The Regents' Special Committee on Innovation Transfer and Entrepreneurship Will Meet on June 2, 2023

The agenda for the June 2nd meeting of the Regents' Special Committee on Innovation Transfer and Entrepreneurship is now available online:

Agenda: SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INNOVATION TRANSFER AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Date: June 2, 2023

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Location: Clark Kerr Campus, Berkeley Campus

Teleconference meeting conducted in accordance with California Government Code §§11133

Agenda – Open Session

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of January 27, February 16, and April 6, 2023

S1 Discussion: Innovation and Entrepreneurship at UC Berkeley

S2 Discussion: Entrepreneurship Council Update

S3 Discussion: Recognition Plan [Unclear what this item entails]

S4 Discussion: Speaker Series: UC Berkeley Professor Ana Claudia Arias

S5 Discussion: Measuring the Economic and Societal Impacts of UC Innovation Transfer and Entrepreneurship – Part II

S6 Discussion: Updates: (1) Amgen v. Sanofi* and (2) Federal Grant Guidelines – Department of Energy-Funded Technologies

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/june23/innovation.pdf.

===

*This U.S. Supreme Court case involved patent rights which Amgen recently lost. From the Court's opinion:

This case concerns patents covering antibodies engineered by scientists that help reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, sometimes called bad cholesterol because it can lead to cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, and strokes... After Amgen obtained the 2014 patents, it sued Sanofi for infringement. Sanofi replied that it was not liable to Amgen for infringement because Amgen’s relevant claims were invalid under the Patent Act’s “enablement” requirement. That provision requires a patent applicant to describe the invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention].” ... Held: The courts below correctly concluded that Amgen failed “to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention]” as defined by the relevant claims...

Full opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-757_k5g1.pdf.