Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 57 PageID #: 25798
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 57 PageID #: 25799
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenténha/October 12, 2017
`
`
`Chief Eric Thompson
`Chief Beverly Cook
`Chief Michael Conners
`Sub-Chief Cheryl Jacobs
`Sub-Chief Shelley Jacobs
`Sub-Chief Agnes Jacobs
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Charles Grassley
`Chairman
`Senate Judiciary Committee
`Washington, D.C. 20510
`
`
`Hon. Dianne Feinstein
`Ranking Member
`
`Senate Judiciary Committee
`
`Washington, D.C. 20510
`
`
`
`Tekwanonhwerá:tons/Greetings Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein,
`
`On behalf of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“SRMT” or “the Tribe”), we are writing to clarify certain
`claims and misperceptions made in recent media coverage and in a September 27th letter from Senator
`Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Senator Richard
`Blumenthal (D-CT) requesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate the Tribe’s purchase of the
`Orange-Book patents for RESTASIS® (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) from Allergan, Plc.
`
`Background on the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is a federally recognized tribal government located in our traditional
`Territory of Akwesasne, an economically depressed region of Northern New York State. The Tribe consists
`of over 15,600 enrolled tribal members, with approximately 8,000 tribal members living on the Territory.
`As one of the primary employers in the region, we take pride in our commitment to promoting and
`strengthening our region’s economy. The Tribe and its tribally owned enterprises—Akwesasne Mohawk
`Casino Resort, Mohawk Networks, and Akwesasne TV—provide much-needed employment opportunities
`for more than 1,600 residents of Northern New York and devotes more than $52 million in salaries annually.
`Additionally, SRMT provides a number of essential services to tribal members and our neighbors, including
`public safety, economic development, and broadband. Despite our efforts, critical budget shortfalls remain.
`
`To ensure the strength and vigor of our regional economy and to protect against persistent threats to our
`tribal general fund and federal funding, we have been forced to diversify our investment strategies. For
`example, in recent years, our gaming revenue has leveled off. This coupled with inflation, rising costs of
`living and healthcare, additional pressure of persistent budget cuts, sequestration, elimination of federal
`programs, increased competition, the Tribe’s inability to tax, and limited economic development
`opportunities due to our rural location, have further strained our extremely limited budget. While we do the
`best we can to augment shortfalls in federal funding for the health, public safety, housing, environment,
`and educational services, we consistently run into roadblocks when attempting to access capital that is
`essential to promoting the health and wellbeing of our members, employees, and neighboring non-Native
`communities. This transaction with Allergan is thus, specifically intended to supplement our current
`funding in order to more adequately exercise and fulfill our essential governmental obligations to our
`members.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 57 PageID #: 25800
`
`In addition to financial barriers, our surrounding environment has been polluted in a way that is causing the
`Tribe’s healthcare costs to sky rocket. For the past sixty years, our Territory has been polluted by hazardous
`polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aluminum, fluoride, cyanide, and
`other volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) from (i) the General Motors (Central Foundry Division)
`Superfund Site, (ii) the Alcoa West – Grasse River Superfund Site, and (iii) Alcoa East (formerly owned
`by the Reynolds Metals Company) – all of which are located directly upstream and upwind from where our
`community draws its drinking water and permanently resides. While the industries and associated jobs
`causing the pollution have come and gone, the pollutants remain and continue to contaminate our water,
`land, and air. This greatly compromises the health of our tribal members at devastatingly disproportionate
`rates.
`
`Despite years of SRMT engagement with the EPA, New York, and Congress, mitigation plans that have
`been put into place are drastically underfunded and insufficient. New research also demonstrates that the
`EPA’s mitigation methods are further exposing our community to additional pollutants. The lack of
`adequate federal funding to completely mitigate these Superfund Sites is polluting our entire Territory with
`hazardous PCBs and other VOCs, creating a cycle of pollutant-based health issues, and negatively
`impacting the traditional practices that are essential to the preservation of our culture.
`
`Preserved as a part of the 1796 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada to use the river “unhindered”, our
`Tribe once lived a traditional subsistence lifestyle, relying on many of the natural resources and wildlife
`along the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers. However, 60 years of toxic pollution have forced us to turn away
`from our subsistent lifestyles. In the 1990s, the New York State Department of Health issued a health
`advisory warning residents not to consume any fish from the Grasse River. Unfortunately, this advisory
`warning came decades after our tribal members had been exposed to these contaminants. This has plagued
`our community with a disproportionately high prevalence of diabetes, thyroid disorders, asthma, arthritis,
`autoimmune disease, heart disease and cancers. Newly conducted research also suggests that PCBs may be
`transferred through breast milk and inhibit the ability of our young women to conceive. Thus, even if our
`children no longer consume wildlife from the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers, they consume the milk from
`their mother who has been exposed to decades of contaminants, passing on a toxic legacy to the next
`generation of tribal members.
`
`The fact that we are being attacked for diversifying our economy and obtaining a revenue source that could
`remedy the current environmental disaster that is polluting our community and endangering our well-being,
`while also offsetting healthcare costs is, at best, another sad example of colonial paternalism. For many of
`our tribal members, the backlash directed at the Tribe – and not other sovereigns involved in the very same
`business – cannot be reconciled with the government’s repeated statements of support for tribal sovereignty
`and the advancement of true Indian self-determination.
`
`The Tribe is particularly frustrated because we have been working with Congress, EPA, and various
`Administrations for decades to address the government’s failure to warn us of the pollution and to protect
`us from being poisoned. We will no longer sit back and wait for the government to figure this out nor
`will we excuse the government’s inability to provide an important remedy that protects our health
`and well-being. Our tribal members need adequate healthcare services and we will do everything we can
`to provide them with those essential services.
`
`On top of this, as members of Congress criticize the Tribe for our actions, each of the individual states own
`hundreds, if not thousands, of patents. And to be clear, 20-25 percent of these patents were developed by
`private parties and subsequently transferred to state entities – the exact fact pattern here. The hypocrisy on
`top of the government’s failure to uphold the federal trust responsibility, pass meaningful legislation,
`maintain important programs, and pay for environmental damages is leaving the Tribe in a perpetual
`standing of uncertainty regarding our ability to provide desperately needed services for our members. True
`fulfillment of the federal trust responsibility to tribal governments should not force Indian Country
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 57 PageID #: 25801
`
`to bear the consequences of partisan disagreements about how to control drug prices and deliver
`affordable healthcare.
`
`Recommendations as the Committee Moves Forward
`
`As you move forward in your review of our ownership of this patent and the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), we ask that you keep the following
`considerations in mind:
`
`1.
`
`Maintain Parity for Tribal Governments with States and Public Universities.
`
`Tribal governments, like the SRMT, possess the same sovereign authority exercised by state governments
`and public universities to partner with companies to bring products to the market, while retaining title of
`intellectual property developed. As you begin your review of the transaction, we encourage you to look at
`the practices of your own states and the positive impacts of state and public university ownership of Orange
`Book-listed patents are having on your constituents.
`
`According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in 2012, every state had at least one
`university, foundation, or other institution that owned a patent. In fact, roughly 4,797 Orange Book-listed
`patents, were acquired by states and their public universities. This is roughly a 1.5 percent increase from
`1985, more than 25 years ago, when U.S. colleges and Universities owned less than one percent of all
`patents. Despite this increase in patent ownership, state and public university patent acquisitions have not
`been questioned as to whether their sovereign immunity is at fault for rising drug prices and the declining
`U.S. patent system.
`
`According to USPTO, in 2012 the four states represented by the Senators who objected to the deal owned
`over 7,000 patents combined. In Senator Hassan’s state, Dartmouth College and the University of New
`Hampshire owned a total of 257 patents, with 27 acquired in 2012.
`
`In Senator Casey’s state, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, Penn State Research
`Foundation, Carnegie Mellon University, Thomas Jefferson University, Temple University, Drexel
`University, Lehigh University, Duquesne University, Philadelphia Health and Education Corp.,
`Pennsylvania Research Corp., Penn State University, Drexel University College of Medicine, Allegheny
`University of the Health Sciences, University of Scranton, Villanova University, Bryn Mawr College,
`University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia College of
`Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, Philadelphia University, University
`of Pittsburg Medical Center, Widener College, Franklin and Marshall College, Lehigh University and
`Northeast Benjamin Franklin, Technology Center of PA, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania,
`Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, St. Francis University, Slippery Rock University,
`University of the Arts, and Widener University owned a total of 3686 patents with 251 acquired in 2012.
`
`In Senator Brown’s state, Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Akron,
`University of Cincinnati, Ohio State University Research Foundation, University of Dayton, University of
`Toledo, Kent State University, Ohio University, Wright State University, Cleveland State University, the
`Medical College of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, Miami University, Northeastern Ohio
`Universities College of Medicine, Ohio University Edison Animal Biotechnology Institute, Ohio
`Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio Northern University, and Antioch College owned a
`total of 2267 patents, with 149 acquired in 2012.
`
`In Senator Blumenthal’s state, Yale University, the University of Connecticut, University Patents Inc.,
`University of Connecticut Health Center, University of Hartford, Fairfield University, University of
`Connecticut Research and Development Corp., University of Connecticut – Center for Science and
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 57 PageID #: 25802
`
`Technology Commercialization, Connecticut College, and owned a total of 1066 patents, with 51 acquired
`in 2012.
`
`Your own states, Iowa and California, have also been long-time Orange-book patent owners. In Iowa, the
`University of Iowa, Iowa State University, Iowa State University Research Foundation Inc., University of
`Iowa Research Foundation, the University of Iowa Foundation, and Kirkwood Community College owned
`a total of 1,515 patents, with 46 acquired in 2012.
`
`In California, UC Berkley, Stanford University, Stanford University Medical Center, California Institute of
`Technology, University of Southern California, Scripps Research Institute, Scripps Clinic and Research
`Foundation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, University of California Office of Technology
`Transfer, Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering at the University of South California, Loma
`Linda University, San Diego State University, Research and Education Institute – UCLA Medical Center,
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, California Institute Research
`Foundation, California Polytechnic State University Foundation, California Polytechnic State University
`Corporation, Keck Graduate Institute, Cal State Fresno Foundation, Research and Education Institute Inc.,
`Ambassador College, Cal State Fullerton Foundation, Harvey Mudd College, San Diego State University
`Research Foundation, San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose State University Foundation,
`University of the Pacific, Western University of Health Sciences, California State University, Humboldt
`State University Foundation, Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center, The University
`Foundation – California State University, USC Stevens Center for Innovation, Art Center College of
`Design, California Institute of Technology – Jet Propulsion Lab, Chapman College, Charles R. Drew
`University of Medicine and Science, Jesuit Community at Loyola University, Pepperdine University, San
`Diego State College Foundation, and USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center.
`
`For more information on other states’ rates of Orange Book-listed patents, please the attached documents
`(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Data concerning U.S. Colleges and Universities Utility Paten Grants
`Calendar Years 1969-2012, our analysis of this data by state, and a list of companies who have transferred
`their patents to state universities in the same manner the Tribe has done).
`
`2.
`
`
`Protect a Revenue Stream that Directly Benefits Tribal Citizens and Augments Lack of
`Adequate Federal Funding and Limited Economic Development Opportunities
`
`The Tribe’s partnership with Allergan opens a new revenue stream that will help offset budget shortfalls
`for housing, healthcare, eldercare, education and language preservation services due to inadequate annual
`funding levels, sequestration, the inability to tax, and limited economic development opportunities due to
`its rural location. The Tribe will receive $13.75 million upon execution of the agreement and will be eligible
`to receive $15 million in annual royalties. The Tribe will use this revenue to address the following shortfalls:
`
`Housing: The Tribe faces a critical housing shortage. As its population expands, its territory has not.
`Despite nearly 40 years of litigation with respect to returning Mohawk tribal lands, some local communities
`still have not agreed to the settlement forcing the Tribe to purchase additional lands from willing sellers at
`a great cost. Additionally, the Tribe’s housing program lost a quarter of a million dollars this year forcing
`a reduction in the workforce by three employees and several key staff transitioned to part-time to maintain
`operations. Working under these constraints makes it difficult to provide much needed housing for our
`members.
`
`Healthcare and Environment: The SRMT community is plagued with chronic illness and has
`disproportionately high rates of diabetes and cancer as a result of the environmental pollutants from three
`superfund sites located upstream and upwind from the territory. In 2016, SRMT’s total healthcare budget
`was $18.2 million. Despite receiving health dollars from federal appropriations, and $1 million in Medicaid,
`the Tribe had to heavily subsidize the remaining budget shortfall with its already limited resources.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 57 PageID #: 25803
`
`Sequestration and elimination of certain EPA programs have also hindered the Tribes’ ability to mitigate
`the impacts of these environmental health hazards, fully remediate the Superfund sites, and adequately
`monitor air quality, which further adds costs to the already insufficient healthcare budget.
`
`Eldercare: Like the surrounding non-Indian communities, as the Akwesasne community ages, the need for
`greater eldercare continues to strain the Tribe’s budget. A recent referendum highlighted the community’s
`concern about the need of the Tribal Government to provide more resources and assistance to elders living
`on fixed incomes.
`
`Language Preservation: Like many indigenous languages, the Mohawk language is endangered and faces
`the risk of extinction unless the Tribe continues to subsidize and support strong language programs, such
`as the full language immersion Akwesasne Freedom School and other intensive programs necessary to
`preserve and pass down the Mohawk language.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Understand the Role the Tribe is Playing
`
` A major concern raised is that the Tribe is merely a shell company. This could not be further from the truth.
`
`The Tribe has created an Office of Technology Research and Patents that will be an active
`
`participant in any proceedings to protect tribal ownership of all its intellectual property. As a sovereign
`
`government, the Tribe has a duty to its citizens to protect its investments and cannot responsibly rely on its
`
`partners to enforce its sovereign rights.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, in its role as a government, the Tribe has been seeking opportunities that allow it to gain more
`knowledge on business models and the regulatory framework that protects intellectual property –
`specifically keeping in mind how the Tribe can use this framework to protect its own traditional ecological
`knowledge and other innovations.
`
`4.
`
`
`It is Not in the Best Interest of its Tribal Members to Delay Access to Generic Drugs or to
`Raise Drug Prices
`
`Some commentators fear the patent agreement between Allergan and the Tribe will delay access to generic
`drugs for the American public, insulate pharmaceutical patents from review, and take advantage of
`consumers. These concerns reflect a misunderstanding of the federal statutes that govern tribal sovereignty
`and market entry of generic drugs.
`
`It is the Tribe’s job, as a sovereign government, to provide healthcare services to its community members
`and it is acutely aware of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs and the financial challenges faced by so many
`families. Currently, 10 percent of the Tribe’s overall healthcare budget is dedicated to pharmacy costs. To
`suggest the Tribe would engage in price-gouging or hinder access to medicine is a complete opposition of
`the core values of the Tribe and its own financial interest. Furthermore, generic drugs have already saturated
`the market. In 2016, nearly 90 percent of prescription drugs dispersed were generic drugs. In addition, new
`research is finding that the cost of generic drugs is rising, not due to state or public university involvement
`in the sector, but due to below cost pharmacy reimbursements, low maximum allowable cost prices,
`difficulty sourcing alternative medications to fit patients’ budgets, medication non-adherence costs, and
`inaccurate price forecasts.
`
`5.
`
`
`Like Public Universities Who Own Patents, Tribal Governments Will Not Cause a Rush of
`Companies Moving their Patents to Tribes Nor will it Result in Patents Evading Review
`
`The accusation that deals between private pharmaceutical companies and tribal governments will cause a
`rush of companies moving their patents to tribal governments to evade pharmaceutical patents review is
`factually incorrect. First and foremost, in 2012 states and public universities owned a total of 75,353 patents
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 57 PageID #: 25804
`
`with 4,797 acquired that year. During this same year, roughly 70 percent of prescription drugs were generic
`drugs. Today, that percentage is even higher.
`
`Secondly, ownership of Orange Book-listed patents by sovereign entities will not affect the ability of
`generic drug companies to mount a full and fair patent challenge in federal court. Through 1984 Hatch
`Waxman Act (“HWA”) litigation, generic companies can bring their affirmative defenses and
`counterclaims that arise from the underlying dispute, unaffected by sovereign immunity. It is incorrect to
`say that a sovereign patent owner could use its patents to sue for infringement, but then use its immunity to
`block counter-arguments that these patents are invalid.
`
`6.
`
`Recognize the Current System is Not Working
`
` Additional accusations contend that the purpose of the IPR proceedings is to ensure generic drug
`
`companies have efficient access to patent review proceedings, to increase access to important medicines,
`
`and to keep drug prices low. In reality, IPR proceedings were established in the U.S. Patent and Trademark
` Office in 2012 in response to concerns from the high-technology sector. IPR proceedings were intended to
`
`be a cheaper and quicker alternative to federal court litigation over frivolous patent claims. Today, roughly
`
`80 percent of patents are reviewed through IPR proceedings. While it has proven efficient for tech patents,
`
`it has become controversial for pharmaceutical patents, which were never discussed when the IPR system
` was created.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Orange Book-listed patent owners, IPR proceedings allow repetitive attacks on patents, lack finality
`and due process, and use legal standards that are systematically unfavorable to patentees. IPR is often used
`together with district court litigation for multi-pronged attacks on the same patents in different forums. For
`patent challengers IPR can be an effective form of answer-shopping. For patentees, they are a form of
`double jeopardy.
`
`For decades prior to the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), HWA ensured that all duly issued
`
` U.S. patents protected by the presumption of validity, a clear and convincing evidence standard and the
`
`right to a trial before a jury overseen by an Article III judge on the issue of validity. As a result of the IPR
`
`abuses, where a federal district court typically invalidates about 28 percent of patents, IPRs have invalidated
`
`76 percent. Because there is no limit on the number of IPRs that can be filed against a patent, challengers
`
`can keep filing IPRs until they win. Since passage of the AIA, the U.S. has fallen from 1st to 10th in the
`ranking of the strength of its intellectual property system.
`
`
`Finally, the Supreme Court is set to review the constitutionality of the America Invents Act (AIA) in Oil
`States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, including the constitutionality of the IPR
`proceedings. Thus at the very least, consideration of important questions surrounding the Hatch Waxman
`Act, the America Invents Act and the intersection of sovereign immunity should benefit from the Supreme
`Court's guidance on this issue.
`
` We thank you for your leadership on this matter and appreciate your consideration of our request. We hope
`
`that we can continue working, as governmental partners, to seek important opportunities that allow us to
`
`provide our constituents, with the resources and services they need.
`
`
`Skén:nen | In peace,
`
`THE SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBAL COUNCIL
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES - U.S. University Utility Patents, CY 1969 - 2012, By Organizational Name and issue_date
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 57 PageID #: 25805
` Home > PTMT Listing of Viewable Reports > University Report Table of Contents > University Listing > This Page
`
`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Patent Technology Monitoring Team (PTMT)
`
`U.S. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES-
`UTILITY PATENT GRANTS,
`CALENDAR YEARS 1969-2012
`
`- this report was created with support from the National Science Foundation -
`
`BREAKOUT BY UNIVERSITY ASSIGNEE -
`PATENTS DISTRIBUTED BY CALENDAR YEAR OF GRANT
`
`NUMBER OF UTILITY PATENTS ASSIGNED ANNUALLY
`TO U.S. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
`
`
`Rank Ordered Listing of Assignee Names Receiving 1 or More Utility Patents During the Period
`
`- Explanation of Data -
`
`This Table Provides a Detail Breakout with Separate Counts
`for Each Identified Assignee Name Associated With:
`ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES
`
`( count of patent grants, as distributed by calendar year of grant )
`( patent ownership is determined by the first-named assignee listed on a patent )
`Annual patent counts for the university.
`Counts of granted patents are distributed by the year of patent grant.
`Multiple assignee names may be associated with a university.
`1995
`1996
`1997
`1998
`1999
`2000
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`1994
`
`Organizational Identifier
`
`State PRE_1992
`
`1992
`
`1993
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012 Total
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`CALIFORNIA, THE REGENTS
`OF
`
`CA
`
`831
`
`79
`
`112
`
`154
`
`203
`
`255
`
`264
`
`386
`
`434
`
`432
`
`401
`
`430
`
`437
`
`422
`
`388
`
`410
`
`333
`
`237
`
`251
`
`349
`
`323
`
`357
`
`7488
`
`139
`
`141
`
`134
`
`134
`
`174
`
`160
`
`216
`
`4017
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
`OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`STANFORD UNIVERSITY
`
`MA
`
`CA
`
`1210
`
`125
`
`112
`
`472
`
`42
`
`50
`
`99
`
`62
`
`104
`
`119
`
`102
`
`138
`
`142
`
`113
`
`125
`
`135
`
`127
`
`132
`
`136
`
`54
`
`55
`
`64
`
`79
`
`83
`
`103
`
`84
`
`102
`
`85
`
`75
`
`90
`
`98
`
`85
`
`120
`
`110
`
`155
`
`153
`
`182
`
`2403
`
`103
`
`124
`
`110
`
`139
`
`135
`
`101
`
`115
`
`116
`
`96
`
`93
`
`134
`
`111
`
`136
`
`2365
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
`
`CA
`
`TX
`
`446
`
`308
`
`32
`
`73
`
`29
`
`86
`
`46
`
`97
`
`48
`
`37
`
`89
`
`44
`
`24
`
`87
`
`64
`
`46
`
`81
`
`62
`
`93
`
`96
`
`83
`
`99
`
`91
`
`86
`
`89
`
`64
`
`89
`
`72
`
`91
`
`80
`
`94
`
`84
`
`99
`
`64
`
`89
`
`77
`
`107
`
`101
`
`90
`
`91
`
`79
`
`90
`
`98
`
`122
`
`125
`
`141
`
`2321
`
`115
`
`136
`
`144
`
`155
`
`2133
`
`WISCONSIN ALUMNI
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION
`
`JOHNS HOPKINS
`UNIVERSITY
`
`CORNELL RESEARCH
`
`WI
`
`MD
`
`NY
`
`381
`
`239
`
`282
`
`39
`
`20
`
`41
`
`53
`
`33
`
`35
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/all_univ_ag.htm[10/5/2017 11:20:23 AM]
`
`23
`
`39
`
`28
`
`36
`
`27
`
`52
`
`47
`
`50
`
`79
`
`64
`
`97
`
`64
`
`72
`
`49
`
`80
`
`61
`
`81
`
`35
`
`70
`
`59
`
`94
`
`40
`
`71
`
`41
`
`91
`
`61
`
`62
`
`54
`
`66
`
`50
`
`56
`
`52
`
`71
`
`74
`
`70
`
`51
`
`79
`
`1556
`
`33
`
`1323
`
`

`

`ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES - U.S. University Utility Patents, CY 1969 - 2012, By Organizational Name and issue_date
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 57 PageID #: 25806
`FOUNDATION INC.
`UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
`MI
`132
`21
`19
`28
`30
`25
`53
`50
`51
`69
`51
`47
`63
`67
`71
`69
`47
`66
`
`COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`NY
`
`PA
`
`80
`
`89
`
`17
`
`26
`
`17
`
`34
`
`18
`
`37
`
`18
`
`25
`
`33
`
`45
`
`35
`
`55
`
`55
`
`69
`
`55
`
`59
`
`51
`
`31
`
`46
`
`58
`
`52
`
`38
`
`46
`
`45
`
`41
`
`61
`
`29
`
`39
`
`52
`
`32
`
`43
`
`57
`
`43
`
`36
`
`54
`
`47
`
`36
`
`55
`
`39
`
`31
`
`54
`
`45
`
`27
`
`54
`
`46
`
`38
`
`34
`
`78
`
`82
`
`77
`
`34
`
`79
`
`76
`
`59
`
`37
`
`97
`
`78
`
`78
`
`1267
`
`1098
`
`1054
`
`38
`
`1037
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,
`THE REGENTS OF
`
`IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION
`INC.
`
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF
`STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
`YORK
`
`MN
`
`IA
`
`NY
`
`290
`
`371
`
`31
`
`23
`
`28
`
`28
`
`28
`
`37
`
`25
`
`37
`
`31
`
`38
`
`32
`
`36
`
`43
`
`53
`
`49
`
`44
`
`34
`
`28
`
`19
`
`26
`
`25
`
`13
`
`24
`
`22
`
`12
`
`31
`
`25
`
`16
`
`14
`
`956
`
`66
`
`29
`
`28
`
`34
`
`30
`
`37
`
`45
`
`51
`
`54
`
`52
`
`40
`
`54
`
`34
`
`37
`
`24
`
`42
`
`42
`
`54
`
`29
`
`50
`
`39
`
`42
`
`57
`
`41
`
`61
`
`67
`
`43
`
`69
`
`46
`
`80
`
`932
`
`916
`
`GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH
`CORP.
`
`UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`WASHINGTON
`
`GA
`
`IL
`
`WA
`
`125
`
`63
`
`49
`
`16
`
`10
`
`11
`
`16
`
`13
`
`11
`
`20
`
`14
`
`13
`
`21
`
`12
`
`17
`
`22
`
`16
`
`25
`
`16
`
`17
`
`37
`
`17
`
`21
`
`47
`
`33
`
`29
`
`47
`
`37
`
`26
`
`59
`
`32
`
`34
`
`43
`
`36
`
`31
`
`41
`
`43
`
`39
`
`36
`
`37
`
`58
`
`31
`
`34
`
`32
`
`51
`
`37
`
`45
`
`39
`
`47
`
`42
`
`65
`
`51
`
`85
`
`74
`
`47
`
`90
`
`45
`
`56
`
`85
`
`70
`
`52
`
`885
`
`857
`
`849
`
`HARVARD COLLEGE,
`PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS
`
`MICHIGAN STATE
`UNIVERSITY
`
`MA
`
`MI
`
`114
`
`67
`
`66
`
`16
`
`19
`
`8
`
`17
`
`13
`
`12
`
`16
`
`21
`
`29
`
`14
`
`15
`
`20
`
`32
`
`32
`
`37
`
`28
`
`41
`
`21
`
`49
`
`59
`
`28
`
`41
`
`53
`
`33
`
`26
`
`42
`
`32
`
`32
`
`39
`
`55
`
`48
`
`49
`
`38
`
`40
`
`49
`
`40
`
`41
`
`28
`
`26
`
`26
`
`24
`
`25
`
`34
`
`32
`
`51
`
`43
`
`35
`
`29
`
`43
`
`46
`
`33
`
`34
`
`42
`
`32
`
`39
`
`42
`
`33
`
`39
`
`30
`
`41
`
`808
`
`737
`
`DUKE UNIVERSITY
`
`NORTH CAROLINA STATE
`UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
`CALIFORNIA
`
`NC
`
`NC
`
`CA
`
`61
`
`105
`
`24
`
`18
`
`27
`
`13
`
`32
`
`15
`
`30
`
`6
`
`26
`
`15
`
`27
`
`24
`
`18
`
`26
`
`26
`
`16
`
`58
`
`23
`
`13
`
`42
`
`24
`
`15
`
`36
`
`31
`
`20
`
`55
`
`33
`
`31
`
`32
`
`44
`
`27
`
`28
`
`42
`
`31
`
`19
`
`39
`
`25
`
`29
`
`34
`
`35
`
`40
`
`31
`
`25
`
`32
`
`34
`
`39
`
`42
`
`25
`
`38
`
`32
`
`34
`
`60
`
`33
`
`38
`
`54
`
`29
`
`38
`
`83
`
`32
`
`720
`
`702
`
`689
`
`SCRIPPS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE
`
`PURDUE RESEARCH
`FOUNDATION
`
`RESEARCH CORPORATION
`
`CA
`
`IN
`
`NY
`
`0
`
`211
`
`669
`
`9
`
`5
`
`1
`
`28
`
`6
`
`0
`
`24
`
`11
`
`0
`
`36
`
`10
`
`0
`
`12
`
`0
`
`24
`
`0
`
`20
`
`0
`
`18
`
`0
`
`10
`
`0
`
`13
`
`0
`
`23
`
`0
`
`27
`
`21
`
`0
`
`21
`
`23
`
`0
`
`18
`
`25
`
`0
`
`18
`
`24
`
`0
`
`19
`
`32
`
`0
`
`24
`
`21
`
`0
`
`27
`
`41
`
`0
`
`35
`
`51
`
`0
`
`58
`
`41
`
`0
`
`64
`
`42
`
`0
`
`70
`
`684
`
`670
`
`665
`
`NORTHWESTERN
`UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
`
`NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
`
`IL
`
`MD
`
`NY
`
`94
`
`19
`
`76
`
`8
`
`14
`
`11
`
`8
`
`20
`
`19
`
`12
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`21
`
`14
`
`10
`
`20
`
`18
`
`27
`
`15
`
`21
`
`35
`
`24
`
`22
`
`23
`
`32
`
`23
`
`17
`
`24
`
`24
`
`33
`
`24
`
`29
`
`25
`
`19
`
`31
`
`22
`
`29
`
`23
`
`22
`
`14
`
`40
`
`26
`
`29
`
`41
`
`57
`
`31
`
`20
`
`43
`
`33
`
`37
`
`51
`
`52
`
`59
`
`42
`
`52
`
`49
`
`54
`
`61
`
`46
`
`70
`
`632
`
`628
`
`624
`
`UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION,
`INCORPORATED
`
`UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`PITTSBURGH
`
`FL
`
`FL
`
`PA
`
`6
`
`187
`
`91
`
`6
`
`36
`
`10
`
`5
`
`29
`
`10
`
`8
`
`18
`
`10
`
`10
`
`21
`
`13
`
`21
`
`15
`
`11
`
`18
`
`25
`
`17
`
`26
`
`26
`
`31
`
`22
`
`28
`
`39
`
`14
`
`50
`
`38
`
`15
`
`36
`
`38
`
`21
`
`21
`
`22
`
`15
`
`44
`
`22
`
`20
`
`21
`
`24
`
`40
`
`24
`
`18
`
`60
`
`19
`
`23
`
`5
`
`18
`
`2
`
`30
`
`3
`
`25
`
`1
`
`30
`
`0
`
`30
`
`0
`
`43
`
`611
`
`593
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/all_univ_ag.htm[10/5/2017 11:20:23 AM]
`
`

`

`ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES - U.S. University Utility Patents, CY 1969 - 2012, By Organizational Name and issue_date
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 57 PageID #: 25807
`PENN STATE RESEARCH
`PA
`0
`0
`4
`10
`16
`20
`19
`26
`35
`37
`50
`47
`51
`38
`29
`29
`27
`27
`FOUNDATION, INC.
`
`UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION
`
`UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
`CAROLINA
`
`UT
`
`NC
`
`34
`
`29
`
`12
`
`5
`
`11
`
`5
`
`10
`
`14
`
`7
`
`16
`
`13
`
`4
`
`13
`
`21
`
`6
`
`24
`
`22
`
`13
`
`22
`
`39
`
`14
`
`32
`
`29
`
`18
`
`30
`
`43
`
`18
`
`17
`
`27
`
`20
`
`38
`
`36
`
`15
`
`24
`
`22
`
`19
`
`14
`
`29
`
`11
`
`21
`
`24
`
`30
`
`17
`
`30
`
`18
`
`22
`
`21
`
`32
`
`27
`
`30
`
`28
`
`25
`
`24
`
`34
`
`29
`
`27
`
`20
`
`35
`
`39
`
`47
`
`39
`
`83
`
`27
`
`45
`
`26
`
`86
`
`32
`
`79
`
`39
`
`79
`
`592
`
`589
`
`588
`
`587
`
`UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH
`FLORIDA
`
`WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL
`FLORIDA
`
`PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
`
`FL
`
`MO
`
`FL
`
`NJ
`
`68
`
`1
`
`34
`
`17
`
`0
`
`4
`
`18
`
`4
`
`11
`
`19
`
`4
`
`7
`
`21
`
`6
`
`12
`
`18
`
`9
`
`13
`
`22
`
`14
`
`16
`
`40
`
`12
`
`24
`
`50
`
`14
`
`30
`
`36
`
`11
`
`28
`
`37
`
`19
`
`39
`
`19
`
`16
`
`36
`
`22
`
`26
`
`31
`
`20
`
`29
`
`21
`
`15
`
`23
`
`32
`
`19
`
`32
`
`23
`
`17
`
`31
`
`29
`
`15
`
`40
`
`30
`
`15
`
`53
`
`27
`
`22
`
`60
`
`28
`
`29
`
`67
`
`37
`
`25
`
`72
`
`24
`
`31
`
`564
`
`543
`
`536
`
`532
`
`UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION
`
`MAYO FOUNDATION FOR
`MEDICAL EDUCATION AND
`RESEARCH
`
`TEXAS A AND M
`UNIVERSITY
`
`IA
`
`MN
`
`TX
`
`82
`
`11
`
`67
`
`7
`
`9
`
`11
`
`9
`
`9
`
`4
`
`17
`
`6
`
`14
`
`22
`
`20
`
`16
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`
`14
`
`17
`
`14
`
`25
`
`20
`
`21
`
`29
`
`28
`
`23
`
`16
`
`18
`
`19
`
`38
`
`27
`
`25
`
`25
`
`26
`
`29
`
`30
`
`29
`
`19
`
`17
`
`28
`
`24
`
`16
`
`27
`
`24
`
`28
`
`26
`
`24
`
`26
`
`25
`
`26
`
`22
`
`29
`
`15
`
`7
`
`21
`
`23
`
`18
`
`24
`
`32
`
`60
`
`26
`
`27
`
`25
`
`41
`
`19
`
`34
`
`48
`
`34
`
`24
`
`523
`
`513
`
`506
`
`YALE UNIVERSITY
`
`RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
`
`OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
`
`CT
`
`NJ
`
`OH
`
`56
`
`28
`
`190
`
`12
`
`12
`
`17
`
`14
`
`15
`
`8
`
`13
`
`18
`
`5
`
`16
`
`20
`
`10
`
`7
`
`18
`
`9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`13
`
`34
`
`26
`
`11
`
`28
`
`31
`
`13
`
`29
`
`25
`
`22
`
`29
`
`21
`
`11
`
`25
`
`35
`
`13
`
`28
`
`24
`
`13
`
`19
`
`21
`
`23
`
`15
`
`23
`
`18
`
`21
`
`5
`
`21
`
`31
`
`22
`
`21
`
`16
`
`21
`
`10
`
`3
`
`24
`
`6
`
`19
`
`11
`
`9
`
`17
`
`20
`
`16
`
`11
`
`23
`
`14
`
`17
`
`28
`
`17
`
`15
`
`491
`
`473
`
`469
`
`ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
`RESEARCH FOUNDATION
`
`UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
`
`NY
`
`KY
`
`IL
`
`69
`
`91
`
`29
`
`23
`
`23
`
`7
`
`0
`
`4
`
`6
`
`13
`
`3
`
`13
`
`9
`
`11
`
`16
`
`8
`
`13
`
`13
`
`20
`
`14
`
`22
`
`35
`
`19
`
`22
`
`34
`
`25
`
`25
`
`42
`
`24
`
`16
`
`12
`
`25
`
`19
`
`27
`
`16
`
`32
`
`31
`
`28
`
`19
`
`13
`
`22
`
`27
`
`18
`
`17
`
`41
`
`15
`
`19
`
`24
`
`15
`
`23
`
`37
`
`25
`
`13
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`15
`
`19
`
`22
`
`15
`
`27
`
`30
`
`14
`
`20
`
`20
`
`16
`
`22
`
`23
`
`14
`
`27
`
`469
`
`439
`
`433
`
`UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
`
`CARNEGIE-MELLON
`UNIVERSITY
`
`UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA,
`THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF
`
`NY
`
`PA
`
`NE
`
`112
`
`36
`
`39
`
`10
`
`10
`
`4
`
`11
`
`4
`
`10
`
`10
`
`8
`
`16
`
`6
`
`10
`
`21
`
`3
`
`13
`
`29
`
`8
`
`5
`
`9
`
`24
`
`16
`
`15
`
`26
`
`25
`
`13
`
`7
`
`27
`
`23
`
`16
`
`33
`
`27
`
`6
`
`12
`
`18
`
`12
`
`19
`
`24
`
`14
`
`25
`
`18
`
`17
`
`25
`
`20
`
`18
`
`7
`
`12
`
`8
`
`30
`
`18
`
`20
`
`15
`
`14
`
`15
`
`13
`
`18
`
`11
`
`10
`
`8
`
`16
`
`26
`