National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Risk Management
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

7

Intellectual Property

“Intellectual Property (IP) is a central issue in international research collaborations. What is the balance between the facilitation of research and the protection of IP? The members of the IP track will discuss and outline the major issues, challenges, and successes of IP on the international level. This will include such topics as background intellectual property (BIP), the connection between IP and export control, the management of IP at the university, industry, and governmental levels, and emerging issues in the coming years (such as managing IP given the increasing transportation of large data sets and research across national borders). The IP team will pay particular attention to practices and models of IP used in individual countries, for inclusion in project deliverables.” (Workshop Agenda)

7.1 IP TRENDS FROM A U.S. UNIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE1

Brian Warshawsky, Senior Contracting Officer at Northwestern University, began his talk by outlining several trends that he has seen. On the one hand, international collaborations are more frequent. On the other hand, agreement negotiations are increasingly bogged down due to a lack of understanding on the part of industry about what collaborations

___________________

1In this section and other sections summarizing presentations, views and opinions are attributed to the presenter unless stated otherwise.

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

universities can and cannot engage in. This is the case for U.S.-focused collaborations as well as for international agreements, and comes after years of sustained effort to raise awareness.

Mr. Warshawsky attributes some of these problems to the downturn in the economy, combined with a trend for industry managers with experience in working with universities to retire and be replaced with managers who are more comfortable in a commercial procurement context. This is happening in negotiations with companies that have master agreements or set contract templates in place with Northwestern.

It is important to remember that the university’s core mission is to educate, both through classroom teaching and through the publication of research. Working with industry and with international partners is worthwhile if it advances this mission. Potential partners, and even faculty and departments heads eager to secure funding, may lose sight of this.

One issue that has caused difficulties lately is background intellectual property (BIP). BIP is a term used to define IP that exists before the development of an invention. In one recent negotiation, an international collaborator wanted assurances regarding BIP. The university has no capacity to check BIP at the time of an agreement or to provide such assurances. The most that happens is the faculty member provides a list of publications. The larger issue is that the university is performing research, not selling IP. The research does not come with any warranty that the result can be commercialized. Of course, the university wants to provide sponsors with opportunities to license the outputs, but cannot guarantee that there will be no bumps in the road due to background IP.

The role of the central administration is to balance the various interests at stake, to protect the integrity of the institution and the faculty, and to ensure that the university can comply with the agreements that it signs. In a recent case, an international collaborator from the Middle East was interested in supporting the development of course software. Mr. Warshawsky had to point out to a faculty member that if the sponsor was given the broad rights that it asked for, future research in that area might infringe on the copyright, raising the danger that the faculty member could be shut out of working in this area again.

In another case, a U.S. corporation refused to sign a letter of support for a faculty member seeking an NSF early career award until the university agreed to IP terms. As part of a much larger project, the faculty member and a student would be going into the company to study workflow issues, without receiving any IP or confidential disclosures from the company, with

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

just a small amount of funding in return. The company wanted a piece of any IP that might be generated by the much larger project. The longstanding master agreement with the company covered IP from work funded exclusively by the company. The faculty member was caught in the middle. The issue was ultimately resolved, but with some acrimony along the way.

In yet another case, a major corporation with an international focus was seeking to support research by a young faculty member, with most of the support funding a student. The research was very early stage, but the company retained outside patent counsel to aggressively pursue rights to BIP. This made no sense. Northwestern looked at its own portfolio, and suspects that the company might have been seeking to snag non-exclusive rights to an obscure patent going back ten years arising from the work of a faculty member no longer at the institution. The company could have simply licensed the technology.

In the current difficult environment, are there best practices to keep in mind? Mr. Warshawsky suggests that universities avoid artificial deadlines when dealing with companies. Universities should also be wary of master terms that could go beyond the contract that is being negotiated. Universities should understand the possible impact of agreements on unrelated research and unrelated researchers. In a perfect world, every contract will reflect the statement of work behind it.

7.2 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN IP ISSUES

Brian Fitzgerald, Professor in the Faculty of Law at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, discussed several issues related to international collaboration in IP. He began by covering several trends in collaboration between national patent offices.

He reminded the audience that it is important to remember that patents are granted by national patent offices. There is no such thing as an “international patent.” Over time several major agreements have established a framework aimed at facilitating the ability of inventors to apply for patents in multiple jurisdictions while reducing the amount of redundant work on the part of applicants and patent offices. For example, the Paris Convention of 1883 grants an inventor the priority date established in their original application for applications made within a year in other convention-member jurisdictions. The Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970 established an international application, allowing an inventor to do an international search to discover the jurisdictions in which it would be advantageous to file while

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

keeping the priority date from the original application for 30 months. Most jurisdictions publish applications 18 months after filing. The European Patent Office was established in 1973, and allows inventors to file in one place for patents in all EU countries. When granted, the patents would take effect as national patents.

Despite this progress, there are still barriers to international patenting. For example, there are millions of applications in a backlog awaiting assessment. There is still considerable duplication of effort across national offices in the application, examination, and grant processes. And patent laws are not harmonized.

Professor Fitzgerald reviewed several initiatives ongoing to address these barriers. One that has become prominent recently is the patent prosecution highway (PPH) concept. A PPH is a bilateral agreement between two national offices that allows an applicant to request accelerated consideration of an application from one office if at least one of its claims has been found to be patentable by the other. The “big three” largest patent offices (United States, Europe and Japan) are involved in this process, with Japan providing much of the impetus.

Another initiative is the Vancouver Group Mutual Exploitation Principles. This is a recent agreement between Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom aimed at eliminating duplication of effort. This is achieved by the Vancouver Group countries agreeing to rely on each others’ examination reports where possible.

Another area of effort is substantive and procedural reform. The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has identified several priority areas, including adoption of a uniform patent classification model, particularly among the “big three” (Quinn, 2010). This sort of harmonization would facilitate the work-sharing arrangements discussed above.

In addition to efforts at expanding collaboration between national patent offices, there is the potential for expanded engagement between patent offices and the community. One obvious trend is the emergence of patent informatics and the ability to source technological information from patent databases. This is not especially relevant to this discussion but is important in the broad IP scene.

A second trend is Peer-to-Patent, which is basically crowd sourcing prior art (information relevant to the patent’s claim of novelty and inventiveness). The idea is that the knowledge of citizen experts could be harnessed through technology to help examiners determine whether a patent

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

should be granted over an invention. Several pilot projects to test the concept have been run in the United States, and others have been launched in Australia, Japan, and Korea as well. In the U.S. pilots, there were over one thousand registered peer reviewers and 197 patent applications. The applicant could voluntarily make their application available for peer review. About 10 percent of the claims were affected by the prior art forwarded by the peer reviewers.

According to Professor Fitzgerald, potential benefits to the public of peer-to-patent include improved patent quality and a clearer patent landscape. Applicants would benefit from the resulting patent being more robust and less likely to be disputed or litigated. The identification of weak claims early in the process also allows the inventor to save resources that might have been used to pursue an application that would ultimately be rejected.

7.3 SAMPLE PERSPECTIVES FROM THE BREAKOUT SESSION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY2

The group began by reviewing the plenary session presentations and identifying those that were particularly relevant to intellectual property issues. Important aspects of the current context for research include stresses on the global and U.S. economies, and impacts on universities and industry.

Individual participants made a number of points during the discussion. This is a non-exhaustive list, and is not intended to represent consensus views of the workshop or the breakout session:

 

  • Intellectual Property (IP) Metrics. IP metrics were not a part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). They are part of the STAR Metrics program (Science and Technology for America’s Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science), a U.S. multi-agency effort launched in 2010.
  • IP-Related Barriers to Collaboration, Tensions and Pressure Points. The continued slowdown in the global and U.S. economies can create friction. Cross-cultural misunderstandings can raise barriers. Understanding of patent models in various countries is

___________________

2While unable to attend the workshop, Dr. Ma Jun, Director, Overseas R&D Management Office, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, provided written responses to the breakout session questions.

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

often limited. There are differences of efficiency between national patent offices. University administrative structures are under stress. Differences in technology (all technologies have unique quirks to them that impact IP) and asymmetries in IP negotiating strength (one party generally has more power than the other) can also cause problems.

  • Possible Solutions and Workarounds. Trust and personal relationships appear to be keys to success. Partnership strategies are developed over time, although one-time, ad hoc relationships are still common. Agreeing on a common language or terminology can help ensure success. The Patent Protection Highway discussed by Brian Fitzgerald and other non-U.S. strategies appears to be worth exploring. Professional development is critical to building international collaboration—this can be accomplished through more intensive faculty/staff communication, exchanges, conferences, and workshops.
  • Opportunities for IP to Facilitate International Collaborations. International exploration of methods of managing IP, such as the iBridge Network developed by the Kaufmann Foundation, could be helpful. Understanding the nuances in IP negotiations, such as differences in perspective between public universities and private, large and small entities, and so forth, can help ensure success. There might be a role for technology specialists, that is, consultants to serve as intermediaries between inventors and companies.
  • Key Short- and Long-Term Issues for IP and International Research Collaborations. Short-term issues include improving the compatibility, efficiency, and quality of output (patents) in various national systems. Harmonization is a highly desired long term goal. The status of the global economy is an uncertainty that has short-term and long-term impacts. Issues related to students and export controls, and the implications for IP are issues for the future.
  • Possible U.S. Government Actions. Ideas include building a U.S. Innovation Strategic Policy, convening an IP forum similar to the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), and steps to facilitate commercialization of government-created IP.
  • Possible Actions by U.S. Educational Institutions. Improving primary and secondary schools and providing role models, such as professionals in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, could be helpful. Expanding undergraduate
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

study abroad opportunities for U.S. students as suggested by Kathie Olsen in her keynote talk might also be worthwhile. Establishing some level of “innovation literacy,” and understanding that innovation literacy includes technical and non-technical elements, are other goals to consider.

  • Possible Industry Actions. Companies could benefit by becoming more “university literate,” i.e., understanding better the operating context of universities. Companies also could better define what is “precompetitive” for IP purposes; this will allow for better opportunities to collaborate early in the research process.
  • Possible Actions by Government, Universities, and Industry Together. Better understanding among the three sectors could be helpful. This includes a shared understanding that IP is part of the commercialization pipeline and is a means, not an end.

 

REFERENCE

Gene Quinn. 2010. An Exclusive Interview with Francis Gurry, WIPO Director General. IP Watchdog. May 4. Available at: http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/04/interview-francisgurry-wipo/id=10393/

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"7 Intellectual Property." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13192.
×
Page 56
Next: 8 Export Controls »
Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration: Summary of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $37.00 Buy Ebook | $29.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The globalization of science, engineering, and medical research is proceeding rapidly. The globalization of research has important implications for the U.S. research enterprise, for the U.S. government agencies, academic institutions, and companies that support and perform research, and for the world at large. As science and technology capabilities grow around the world, U.S.-based organizations are finding that international collaborations and partnerships provide unique opportunities to enhance research and training. At the same time, significant obstacles exist to smooth collaboration across national borders. Enhancing international collaboration requires recognition of differences in culture, legitimate national security needs, and critical needs in education and training.

In response to these trends, the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) launched a Working Group on International Research Collaborations (I-Group) in 2008, following its meeting on New Partnerships on a Global Platform that June. As part of I-Group's continuing effort, a workshop on Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration was held July 26-27, 2010 in Washington, DC. One primary goal of the workshop is to better understand the risks involved in international research collaboration for organizations and individual participants, and the mechanisms that can be used to manage those risks. Issues to be addressed in the workshop include the following: (1) Cultural Differences and Nuances; (2) Legal Issues and Agreements; (3) Differences in Ethical Standards; (4) Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research; (5) Intellectual Property; (6) Risk Management; (7) Export Controls; and (8) Strategies for Developing Meaningful International Collaborations.

The goal for the workshop and the summary, Examining Core Elements of International Research Collaboration, is to serve as an information resource for participants and others interested in international research collaborations. It will also aid I-Group in setting its future goals and priorities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!