Intellectual Property Rights and U.S.-Japan Competition in Biotechnology Report of a Workshop (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4. Japan's Growing Presence in the United States
4. Japan's Growing Presence in the United States
Pages 24-33
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 24... ...
The stock prices of top tier companies rose significantly, and a number of smaller firms rushed initial public offerings to the market. Still, there is more product in the R&D pipeline than capital to bring it to market.53 52Stelios Papadopoulos, op.
|
From page 25... ...
Source: PaineWebberlncorporated Capital Requirements Capital Inflow At the same time, the large Japanese pharmaceutical companies have a critical need for growth, and opportunities in their own domestic market are limited. Domestic competition is fierce, and marketing to physicians who dispense ethical drugs in Japan is more intense than in the United States, where the prescription and dispensing of drugs are separated.
|
From page 26... ...
companies in other industries, Japanese firms have not pursued this strategy. This may be due to the smaller size of some Japanese pharmaceutical companies and a shortage of experienced managers in international pharmaceutical operations.s7 For the time being, Japanese companies appear to be developing alternatives to acquisition for entering the U.S.
|
From page 27... ...
JAPANESE CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT IN U.S. ACADEMIC RESEARCH There is growing concern in the United States, in biotechnology and in other fields of science, that Japanese and other foreign-based companies are reaping "disproportionate" benefits from access to basic science and technology developed at U.S.
|
From page 28... ...
Increasing numbers of Japanese companies are endowing chairs at universities. This does not give the firms access to intellectual property rights, but helps build a relationship with the institution and individual scientists that can lead to more extensive collaboration down the roads A second mechanism is the dispatch of visiting professors and scientists from companies to American labs.
|
From page 29... ...
The terms with Shiseido are the same as for other corporate sponsors: researchers at the center will publish almost immediately; the rights of researchers to collaborate are protected; Massachusetts General will own the intellectual property; and Shiseido will have the option to buy an exclusive license.64 All of Massachusetts General's sponsored research programs with Japanese firms, including the Cutaneous Biology Research Center, were discussed with American companies first. The estimated costs were too high for the U.S.
|
From page 30... ...
Patent and Trademark Office TABLE 3 Organizations Receiving the Most U.S. Patents for Genetic Engineering Inventions, 1969-1990*
|
From page 31... ...
dispute with a strong U.S.-Japan component. It might be useful to ask whether any generalizations can be made about how Japanese high technology companies prosecute patent litigation and their degree of success.
|
From page 32... ...
A series of court decisions prior to March 1991 seemed to establish that the Amgen patent covered the gene sequence for EPO and the host cell used to manufacture it, but that Genetics Institute had rights to the purified EPO itself. The March 1991 decision by the Federal Court of Appeals ruled the Genetics Institute patent invalid because the company "had not proved that it had isolated a protein with the biological characteristics described in the patent," and also dismissed charges that Amgen had committed procedural violations before the PTO.68 The U.S.-Japan aspect of the case revolved around the treatment of IPR in U.S.
|
From page 33... ...
However, Chugai could have legally imported EPO had it received FDA approval for other indications.7' The Federal appeals court decision in the Amgen-Genetics Institute case was not expected to have a broad impact on the treatment of biotechnology IPR in the United States because it centered on the specifics of the Genetics Institute patent.72 The case, besides illustrating the importance of IPR for U.S. biotechnology firms and their Japanese competitors (and licensees)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.