Now that President Obama signed the patent reform bill into law on Sept. 16, 2011, it is only fitting to ask whether the passage of this bill was a win for the biotech industry?

According to Roy Zwahlen, manager of intellectual property and technology transfer policy at BIO, the answer is a clear “yes.” He posted a blog posting on the BIO website, in which he articulated a number of reasons why he thought the bill was good for biotech:

1) Greater resources and operational flexibility for the PTO;
2) New and improved proceedings for patent quality review;
3) Will end the abuse of a loophole in false patent marking litigation;
4) Change America’s first to invent system to a first to file system;
5) Make it easier for inventors to file a patent; and
6) Eliminate the “best mode” requirement in patent litigation.

I thought Mr. Zwahlen’s apparent support for the patent reform bill was interesting in light of the industry he represents. Like many of my Bay Area counterparts, I have a completely different take on the issue.

While I am all in favor of making government agencies work better, as someone who regularly works with start-ups, I simply fail to see how changing our prior first to invent system in the U.S. to a first to file system could possibly have been good for the biotech industry. There is no question that the rest of the world has been using a first to file system and that our system was out of sync with the system adopted by the rest of the world. Yet, I would argue that our first to invent system was beneficial to cash-strapped start-ups and small businesses, which often do not have the budget when they first launch their businesses to immediately file patents to protect their inventions. As a lawyer working with start-ups, I frequently get the question “how much time do I have to file?” Particularly in the current times, when start-ups and small businesses are arguably more cash-strapped than they have ever been and investment money is so difficult to come by, patent prosecution costs are a huge concern. It’s hard to see how it can be in the best interests of a start-up to have to race to file a patent on an invention or to risk losing the opportunity to own the rights on the invention altogether.

Moreover, I can’t help but ask the question: in light of the challenges posed by the current economy, why in the world did Congress and the President choose now to impose yet another burden on start-ups and innovators?

Stepping back from this issue a bit, as a small business owner myself, I’ve been very vocal in my criticism over what I think is our country’s recent misguided financial support for so-called too-big-to-fail businesses at the peril of small businesses, which I would argue are the backbone of our country and of our country’s future. The average small business in this country (with a few notable exceptions such as the scandal-ridden and bankrupt Solyndra) has not been able to so much as pay a financial institution to loan it money in this environment. Yet, all kinds of taxpayer money has been handed out to large institutions since the recession started. This is not a criticism of any particular administration, as both the Bush and Obama administrations have taken this approach, as well as the past few Congresses. Moreover, while I’ve listened over and over again to the arguments in support of why these decisions have been made, I continue not to agree with them. My position is that the innovation we are all seeking to give our economy a much-needed boost is just not going to come from a large business, and that starving small businesses of capital and funding instead the largest businesses in this country is just a very misguided policy approach. So, this is the perspective I come from as a small business myself, whose business is largely comprised of working with start-ups. And that is the perspective from which I approach this issue.

The bottom line: I would argue that the decision to move to a first to file system in a bad economy is yet another example of enacting policies that hurt the little guy in tough times. And I think that it ultimately is bad for the biotech start-up out there who is trying to come up with cash to fund a patent program, or for the inventor who is trying to do something productive with his or her invention.

A former City of Hope inventor has filed suit against his former employer to collect back royalties on technology that was the subject of a recent verdict for City of Hope against Genentech.

Robert Crea, the inventor at issue, filed suit in Los Angeles superior court in early August, following the resolution of the City of Hope’s dispute with Genentech.  The California Biotech Law Blog previously posted on this verdict, which was reached in April, 2008.

The Silicon Valley/ San Jose Business Journal reported on Crea’s suit against City of Hope as follows:

Crea worked in 1977 and 1978 as the lead synthetic chemist at the City of Hope DNA Chemistry Laboratory before moving on to Genentech, according to the lawsuit. . . .Crea is seeking approximately 5 percent of the royalties that went to City of Hope related to technology developed there, according to his attorney, Robert Yorio, a partner at Carr & Ferrell LLP, who is representing Crea. The Southern California medical center is collecting close to $5 million in damages and interest as a result of the suit.

“The City of Hope policy is a 15 percent (royalty) that is paid to inventors,” Yorio said. “And that 15 percentage would be shared. We are asking for his share.”

This case will be interesting to follow as it moves forward, given the fact that the suit seems to be based on the alleged failure by the City of Hope to fairly implement a royalty policy as opposed a breach of an existing written contract with the individual inventor.   I have not yet tracked down a copy of the complaint, but would be interested review the exact nature of the plaintiff’s allegations against City of Hope.

This case may very well serve as a warning for other institutions with similar royalty payment policies in place for their employees: perhaps such institutions need to take another look as to how these policies are dealt with upon an employee’s departure from the institution.  I doubt very many employers expect their former employees to sue them on such grounds after they have left the company for a new position elsewhere, but perhaps in today’s world where large verdicts on IP matters are commonplace,  they should be giving this issue further consideration.