Courtrooms to Congress: Legal Perspectives and Policy Updates with Jeffrey Depp
Tech Transfer professionals have a lot to stay on top of, including the legislative and legal landscape in Washington, DC. My guest today is Jeffrey Depp, who shares his expert knowledge on the current cases we should be aware of.
Jeffrey is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property and innovation policy. His diverse background spans university Tech Transfer, the pharmaceutical industry, law, and the federal courts. Currently pursuing his PhD at the University of Pittsburgh, Jeffrey applies an Austrian economics lens to U.S. innovation, bringing a unique perspective to our discussion.
In addition to his academic pursuits, Jeffrey consults on biopharmaceutical innovation for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His commitment to shaping policy is evident through his active involvement in various professional organizations, including his current membership and former role as chair of the Public Policy Legal Task Force at AUTM.
In today's episode, we'll explore Jeffrey's rich background and how it influences his current work. We'll provide an overview of this year's comment requests from Washington, DC, discuss the administrative landscape affecting Tech Transfer, and examine recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright v. Raimondo and SEC v. Jarkesy, and their implications for the tech transfer field.
We also look at key decisions in the federal courts and Congress. Jeffrey breaks down these cases and explains their relevance to us, while also sharing tips for tech transfer professionals to stay informed.
In This Episode:
[01:57] Jeffrey works with a number of organizations in DC trying to promote the progress of science through technology and commercialization.
[02:20] He has real world experience and formal training. He spent many years in the pharmaceutical industry and in university technology transfer. He has an MBA. He's a registered patent attorney. He's working on a PhD dissertation focused on the nature and causes of American innovation from an Austrian economics perspective.
[03:50] We learn why it's important for tech transfer professionals to stay updated on the legislative activities happening in DC. Staying on top of legislation is just another job that tech transfer professionals have to do.
[05:21] Bad policy can devour even the best of science. This is why Jeffrey has gotten involved to help great technology move forward instead of being stifled by bad policy.
[06:47] We try to keep our eye on three buckets, the administrative law side of it, what's going on in Congress with legislation, and of course, what the courts are doing.
[07:28] This year has been extremely active with nine or so comments requested from agencies.
[08:13] The USPTO has put out guidance about who is the inventor when it comes to AI technologies. There has to be sufficient human inventorship in order to be patentable.
[10:05] The patent office asked for comments about how to promote more innovation in the marketplace. There were also fee increases.
[14:44] Jeffrey talks about more of the comment request issues this year.
[17:31] There's another one about the impact of AI on prior art. The human being needs to be paramount in inventorship.
[22:29] The last one is about the experimental use exception.
[24:43] SEC v. Jarkesy referenced the Oil States case which did directly implicate intellectual property issues.
[28:19] Jeffrey talks about the private rights public rights doctrine of patents.
[29:01] Jeffrey talks about Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
[30:45] We discuss pending cases in the Supreme Court that we should keep an eye on including Cellect, LLC v. Vidal.
[31:21] This case is very important for tech transfer professionals to be following. The case establishes binding
precedent that a terminal disclaimer cuts off any extended patent term granted through PTA.
[38:28] Jeffrey shares his thoughts on some of the key decisions in the federal circuit court. Including the LKQ Corp. case which affects design patents.
[41:29] We also talk about University of California v. Broad Institute Inc. regarding CRISPR technology. This is important because gene editing is only going to continue to grow in creating health breakthroughs.
[45:28] We talk about the legislative side. Congress has introduced multiple patent bills including the Prevail Act, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, the Restore Act, RALIA, and the Balancing Incentives Act.
[46:16] Problems with the patent system include things that make patents unreliable and things that make patents uncertain.
[53:47] Jeffrey talks about the Countering Communist China Act and the Invent Here, Make Here Act.
[58:42] We discuss the FTC's move to ban non-compete agreements and how this could affect technology transfer offices.
[01:02:53] The best way to stay on top of things is to compartmentalize it in your mind and keep an eye on what's going on in the courts and the federal circuit. The Judiciary Committee has a subcommittee focused on IP. Also focus on the USPTO and the NIH.
Resources:
Countering Communist China Act
Otros episodios de "AUTM on the Air"
No te pierdas ningún episodio de “AUTM on the Air”. Síguelo en la aplicación gratuita de GetPodcast.
