I want to welcome Prof. Chris Holman to Patently-O. He’ll be writing about biotech patent law issues as they arise from time to time. Holman is a fellow professor within the University of Missouri System, although we are at different schools.
Prof. Holman was a scientist before shifting to law. He earned his PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from UC Davis and was a post-doc fellow at Syntex Research/Roche Bioscience. Holman worked as a patent law professional for a decade–both at law firms and in-house at start-up biotech firms. Holman became a law professor in 2005 and has written extensively about biotech IP issues.
Welcome Prof. Holman. I am hoping you are a person like Newman who respects our laws and not a person like Lemley who uses our laws to push an agenda.
Fingers crossed NW.
Holman’s first article has a stumble with an example of a bias towards that which he has been exposed to previously (with perhaps an unintended denigration of innovation outside of his bailiwick).
There was no “unintended denigration” of anything, you creepy loon.
And yet again – you miss.
You seem to do that.
A lot.
Like most every time.
As Prof. Holman has written extensively about biotech IP I hope he publishes here about two major current patent issues therein: First, the practical commercial effects of the CRISPER Cas 9 applications and patents on the many drugs and plants likely to be initially produced thereunder but not subsequently manufactured therewith? Also, the odds of a Fed. Cir. reversal or invalidity decisions re those claims coming out of the widely noted interference thereon? Secondly, the insulin price cap legislation, and other such likely drug patent cost reduction efforts?
Not an answer to your question, Paul, but in case you haven’t seen it, Kevin Noonan at PatentDocs has written extensively about the motions etc. in the very complicated legal battle over CRISPR.
Thanks, yes, I have been following Kevin Noonan’s PatentDocs on what may be both the biggest and last of all biotech interferences. But, as you note, I have not seen expert public commentary on this vital economics-impact question, or the chances for appellate reversal of the PTAB decision, or for subsequent validity challenges of resultant claims.
Comments are closed.