Report on LES event titled “Medical devices but not only”

June 30, 2011

I travelled up to Haifa to attend the LES event on “Medical devices but not only”.

I want to applaud LES for bravely breaking out of the Tel Aviv – Herzliya region and holding an event elsewhere.

The speakers were all distinguished professionals.   

Adv. Myla Kaplan, Associate General Counsel, Lumenis Inc. spoke about Medical Device Company Contracting Issues, focussing, as would be expected, on lasers. The area is certainly important, though is outside my practice. We do have clients run contracts past us though. It was a competent and thought-provoking lecture that raised intelligent questions from the small (approximately 40) but elite audience of mostly in-house practitioners.  

The most prestigious lecturer was Dr. Ami Altman, Scientific Director, Philips Healthcare who spoke on “New Trends in Medical Imaging as Reflected in Patent Publications During the Last Decade.” Dr Altman’s presentation gave an interesting glimpse into how the large innovative companies see patents as part of their overall business strategy. It was also fascinating to see where CT had come to in recent years. Dr Altman showed images of a hand and peeled away the layers to show the tissue, blood vessels and bones, thereby justifying his contention that diagnostic surgery is a thing of the past. Although, clearly there is still a place for biopsies, but cutting someone open to see what’s inside does indeed seem obsolete.

The final lecturer was Mr. Ohad Mayblum, the Director of IP at Given Imaging who spoke about “Patents and Trade Secrets”. He compared and contrasted the two regimes competently, but had little original to contribute. I did found one insight interesting though. He argued that in contradistinction to patent applications with inventor disclosures, committees and procedures in place for streamlining the process, trade secrets are often more valuable but companies seem to handle ad hoc without established procedures. Dr Altman responded that the patent procedure was essentially a trade secret documentation procedure to the extent that after deciding not to file a patent application (or not to file a regular patent application that publishes) the company does consider academic and defensive publications or if to keep the invention secret.

Ohad went on to compare the proposed US amendments to the patent law to the current text. As an academic exercise as a springboard to discussion, the effort was admirable. I am suspicious of the practical value however since the general informed opinion on the blogosphere seems to be that the final version may change somewhat, that it could take 10 years for the USPTO to implement, and that there are decades of work for trial attorneys and the courts to interpret what the changes really mean.

The refreshments included an eclectic mix of spinach burekas, chocolate chip cookies and fresh fruit. There were soft drinks and milk on the table but no evidence of coffee or tea. I arrived a little late so cannot tell if there had been hot beverages or whether milk was intended to be prescribed neat.

The post lecture chat around the cookies was a useful opportunity to discuss thing issues with friends and colleagues. Participants of our event on Sunday thanked me, and lawyers who registered but due to health and other problems defaulted apologized. One of the university tech transfer people acknowledged receipt of the draft I sent her before hitting the road, that she promised to review the following day.

On leaving the room we found that the corridors and doors all looked rather similar, and, Jeremy pointed out wittily that there was something somewhat amusing in watching the IP counsel for an endoscopy camera-on-pill bump along corridors, take wrong turnings, then descend to the lower regions by peristalsis via elevator before excretion from the building!
  
Although the focus, target audience and rationale were different at each conference, it is, nevertheless, a shame that LES, ourselves and the Israel Patent Office all scheduled events for the same week. This cannot help attendance levels by busy practitioners with tight deadlines.

Congratulations to Hananel Kvatinsky ()rbotech) and Suzanne Erez (IBM) and the LES team for organizing this.


Cubist and Teva Resolve Dispute

April 7, 2011

Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) have resolved their dispute by Cubist agreeing to license its antibiotic Cubicin to Teva . Under the agreement Teva can start selling its generic version in June 2018 if Cubist is granted a six-month extension of marketing protection for pediatric use.

The patent is due to expire in September 2019. Without pediatric clearance, Teva may sell Cubicin starting in December 2017.

The case: Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc. (CBST), v. Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., 1:09-cv-00189-GMS, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).


Finjan – developer turned troll?

July 16, 2010

Israel based software company Finjan has sued five rival security companies, including Symantec and McAfee, Webroot Software, Websense and Sophos.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, Finjan, claims that products of the defendants including McAfee’s Web Gateway and VirusScan software, Symantec’s Brightmail Gateway and Norton Antivirus all infringe core technology patents for antivirus products and security services that are held by Finjan.

Formerly a technology vendor, Finjan has sold out to M86, another security company, but still owns a patent portfolio, of about a dozen patents that are related to computer security. The company is now trying to claim royalties from these patents.

In 2008, Finjan won a jury verdict of 9.2 million dollars against Secure Computing which is now owned by McAfee.Having demonstrated that Secure Computing’s software packages Webwasher and CyberGuard TSP were infringed, A federal judge then increased the damages awarded to $13.8 million.

The company has asked the court to award unspecified financial damages and an injunction preventing the companies from selling their products.

COMMENT

Since the company no longer manufacturers, there is no longer the mutual destruction arrangement favoured by the high-tech world as an in-built mechanism to prevent companies going after injunctions. That said, it is clear that as they no-longer have a market share, Finjan have no interest in preventing others from using their patents. They simply want a reasonable royalty. It seems to me that it is not non-practicing entities that are the problem , but that there is no simple means to calculate fair royalties and to ensure that alleged infringers swiftly identify if they do indeed infringe, and, if so, that they enter into licensing negotiations in good faith.

I think that the cost of litigation in the US is the real problem, not that entities enforce their patents. Identifying and buying up patents to enforce (trolling) is not morally different from a litigating law firm working such cases on a percentage, or a university – which is typically a non-profit organization that benefits from the tax-payer and from philanthropic donations – from filing and then licensing its patents. These business models are acceptable in a free market.  Patents are not licenses to manufacture. They merely provide exclusion rights and using them for that purpose is legitimate. Trading in patents is based on the exclusion right being enforceable.  The ownersof this patent, if they manage to collect royalties, will no-doubt invest the money back into the economy. Transferrring patent rights to those that need it by licensing, and reinvesting resources is the basis of business. Good luck to them. Shame I don’t have shares.


Backweb Announces Resolution of Litigation with Microsoft

June 3, 2010

BackWeb Technologies Ltd has announced that it has reached a settlement concerning its patent infringement litigation with Microsoft Corporation.

Under the settlement, all claims are resolved and the BackWeb patents are now licensed to Microsoft. BackWeb’s operations are based in Santa Clara, CA and Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel.

Apart from being situated across the road from my Rosh Ha’Ayin office, Backweb is a company I am interested in as, in a previous life, I wrote up the installation guide and user manuals for their original software.


Weizmann Institute Licenses Treatment of Huntington’s Disease to Raptor Pharmaceuticals

June 3, 2010

Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp.  has announced that the Company has acquired an exclusive worldwide license to intellectual property related to the potential treatment of Huntington’s Disease from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and Niigata University in Japan.

In addition, Raptor has added Professor Lawrence Steinman, M.D., an inventor on the Weizmann patent, to its Advisory Board. The Weizmann and Niigata patents cover the use of transglutaminase inhibitors, a class of molecules chemically similar to cysteamine, in the potential treatment of Huntington’s Disease and other neurological disorders.


IBM Attorney Discusses Open Source With LES Israel

May 12, 2010

At a meeting of the Israel branch of the Licensing Executive Society, Adv. Suzanne Erez (IP Law Counsel at IBM Israel) spoke on “Use of Open Source — an In-house Point of View, Plus More “.

The workshop was held at Beit HaPraklit, 10 Daniel Frisch, Tel Aviv.

Suzanne shared some thoughts on dealing with copyright issues in software development, particularly with alleged open-source procedures available on the Internet,  including copyright software.

Suzanne spoke with authority and kept the audience’s attention. She explained the theoretical background and then covered practice. Seeing how a firm like IBM deals with the subject gave an insight into good practice. The importance of having a company policy and ongoing education was stressed. 

She explained the problems that something including copyright material of a competitor getting into a commercial prduct could cause the company, such as compromising licensing agreements in other countries, and went on to explain how risks could be minimized by searching through code for (c), words like copyright, proprietary, etc. problems could be avoided.

 Unfortunately the presentation was in a sort of Yiddish type mix of Hebrew and English. Since the slides were in English, it would probably have been better for the whole presentation to have been in English.


Free speech, parody and politics – Marmite Sues British National Party

April 23, 2010

According to the leading IP blog, the IPKAT, the British National Party has included a jar of Marmite in one of their political campaign advertisements. Marmite, and Unilever who owns the brand, were not amused and have threatened political action. See

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2010/04/british-election-latest-marmite-takes.html

For readers who were deprived of a British or South African childhood, Marmite is a sandwich spread made from yeast extract, which is very healthy, and an excellent source of Vitamin B12. It is, however, an aquired taste, and unless one was introduced to it as a child, the smell would probably put one off tasting the stuff. 

Personally, I go to extraordinary efforts to purchase the stuff locally in Israel, and Michael Jaegar of Marks and Clerk has brought me out a jar a couple of times when visiting Israel.  My kids won’t touch it on bread, but like the flavoring it adds to soup.

Marmite is quintessentially British. So is the British National Party (BNP), which traces its roots to Oswald Mosely. The haircut of Party Chairman Nick Griffin is reminiscent of that of Adolf Hitler, and this is not coincidental.

Marmite is healthy and wholesome. Many in Britain consider the ultra-right BNP to be rather less healthy and wholesome.

Apparently Marmite had a spoof campaign featuring the Love Party and the Hate Party, and the BNP considered the hate Party as being modelled on them. USing Marmite in a political campaign was a revenge tactic.

COMMENT

I think that in a democracy, one should allow all parties including blatantly racist ones. I think that banning extreme parties is wrong, and think the Israel Knesset and Courts were wrong to ban Kach. The rise of the Nazi Party in the thirties in Germany does however show that Democracy has its faults.  In a constituency system as in the UK, fringe parties are marginalized. In Israel, with National lists, they are centralized. 

 Spoofing political parties is legitimate. I believe that even very hard-hitting, controversial and bad taste satirizing of political leaders is legitimate. (This goes against Israel norms, where criticizing the left is considered incitement whereas derogatory statements about the right is considered legitimate freedom of speech).

A political party implying an association with a commercial product should, however, require the product manufacturer’s backing.  

If I thought Marmite backed the British National Party, I’d probably boycott the stuff, so I am with Marmite and Unilever on this one.


Michael Shaham resigns as President of LES Israel

March 18, 2010

After four years of service, declaring it time for a change, Adv. Michael Shaham has resigned as President of LES and has recommended that board member Hananel Kvatinsky be appointed in his stead, until the next general meeting, the change being implemented immediately.

I have no idea what has precipitated this sudden change. I hope that this sudden departure is not indicative of poor health or some other adverse change of circumstances for outgoing chairperson Adv.  Shacham.

Hananel Kvatinsky is the Director of IP at Orbotech, a leading company offering optical inspection and imaging solutions.

I have thoroughly enjoyed LES events that I have attended, and, without knowing exactly who did the work behind the scenes, assume that both Hananel and Michael were heavily involved in organizing the events, which were most professional, and rather more frequent than events by the Israel chapter of the AIPPI or by the AIPA.   I am sure that Hananel Kvatinsky who is knowledgeable, capable and an entertaining speaker in his own right, is a good choice for the interim, and will be pleased to propose him at the next AGM.


New Kat on the Block

March 12, 2010

Neil Wilkof, a leading Israel trademark attorney who specializes in licensing, has joined the IPKAT team. His maiden blog is: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-we-really-need-to-compare-value-of.html

We welcome him to the high profile blogosphere and wish him luck with his new enterprise.


D. Patrick O’ Reilley Discusses Licensing Contracts at LES Israel

February 4, 2010

Earlier this evening, I enjoyed a well structured and informative presentation by Adv. Pat O’ Reilly, President of LES International, who stopped off in Tel Aviv on his way back from Turkey. Adv. O’Reilley, who is presumably of Irish Catholic ancestry, is a partner of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, and spoke on “Implementing Open Innovation: Research, Collaboration and Pooling Arrangements”.

Apart from great almond croissants, the main thing I came away with an understanding that when negotiating a collaboration deal between two parties, the details of the deal are up to the sides and do not matter so much as the need to forsee and relate to all possible eventualities.  It also transpires that such deals - often between a small start-up on one side and a big company on the other - are often renegotiated as time passes and the product, market share and other issues become clear.

If I need to recommend a US attorney to handle such issues for a local Israel client, I would unhesitatingly recommend Mr O’Reilley.

I knew that I was previously ill-informed regarding such matters, but thought I knew what a closed pool was. After all, I swim in one in the winter. Apparently, the term is used for pooled patent licenses, and raises various anti-trust issues. We were treated to an overview of such issues, and I learned that in the 19th and early twentieth century, various fields like sewing machines, airplane developments and so on, gave rise to patent pools and to government concerns on anti-trust. Apparently this happened with the Davenport folding beds. One wonders why a monopolistic regime in this niche area for a few years bothered anyone.

It was a good opportunity to see familiar faces. I was narked to see that the BlogMeister and IPKAT, Professor Jeremy Phillips has beaten me to it, blogging during the lecture – see Open licensing: the word according to DPat.

I hope that this versatile feline is unable to lecture and blog at the same time, as he is guest of honour at our trademark event on Sunday, which has had to relocate to a bigger venue, no doubt due to the crowds that Jeremy attracts.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers