Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Addressing the True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, many researchers have debated its contribution to the transfer of technology from universities to industry. Some credit the act as an engine of economic growth responsible for the emergence of the biotechnology industry. Critics say that the law decreased data sharing and basic research and increased health care costs. Others think that the act had little impact and that changes in university patenting were inevitable.

University patenting would have increased regardless of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, the act did help universities license patents, creating positive economic benefits especially in the biotechnology industry.

Background

The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to improve the commercialization of federally funded research.

 Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.
Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.

Before 1980, only 5% of government-owned patents were ever utilized in industry. Corporations found it difficult, risky or unappealing to receive licenses for government patents. Several government agencies did not want to give up ownership of patents to universities or corporations. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation tended to give nonexclusive licenses to anyone, unappealing for companies. As it was easy for any company to procure licenses, the system did not incentivize companies to purchase licenses; most wanted exclusive rights.

The Bayh-Dole Act enabled institutions to keep control of patents invented using federally funded research. The university or business could then grant licenses on its own terms. The act also required universities or businesses to have clear patent policies and encourage development of inventions.

Did the Bill Work?

Claims that the Bayh-Dole Act alone led to increased patenting and economic activity surrounding university patenting are not true. Economic models show that the acceleration of patenting would still have occurred even without the act. David Mowery finds that universities increased their shares of patenting from 0.3% in 1963 to 4% by 1999. However, he notes that this increase had already begun before 1980, which indicates that the Bayh-Dole Act was not its cause.

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, more than 5,000 new companies have formed from federally funded university research. In 2008, more than 600 new university products were introduced to the marketplace. According to MIT, about 30 billion dollars of economic activity per year and 250,000 jobs can be attributed to technology born in academic institutions.

The Bayh-Dole Act may not have been the only contributor, but these large numbers show the importance of university innovation to the economy and make it clear that innovation spurring legislature can have enormous positive effects on economic growth.

Creation of the Biotechnology Industry

From the 1968-1970 period to the 1978-1980 period, biomedical university patents increased by 295%. Biomedicine, an important part of biotechnology, was therefore growing rapidly before the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act. Most likely increased funding in the field, advances in science and emergence industry interest also played major roles in the growth of university patenting in this area.

The Bayh-Dole Act likely contributed to increased licensing of university biotechnology patents. The ability of universities to license patents created strong incentives for many scientist-entrepreneurs to form companies around their inventions. At least 50% of current biotech companies began as a result of a university license. Additionally, 76% of biotechnology companies have at least one license from a university.

These license based biotech companies have made huge impacts on the economy. University licensing of biotechnology patents generated more than $40 billion in economic activity in 1999. According to Boston University, biotechnology companies represented over 1.42 million jobs in 2008, and the bioscience sector as a whole represents an employment impact of 8 million jobs. By 2009, 1,699 biotech firms generated annual sales of $48.2 billion.

Addressing Criticisms

Critics of the Bayh-Dole Act cite the decrease of data sharing, higher health care costs and a shift away from fundamental research as flaws of the law.

Because researchers patent new inventions, they might tie up research data in patent rights. This could prevent other researchers from accessing this data, slowing the research process. An article by Neil Thompson and others suggest that this isn’t true in practice. They find no evidence that licensing of academic patents limits the sharing of research data. However, their work leaves open whether licenses on research tools lead to restrictions on continual research in a subject.

Many also argue that health care costs have increased as a result of the Act. Biomedical university patents often can be utilized in the process of drug creation. As these discoveries are not final products, companies must license each patent that they use to create a drug. The cost of licensing many of these patents allegedly drives up the cost of the final product, hurting the consumer. The NIH and USPTO have created guidelines to prevent the unreasonable licensing of biomedical patents. However, these guidelines are not all concrete.

While this “royalty stacking” may contribute to high prices, it is unfair to blame the costs solely on the Bayh-Dole Act. Drug development includes a multitude of phases with high costs that extend beyond patents at each step. Many drugs could also not have been developed without the help of the patented technologies.

Finally, others point out that applied research generates more money from patenting. They argue that the Bayh-Dole Act therefore incentivizes universities to focus on applied research instead of basic research. This too is not true. According to the National Science Foundation, the percentage of basic science research from 1980 to 2001 increased from 66.6% to 74.1%. Applied researched actually decreased from 33.4% to 25.9%.

Conclusion

The Bayh-Dole Act was not the sole factor in the increase of university patenting. However, it does appear to have played an important role in the licensing of university patents, particularly in the biotechnology industry.

The biotechnology is sector is large and growing. In 1980, it was almost nonexistent. By 2009, the sales of just 1,699 biotech firms were worth more than 2.5% of U.S. GDP. Academic intellectual property provides the crucial foundation for this sector. Further incentivizes for university patenting and its licensing could therefore drive yet more economic growth.

In addition, the government could encourage the use of unlicensed academic patents by offering tax breaks to companies who commercialize them. It could also encourage universities that excel at technology transfer such as Stanford or MIT to share best practices to other universities.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 12/02/16

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about innovation this week:


Closing the Gender Patenting Gap Could Unlock Innovation

Barbara Gault, Executive Director, Institute for Women’s Policy Research

A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy research has quantified the gender difference in patenting. The IWPR claims women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields is a major in the patent disparity and notes that patents granted to coed teams are cited more often than patents granted to single gender teams.

The divide is significant; under 20 percent of US patents cite a woman inventor and under 8 percent list a woman as the primary inventor. The IWPR suggests employers help women pay for filing patent applications and expand women’s professional network to close the gap. The McNair Center’s Tay Jacobe has written about has written about the gender gap in STEM.


Is Engine of Innovation in Danger of Stalling?

Christopher Mims, Technology Columnist, Wall Street Journal

The basic discoveries at the heart of the biggest tech companies are growing old fast. Inventions like the transistor and internet, while not relics, were invented between 1940 and 1980 when federal funding allowed for long-term research without immediate commercial use. At that time, the federal government spent 2 percent of GDP on research and development. That figure is now 0.6 percent.

The landscape of R&D has shifted. Now, corporate R&D spending is at 2 percent of GDP, from under 0.6% in the 1960’s. While this appears beneficial at face value, since the corporations who profit off inventions are funding them, it hides the fact that basic discoveries and incremental advancement is overlooked in favor of easily marketable technologies. Arati Prabhakar, Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) explains, “we need public investment in R&D because companies only worry about the next quarter.”

Venture capitalists now fund by backing startups that are then acquired for their innovations. This still places an onus on inventors to work on marketable technologies rather than truly speculative research that used to be the foray of Bell Labs and still is in the domain of IBM Research.


How China’s Government Helps and Hinders Innovation

Anil Gupta, Professor, University of Maryland Smith School of Business; Cofounder of China India Institute
Haiyan Wang, Managing Partner, China India Institute

Although India spends a tenth of what China spends on R&D, Indian research leads to significantly more international patents than Chinese R&D.  The top-10 US tech companies’ Indian based labs were granted 50% more patents than their Chinese counterparts.

China’s shift from low-cost manufacturing to innovation is a case-study in how government policies, particularly insufficient patent protection, can inhibit innovation. Gupta and Wang claim that China’s heavy R&D investment have led to unimpressive results since foreign companies are wary about intellectual property protection in China.

While China accounts for 20 percent of global R&D expenditure, second to the US at 26 percent, they are granted relatively few international patents. Only 2.2% of USPTO patents were of Chinese origin. More patents originated in nations like Japan (18.8%) and Germany (5.5%).


China Logged a Record-Breaking 1 Million Patent Applications in 2015

Ananya Bhattarchya, Editorial Fellow, Quartz

According to a World Intellectual Property Organization report, global patent applications were up 7.8 percent in 2015 to 2.9 million filings. China emphasizes patent quantity over quality and that much of local research is not original research but rather adapting existing inventions for Chinese markets. In line with this theory, the Chinese patent office received 1,010,406 of the 2.9 million global patent applications. In second was the USPTO with 526,000 applications and the top 5 patent offices handled 82.5 percent of applications.

Government subsidies and foreign companies applying for Chinese patents for greater IP protection in the country drives the patent increase.

While China’s office has seen the greatest growth, the USPTO remains the leader in foreign patent applications with nearly 238,000 foreign patent applications.

Happy Holidays from the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. The Innovation Weekly Roundup will return in 2017.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 11/04/2016

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about innovation this week:


Microsoft Puts Slack in Cross Hairs with New Office Chat App

Nick Wingfield, NY Times
Tech companies are moving in on Slack’s popular team-messaging market as Microsoft joins Facebook in taking on smaller players in this space. Microsoft’s size and distribution power is not enough to enter a new market. Their product must be innovative, not just another app in the Microsoft Office suite. Slack, in response, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times. They sarcastically congratulated Microsoft while also highlighting the innovations Slack has brought to numerous workplaces.

Microsoft’s current Office suite is just not keeping pace with the changing dynamics of the workplace, which require collaborative software. Slack, and other team messengers, enables multi-channel communication to organize discussion without relying on email. It is additionally fully searchable and allows a variety of app integrations. Team-messaging applications increase transparency and decentralize discussion. They are used at a variety of workplaces emphasizing collaboration (including here at the McNair Center).


AIA Patents – Approaching 50% of newly issued patents.

Dennis Crouch, Professor – University of Missouri School of Law

Crouch has created a chart showing the percentage of patents granted under the first-to-file provisions in the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA changed the patent application rules from first-to-invent to first-to-file. By the end of 2016, half of all new patents issued would have been filed under first-to-file rules.

Patents filed under the AIA are subject to post grant review (PGR). A third party successfully petitioning that at least one claim is unpatentable can initiate the PGR process. The purpose of PGR is to dispose of bad patents early in their life through the USPTO rather than the legal system. Petitions must be entered within 9 months of a patent being issued and a final decision of validity is made in less than a year.


Innovation Labs: 10 Defining Features

 Dr. Lidia Gryszkiewicz, World Economic Forum
 Dr. Tuukka Toivonen, University College London
 Dr. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology

Innovation Labs are essential workspaces for collaborative innovation. However, innovation labs’ missions and features are often ill-defined. A simple “I know it when I see it” style definition is not sufficient. Three experts in social innovation have reviewed innovation labs around the world to determine what features are essential. A few key findings include innovation labs needing heterogeneous participants, focus on experimentation and an expectation of breakthrough solutions. Such distinctions can help guide new labs and promote innovation across a variety of industries and social areas.

Additionally, creating a definition for these labs helps distinguish them from other similar models like living lab and coworking spaces. In summary, the writers of this piece define an innovation lab as “a semi-autonomous organization that engages diverse participants—on a long-term basis—in open collaboration for the purpose of creating, elaborating and prototyping radical solutions to pre-identified systemic challenges.”

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Innovation Weekly Roundup: 10/28/2016

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about innovation this week:

FTC Takes an In-Depth Look at Patent Assertion Entities

Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP – Adam C. Hemlock, John E. Scribner and Lisa Marie Madalone, Lexology

FTC report on Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) delineates the two major business models employed: portfolio and litigation. As the name implies, litigation entities acquire licenses by filing suit. Portfolio entities tend to negotiate licenses over expansive patent portfolios often valued in the millions. Portfolio entities account for 80% of all PAE revenue despite holding only 9% of all licenses.

The FTC has proposed a variety of measures to deter what they deem “nuisance legislation.” The report found that discovery costs were the major factor in causing the accused to settle. In response, measures to reduce the burden of discovery were suggested. Changes reducing the incentive to settle will drastically change the patent litigation landscape since 83% of litigation PAE cases are settled within 18 months.


Three angles to look at Google’s Pixel phone: design patents, antitrust, copyright

Florian Mueller, FOSSPatent

Mueller examines the Google Pixel from the perspective of different areas of law: design patents, antitrust and copyright. Innovators must consider a variety of legal frameworks designed to protect them. However, these protections have also lowered the risk of innovation and prevent copycat designs from flooding the market. Mueller discusses the strategy Apple could take against Google for infringing design patents, but he also discusses why such an exertion might fail in light of Apple v. Samsung. This FOSSPatent post provides a broad overview of the regulatory environment tech innovators face.


What’s New with the Changes to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice

Eric Ball and Emily Gische, Attorneys at Fenwick & West writing for IPWatchdog

Soon after we ring in the new year, the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board will enact new inter and ex partes proceeding rules. These new rules become part of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Key changes include limiting the number requests for document production to 75 and minimizing surprises right before trial begins. Surprise requests for substantial discovery are being clamped down on as a litigation strategy. Testimony can now be submitted through affidavit solely, as opposed to live recordings, and all filings must be electronic. In sum, these changes will accelerate TTAB proceedings.


Lex Machina releases data on design patent litigation showing strong correlation with trademark infringement actions

Steve Brachmann, IPWatchdog

The theme of this week is design patents and trademarks, and in accordance, Lex Machina has released a design patent litigation report. While overall patent litigation is decreasing, the number of design patent cases filed has remained consistent. This is still a small portion of all patent litigation, about 6 percent. 14.6 percent of design patent cases resulted in a claimant win as compared to 2.5 percent of claimant wins in other patent litigation.  Another key finding is that 36.4 percent of all design patent infringement cases also include a claim of trademark infringement, a rare claim in other filings.


Self-driving car startup cancels first product because dealing with regulators and lawyers “isn’t worth it”

Dave Gershgorn, Quartz Artificial Intelligence Reporter

Most innovation policy tends to focus on intellectual property regulation, but there is a host of additional regulations innovators must abide by depending on industry. With all the momentum surrounding self-driving cars and their go-to-market strategy, it was inevitable that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration would attempt to ensure their safety. While such regulation may seem fair and necessary, the founder of one self-driving car startup has decided abiding by these requests is not worthwhile. We must question the ability of current regulation and enforcement to keep pace with innovation.