Property rights for research institutions<\/p>\n
Zain Adnan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Global sales of pharmaceutical products in 2004 reached US$550
\nbillion, of which the share of developing countries was just $4
\nbillion.<\/p>\n
This is not surprising since major pharmaceutical companies
\nfrom developed countries spend large sums of money in research
\nand development. They also protect their investment by patenting
\ntheir inventions.<\/p>\n
One of the reasons these companies are so successful is that
\nthey collaborate extensively with research institutions in
\nuniversities and with smaller biotech companies.<\/p>\n
The pioneer of such cooperation at university level is
\nStanford University. In 1970, the university founded the Office
\nof Technology Licensing (OTL) similarly known within other
\nUniversities as a Technology Transfer and Licensing Office
\n(TTLO).<\/p>\n
TTLO's which are common nowadays were a rarity back then. It
\nstarted with the gene splicing research of Cohen (from Stanford
\nUniversity) and Boyer (University of California). Niels Reimers
\nof the OTL persuaded the two to let Stanford secure the patent.<\/p>\n
By the time the Cohen\/Boyer DNA patent expired, it had earned
\na license fee of $250 million. As a result, the concept of taking
\nintellectual property from the laboratory to the market is now
\ninstitutionalized to the point that the Association of University
\nTechnology Managers (AUTM) in the U.S. can regularly attract
\nworld leading companies, venture capitalists and lawyers to its
\nannual conference.<\/p>\n
Participants include Stanford, Columbia, MIT and the
\nUniversity of Wisconsin. Stanford's successes include Cisco,
\nYahoo! and Sun Microsystems.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the U.S. government enacted the Bayh Dole Act on
\nDec. 12, 1980. This act helped spur research in state funded
\norganizations. It created a uniform policy in patents among the
\nfederal agencies that provides funding research.<\/p>\n
The main incentive is that non-profit organizations
\n(universities) and small businesses were able to keep hold of
\ntitles to inventions made utilizing federally financed research
\nprograms.<\/p>\n
The impetus was the realization that thousands of valuable
\npatents were not used and collecting dust. The U.S. government,
\nwhich had financed the research, lacked the resources and
\ncontacts with the relevant industries required to market and
\ndevelop the invention. Universities are pushed to take part in
\ntechnology transfer activities.<\/p>\n
This is also the reason the Indonesian government enacted Law
\nNo. 18\/2002 on National Research, Assessment and Application of
\nScience and Technology.<\/p>\n
However, speaking to a member of one of the TLO's on campus at
\nthe University of Indonesia (UI); many university researchers
\nstill do not trust the system to allow the UI to patent their
\ninnovation. They would rather finance the patent application
\nthemselves by hiring out university patent agents.<\/p>\n
Before doing any research, a researcher should first map out
\nwhat types of technologies have already been patented. They can
\nuse software such as Matheo software to help them navigate the
\nUnited State Patent and Trademark Office or the European Patent
\nOffice. After the research is finished, they should use their
\nuniversity TLO's to patent their invention. An agreement on the
\nprofit sharing scheme on commercialization of the patent is
\nneeded at this stage.<\/p>\n
It is important not to publish their findings in a journal or
\nnewspaper. According to the World Intellectual Property
\nOrganization, for a patent to be valid, it must meet the
\nfollowing criteria: The invention must have a practical use and
\nit must show an element of novelty.<\/p>\n
This means a patented invention must possess some new
\ncharacteristic that is not known in the body of existing
\nknowledge in its technical field; it must show an inventive step
\nthat could not be deduced by an individual knowledgeable in the
\nfield.<\/p>\n
Publication of research would fall into the \"prior art\" -- the
\nprocesses, devices and modes of achieving the end of an alleged
\ninvention that were known or were knowable by due diligence
\nbefore and at the date of the invention.<\/p>\n
Another example is Texas Instruments' (TI) turnaround which
\nwas on the verge of bankruptcy in the mid 1980s. It found in its
\npatent portfolio many technologies that were the basis for the
\nproducts being used by its competitors in its own industry as
\nwell as other fields the TI was not in direct competition with.<\/p>\n
In a drive to save the company it went into an all out patent
\nlicensing and litigation effort. As a result by 1992 it has
\nearned $391 million from patent licenses, which was 43 percent
\nmore that it's $274 million in operating income in the same year.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, Pertamina, the state oil company paid Rp 5
\nbillion for a license to use a patent.<\/p>\n
The simple patent was for an innovative oil can opener which
\nis now used in the market. This proves that research and
\ndevelopment can be beneficial for both the end user and
\nresearcher.<\/p>\n
University and research institutions need to work more closely
\nwith venture capitalists and businesses to patent their
\ninventions.<\/p>\n
The writer is Deputy Head of External Affairs of the
\nIndonesian Intellectual Property Society. He also works at
\nSuryomurcito & Co, an IP consultancy. The views expressed are his
\nown and are based on publicly accessible material. He can be
\nreached at zain_adnan@yahoo.com.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/property-rights-for-research-institutions-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}