IP STRATEGY
inventions under wraps, at least for a short period, is a necessity.
It is this which brings Schorer on to the subject of trade secret protection.
“Trade secrets are key to how we work”, he says. “Clearly we want to protect confidential information.
“As you practise technology you develop new information that you want to keep confidential, so it’s a constant cycle. But, in the future, some of the information we develop may be patentable. Eventually this could extend the life of our patent protection as well.”
For a company that takes IP protection seriously, it could perhaps be expected to have appointed an in-house counsel to administer its IP policies.
But this is where PlasmaTech differs.
Schorer explains that the company does not have an internal counsel, although he is confident that the combination of himself, Gene Zurlow (chair of the scientific advisory board at PlasmaTech) and David Nowotnik (the company’s senior vice president) can provide more than enough experience.
“We are each considered the inventor of around 30
issued patents and 25 pending patents worldwide, so there are easily 50 to 75 pending patent applications between us,” he says.
“We very much enjoy the IP process and are very involved in it,” he adds.
Schorer explains that his keenness to develop IP also extends, perhaps unusually,
with examiners during the examination process. “I’m a big fan of
to interacting this. It cuts through all the
limited communication you have through email and you can also explain a little bit about the market and in turn the patent examiners get to understand you.
“Oſten they enjoy meeting the lead inventor of a patent because it makes it a bit more personal.”
Potential litigation
Given PlasmaTech’s “revolutionary” methods, it is perhaps surprising that the company has yet to experience any IP disputes and has not needed to take direct action against rivals.
“So far we are not aware of any infringements on our IP or that we are infringing another’s,” Schorer tells LSIPR.
Despite this, he is conscious that the company should remain prepared for potential litigation.
“As soon as we raise the capital I would like to hire an external firm that would act as a mock litigator,” he explains.
“Essentially they would test our IP as if we were going into litigation with a hostile party; only then can you be really sure how you stand.
“Usually an in-house counsel would be responsible for filing and looking aſter your IP, but they are very close to the subject and may not see some of the issues that a new party would notice. For example, they may find little things that could be tack-ons to a patent or find holes that you can shore up.”
In an age where IP has to be watertight to ensure infringements are kept to a minimum it’s reassuring to a see a company with an impressive invention putting protection at the forefront of its concerns.
As with any merger between two companies, managing different products from each could prove problematic. But PlasmaTech certainly seems to have a grip on IP matters and, if it carries on the same way, it could have a long lasting hold in its core fields as well.
www.lifesciencesipreview.com
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review
Volume 2, Issue 1
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44