“Because CIRM is a new institution without a track record to reassure stakeholders, and because its finite funding timeline means as yet unknown agencies will be enforcing these policies years down the road, CIRM should “propose regulations that specify who will have the power and authority to assert and enforce in the future rights retained by the state” in CIRM IP, specifically referring to march-in rights, access plans and revenue sharing....
“Second, as other sources of funding become more prevalent, the agency should “reconsider whether its goal of developing cures would be better served by harmonizing CIRM’s IP policies wherever possible with the more familiar policies of the BayhDole Act.”
“CIRM staff has engaged in preliminary discussions several years ago with other agencies regarding future enforcement of CIRM’s regulations and agreements. Staff proposes to restart those discussions and return to the Subcommittee (or the Board) with a formal proposal to address future enforcement of CIRM’s IP regulations.”
“In light of the IOM’s own recognition that it may be premature to assess whether CIRM’s regulations will act as a deterrence to future investment, the fact that a number of CIRM’s regulations have been codified in statutes and CIRM’s positive progress in its industry engagement efforts to date, although quite early, CIRM staff proposes to continue to monitor this area and not to pursue any changes at this time.”