A recent United States Supreme Court ruling has caused the University to evaluate its policies regarding intellectual property rights, according to Associate Provost for Innovation and Executive Director of the Office of Technology Licensing Irene Abrams in an interview with the Justice.

In June, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roche Molecular Systems over Stanford University in a patent dispute.

The case originated from a situation in 2005 in which Stanford University sued Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. for patent infringement, said Senior Vice President and General Counsel Judith Sizer in a November 2010 interview with the Justice.

An appeals court decision in 2010 ruled against Stanford and granted Roche the rights to federally funded research that was done at Stanford.

The patent in dispute was for methods of evaluating the efficacy of anti-HIV therapies, which Stanford University postdoctoral fellow Mark Holodniy developed with funding from the federal government.

In November, Abrams said that if the Federal Circuit Court decision were to stand, this case could create a problem for the University. "The concern is that it will put a chill over investment in early stage research, which is an issue for Brandeis as a university," she said.

According to Sizer, at the heart of this case was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which attempts to clarify ownership of research conducted at universities and give universities the clear title to their research that is funded by federal money.

Abrams explained in a November 2010 interview with the Justice that Brandeis has benefited from the Bayh-Dole Act with patents on products such as Smart Balance, developed by lipid expert Prof. K. C. Hayes (BIOL) and research scientist Dan Perlman (BIOL).

According to a Nov. 4 BrandeisNOW press release, the University has nearly 300 active patents and 53 active license agreements.

Abrams added that Brandeis receives most of its research funding from the federal government.

Roche argued that Stanford did not hold the full title to the patents because the Stanford faculty inventor had signed a visitor confidentiality agreement while using a Roche lab, which gave Roche ownership of any invention from subsequent research at the lab.

In response, Stanford claimed that the involvement of federal funds provided the University with ownership to the patent because of the Bayh-Dole Act, which is legislation that gives universities the right to assume ownership of federally funded research.

In December of 2010, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Brandeis and 53 fellow members of the Association of American Universities filed a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the earlier appeals court decision that had granted Roche the rights to the research, according to Sizer in an email to the Justice.

In August 2011, following the Supreme Court ruling against Stanford, Abrams said in an interview with the Justice, "In some ways [the ruling] doesn't change anything because [the University wasn't] really relying on Bayh-Dole as our means of ownership. … From that point of view, what it really did is highlight the fact that universities have to be really careful about their policies."

Abrams said she, in coordination with the General Counsel's office, is evaluating the University's policies to determine if changes need to be made.

According to a June 7 Brandeis press release, the AAU and the Biotechnology Industry Organization issued a joint statement following the ruling of the Supreme Court.

"Although BIO and the undersigned higher education associations held different views on the Stanford v. Roche case, the organizations are united in the desire to ensure that the U.S. technology transfer system continues to generate these public benefits through the robust provisions of the Bayh-Dole statute," it read. "We are committed to working together in light of the Supreme Court's decision to ensure the continued vibrancy of public-private partnerships and success of our shared objectives."