses
5. Change the ITC standard for obtaining an injuction
6. Use demand letter transparency to help curb abusive suits
7. Ensure the ITC has adequate flexibility in hiring qualified Administrative Law Judges
 
Out of the 7 recommendations, recommendations number 1, 2, 4 and 6 are addressed in current bills.
 
Dana Colarully also pointed out that intellectual property was mentioned in the President’s State of the Union address:
“There are entire industries to be built based on vaccines that stay ahead of drug-resistant bacteria or paper-thin material that’s stronger than steel.  And let’s pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly and needless litigation.”
 
There were several questions from the audience during the PPAC meeting.  One that particularly stood out was whether the new fee-shifting provisions mean that if the USPTO is the prevailing party, they can recover litigation fees.  In response, Dana Colarully said that the language was still in flux.
 
The slides from the PPAC Quarterly Meeting Legislative Update are available HERE.
 
 
 Stay tuned for further updates!
 
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
 
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
 
Thank you,
 
Debora
January 14
2014 is Here!

​Sure enough, 2014 is upon us, and the Services Subcommittees of the Biotech Committee are getting geared up for a wonderful new year!

Here is a summary of our various activities:

1. Case Law Reviews/Biotech Patent Education

Betsy Haanes, our Biotech Patent Education Sub-Chair, collaborated with the Case Law Reviews Subcommittee and wrote a wonderful review of Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. V. Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Slip Op. 2012-1520 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2013). This review examines some interesting developments in the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence.

2. Webinars

Please join us for a webinar next week on Wednesday January 22, 2014 at 12:00 noon EST.  The title of the upcoming webinar will be “GMO-Related IP Challenges and Strategies.”  To register, please click HERE.
The speakers will discuss various issues relating to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) including how to deal with challenges related to GMO technology and its perception by the public, as well as providing insight into how to protect intellectual property relating to GMOs.  The webinar will reprise in part the program that was presented by the Biotech Committee together with the Food and Drug Committee at the 2013 Annual Meeting in Washington D.C. on Overcoming Barriers to New Technologies.  The speakers will include Professor Jay P. Kesan of the University of Illinois Law School, Dr. Humphrey Foote from A.J. Park, Dr. Thomas E. Nickson from Monsanto and Christine Gould from Syngenta.
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!
Please contact me at debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com if you wish to become involved!
Thank you,
Debora

 

December 13
Happy December!

​I can't believe it is already December!  I want to wish everyone a very Happy Holiday season and a Happy New Year!
 
Here is a summary of the activities that are being carried out by our various subcommittees:
 
1. Case Law Reviews/Biotech Patent Education
 
The Case Law Reviews subcommittee under the leadership of Melanie Szweras and Nick Landau are working with Betsy Haanes, our Biotech Patent Education Sub-Chair on a review of Leo v. Rea (Fed. Cir. 2013) to be published in the January edition of the Biotech Buzz.
 
2. Public Communications
 
Gene Quinn has written an article for this issue of the Biotech Buzz that discusses his views on the Myriad decision and why in his opinion it overrules Chakrabarty.
 
3. Webinars
 
Please join us for our upcoming webinar "GMO-Related IP Challenges and Strategies" which will be presented in collaboration with the Online Programs Committee, at noon EST on January 22, 2014.  We continue to plan another webinar, "Patent Prosecution Boot Camp," for sometime in early 2014.
 
We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members! Please contact me if you wish to become involved!
 
Thank you,
 
Debora
 
November 14
Hello from Debora Plehn-Dujowich

​I am very happy to be a Co-Services Leader together with Tim Meigs. 

Here is a summary of the activities that are being carried out by our various subcommittees:

1.  Case Law Reviews

The Case Law Reviews subcommittee under the leadership of Melanie Szweras and Nick Landau will continue to provide relevant case law summaries.  The two cases that were reviewed for the November Biotech Buzz are Sanofi Aventis v. Pfizer Inc., (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2013) and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 26, 2013).

2.  Biotech Patent Education

The Biotech Patent Education subcommittee under the leadership of Betsy Haanes will provide practical advice on adapting biotech patent prosecution in view of the ever changing legal environment.

3.  Public Communications

The Public Communications subcommittee under the leadership of Gene Quinn will attempt to turn the tide and public sentiment by outreach to those outside the industry in hopes of swaying public opinion and shaping the patent debate.

4.  Webinars

The Webinars subcommittee under my leadership will continue to provide webinars on topics that are relevant to the Biotech Committee.  Upcoming webinars include "GMO-Related IP Challenges and Strategies" in collaboration with the Online Programs Committee, on January 22, 2014, and "Patent Prosecution Boot Camp," date to be determined.

 

We welcome new Committee and Subcommittee members!  Please contact me if you wish to become involved!

 

Thank you,

 

Debora

 

My email: debora.plehn-dujowich@dbr.com