Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience
Recently, countries from China and Brazil to Malaysia and South Africa have passed laws promoting the patenting of publicly funded research, and a similar proposal is under legislative consideration in India. These initiatives are modeled in part on the United States Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Bayh-Dole (BD) encouraged American universities to acquire patents on inventions resulting from government-funded research and to issue exclusive licenses to private firms, on the assumption that exclusive licensing creates incentives to commercialize these inventions. A broader hope of BD, and the initiatives emulating it, was that patenting and licensing of public sector research would spur science-based economic growth as well as national competitiveness. And while it was not an explicit goal of BD, some of the emulation initiatives also aim to generate revenues for public sector research institutions.
We believe government-supported research should be managed in the public interest. We also believe that some of the claims favoring BD-type initiatives overstate the Act's contributions to growth in US innovation. Important concerns and safeguards —learned from nearly 30 years of experience in the US— have been largely overlooked. Furthermore, both patent law and science have changed considerably since BD was adopted in 1980. Other countries seeking to emulate that legislation need to consider this new context....
Anthony D. So and six co-authors, Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience, PLoS Biology, October 28, 2008.
Source: PLoS Biology
Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The World Patent Report – A Statistical Review 2008
WIPO recently released its annual statistics on patents 2008.
The World Patent Report – A Statistical Review is an annual publication and the 2008 edition is the third edition in the series. There is a continuing effort at WIPO to improve statistical information on patent activity covering as many countries as possible across the world and to develop and provide new indicators that are relevant to current policy issues.
All statistics included in this report and additional data (i.e. longer time series and more countries / patent offices) are available for download from WIPO’s statistics website: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/.
The World Patent Report – A Statistical Review is an annual publication and the 2008 edition is the third edition in the series. There is a continuing effort at WIPO to improve statistical information on patent activity covering as many countries as possible across the world and to develop and provide new indicators that are relevant to current policy issues.
All statistics included in this report and additional data (i.e. longer time series and more countries / patent offices) are available for download from WIPO’s statistics website: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Indian patent bill: Let's not be too hasty
Shamnad Basheer
10 September 2008
A new law to increase university patenting in India needs more research and public debate before being enacted, says Shamnad Basheer.
The Indian government is considering introducing a law based on the US Bayh–Dole Act — a 1980s statute that sought to promote technology transfer by giving universities and research institutions ownership of patents resulting from federally funded research.
The Indian bill has been hastily drafted and peddled across various ministries without proper forethought or public debate. Although it is not yet public, an unofficial copy of the bill — 'Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007' — is available on SpicyIP.
The Indian government appears to have been swayed, in large part, by romanticised accounts of the US Bayh–Dole Act. Most notably, an article in The Economist praised the act as a law that unlocked "all the inventions and discoveries that had been made in laboratories throughout the US with the help of taxpayers' money" and one that helped "reverse America's precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance." [1]
But the government has overlooked a growing body of literature that casts doubt on the wonders commonly attributed to the act. [2] Not only does the government need to assess this literature, it should also commission studies on the specific nature of university research in India and the complex relationship between academia and industry. If the bill is not sufficiently 'Indianised' it may fail to deliver.
Promoting technology transfer
As with the Bayh–Dole Act, the Indian bill is premised on the assumption that university ownership of patent rights is likely to increase the number of academia–industry collaborations. And that without it, industry may be unwilling to develop academic research into useful products for society.
It is true that a sizeable amount of public investment in Indian research is currently made without any express contract stipulating ownership over resulting patents. The proposed bill addresses this concern by providing a default position — that universities and research institutions can choose to patent any inventions arising from government funded research. But, if they fail to do so within a reasonable period of time, the option to patent passes on to the government funding agency.
This would provide more legal certainty — and consequently less transaction costs — for universities and industries wishing to collaborate. It may even act as an incentive for industries to approach universities in the first place.
It is difficult to advance any principled objection to fostering such legal certainty. Unless of course, one is opposed to the very idea of patents, as some critics of the Bayh–Dole Act appear to be. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, these critics would suggest that India pass legislation banning all patenting of government funded research. Such a suggestion is unlikely to gain force, given that technologically proficient developing countries like India face increasing demands for patents from domestic industries. And if domestic industry can file patents, why not universities and research institutes? Particularly when the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) — a wide network of government funded labs — is currently the top patent filer in India.
Still, the bill's key defect lies in not leaving enough space for non–exclusive licensing, particularly in the context of platform technologies. Had it not been for Stanford University's non–exclusive licensing in relation to its famed Cohen–Boyer patents covering rDNA technology, biotechnology may not have developed the way that it did. Not only did such widespread licensing contribute to the economic success of the patents, it also permitted a number of companies to do follow–on research, rapidly advancing the frontiers of technology.
Creating wealth
The bill aspires to make universities wealthy and self–sufficient. But the ability of such legislation to generate cash may be vastly exaggerated. Empirical data from the United States shows that most universities do not make significant sums of money by licensing their technology.
In fact, the cost of operating a technology transfer office (TTO) often exceeds the money made from technology licensing. CSIR bears out this point well. While it generated approximately US$1 million in licensing revenues in 2004–2005, it spent more than twice that amount on filing patents.
India's Bayh–Dole attempt will come to nothing if it ignores this important fact regarding CSIR and its rather impressive patent numbers. The government should come up with ways of reducing the operational costs of TTOs and patents, while simultaneously increasing revenues from licensing.
Inventor rights
Perhaps the most laudable aspect of the Indian bill is that, unlike its US counterpart, it ensures that individual 'inventors' are paid at least 30 per cent of any royalties stemming from licensing. But despite this guarantee of a share in the profits, individuals are left with little option of determining how their invention can be used. For example, even if researchers wish to place their invention in the public domain or license it non–exclusively, they cannot do so — rather, the bill puts this discretionary power in the university's TTO.
The idea of achieving legal clarity on the ownership of inventions funded by public monies and thereby promoting university–industry technology transfer is, at its core, a good one.
But the current version of the Indian Bill leaves much to be desired. For one, it should ensure that, where necessary, non–exclusive licensing is encouraged. It must also embrace ways of measuring and promoting wider knowledge spillovers between research institutions, industry and society at large.
Most importantly, given that India is the world's largest democracy, the government must immediately make the bill public and foster an open and transparent debate around it.
Shamnad Basheer is an associate at the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Center.
References
[1] Innovation's Golden Goose. The Economist 365 (2002).
[2] Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. et al. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University–Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. 264pp (2004)
Source: http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html
10 September 2008
A new law to increase university patenting in India needs more research and public debate before being enacted, says Shamnad Basheer.
The Indian government is considering introducing a law based on the US Bayh–Dole Act — a 1980s statute that sought to promote technology transfer by giving universities and research institutions ownership of patents resulting from federally funded research.
The Indian bill has been hastily drafted and peddled across various ministries without proper forethought or public debate. Although it is not yet public, an unofficial copy of the bill — 'Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007' — is available on SpicyIP.
The Indian government appears to have been swayed, in large part, by romanticised accounts of the US Bayh–Dole Act. Most notably, an article in The Economist praised the act as a law that unlocked "all the inventions and discoveries that had been made in laboratories throughout the US with the help of taxpayers' money" and one that helped "reverse America's precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance." [1]
But the government has overlooked a growing body of literature that casts doubt on the wonders commonly attributed to the act. [2] Not only does the government need to assess this literature, it should also commission studies on the specific nature of university research in India and the complex relationship between academia and industry. If the bill is not sufficiently 'Indianised' it may fail to deliver.
Promoting technology transfer
As with the Bayh–Dole Act, the Indian bill is premised on the assumption that university ownership of patent rights is likely to increase the number of academia–industry collaborations. And that without it, industry may be unwilling to develop academic research into useful products for society.
It is true that a sizeable amount of public investment in Indian research is currently made without any express contract stipulating ownership over resulting patents. The proposed bill addresses this concern by providing a default position — that universities and research institutions can choose to patent any inventions arising from government funded research. But, if they fail to do so within a reasonable period of time, the option to patent passes on to the government funding agency.
This would provide more legal certainty — and consequently less transaction costs — for universities and industries wishing to collaborate. It may even act as an incentive for industries to approach universities in the first place.
It is difficult to advance any principled objection to fostering such legal certainty. Unless of course, one is opposed to the very idea of patents, as some critics of the Bayh–Dole Act appear to be. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, these critics would suggest that India pass legislation banning all patenting of government funded research. Such a suggestion is unlikely to gain force, given that technologically proficient developing countries like India face increasing demands for patents from domestic industries. And if domestic industry can file patents, why not universities and research institutes? Particularly when the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) — a wide network of government funded labs — is currently the top patent filer in India.
Still, the bill's key defect lies in not leaving enough space for non–exclusive licensing, particularly in the context of platform technologies. Had it not been for Stanford University's non–exclusive licensing in relation to its famed Cohen–Boyer patents covering rDNA technology, biotechnology may not have developed the way that it did. Not only did such widespread licensing contribute to the economic success of the patents, it also permitted a number of companies to do follow–on research, rapidly advancing the frontiers of technology.
Creating wealth
The bill aspires to make universities wealthy and self–sufficient. But the ability of such legislation to generate cash may be vastly exaggerated. Empirical data from the United States shows that most universities do not make significant sums of money by licensing their technology.
In fact, the cost of operating a technology transfer office (TTO) often exceeds the money made from technology licensing. CSIR bears out this point well. While it generated approximately US$1 million in licensing revenues in 2004–2005, it spent more than twice that amount on filing patents.
India's Bayh–Dole attempt will come to nothing if it ignores this important fact regarding CSIR and its rather impressive patent numbers. The government should come up with ways of reducing the operational costs of TTOs and patents, while simultaneously increasing revenues from licensing.
Inventor rights
Perhaps the most laudable aspect of the Indian bill is that, unlike its US counterpart, it ensures that individual 'inventors' are paid at least 30 per cent of any royalties stemming from licensing. But despite this guarantee of a share in the profits, individuals are left with little option of determining how their invention can be used. For example, even if researchers wish to place their invention in the public domain or license it non–exclusively, they cannot do so — rather, the bill puts this discretionary power in the university's TTO.
The idea of achieving legal clarity on the ownership of inventions funded by public monies and thereby promoting university–industry technology transfer is, at its core, a good one.
But the current version of the Indian Bill leaves much to be desired. For one, it should ensure that, where necessary, non–exclusive licensing is encouraged. It must also embrace ways of measuring and promoting wider knowledge spillovers between research institutions, industry and society at large.
Most importantly, given that India is the world's largest democracy, the government must immediately make the bill public and foster an open and transparent debate around it.
Shamnad Basheer is an associate at the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Center.
References
[1] Innovation's Golden Goose. The Economist 365 (2002).
[2] Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. et al. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University–Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. 264pp (2004)
Source: http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html
CHINA: Racing ahead in patenting
CHINA: Racing ahead in patenting
Writer: Subbiah Arunachalam
Date: 07 September 2008
China today is the third most prolific patent-filing country in the world after the United States and Japan. The State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) received more than 694,000 patent applications in 2007 including more than 245,000 20-year patent applications and more than 181,000 10-year patent applications, says a report by Evalueserve, an international business research and analytics company. By contrast, the Indian Patent Office received about 35,000 20-year patent applications in the fiscal year 2007-08.
"Patent filing has been growing in both China and India at about 20% a year, compared with a 7% growth rate for the US. However, SIPO received approximately the same number of 20-year applications in 1997 as the IPO did in 2007-08. This implies that India is approximately 10 years behind China," said the Evalueserve report.
If patent filings in China continue to grow at the present rate, SIPO will overtake the US Patents Office by 2012 in innovation patents. SIPO grants three types of patents: invention patents which are valid for 20 years from the date of filing; utility model or 10-year patents; and design patents. The 10-year patents are easier and faster to file than 20-year patents as they do not require any substantive examination and cost less to file.
There are several reasons for the rapid proliferation of patenting in China, especially since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. In China, patents are issued faster than in India: the average time taken from filing to grant in 2007 was 26 months for invention patents, 6.8 months for utility model patents and 6.6 months for design patents. In India it takes three to five years for a patent to be granted.
The Chinese government also gives grants to research institutes and universities filing a large number of patent applications. The patent office has many initiatives to create intellectual property awareness among Chinese companies.
Patent filing also reflects the increase in R&D spending and the fast-growing economy has meant more money for research. Universities are flush with funds, said Ram Deshpande, a senior researcher with Evalueserve China.
China has developed its patent system in the past two decades and today has a good searchable online patent database, a robust appeal mechanism and a hierarchy of courts for handling intellectual property disputes. Thanks to these measures, patenting activity has picked up tremendous momentum. Four million patent applications were filed between 1985 and the end of 2007 - the first million took 15 years but the last million took about 18 months.
Manufacturing is the most active sector of patenting in China, with most patents in this class pertaining to systems or machines or composition of matter in the case of drugs. The highest number of 20-year patent applications in 2007 was filed in pharma, telecom and data processing systems.
Source: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080904152839794
Courtesy: Subbiah Arunachalam
Writer: Subbiah Arunachalam
Date: 07 September 2008
China today is the third most prolific patent-filing country in the world after the United States and Japan. The State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) received more than 694,000 patent applications in 2007 including more than 245,000 20-year patent applications and more than 181,000 10-year patent applications, says a report by Evalueserve, an international business research and analytics company. By contrast, the Indian Patent Office received about 35,000 20-year patent applications in the fiscal year 2007-08.
"Patent filing has been growing in both China and India at about 20% a year, compared with a 7% growth rate for the US. However, SIPO received approximately the same number of 20-year applications in 1997 as the IPO did in 2007-08. This implies that India is approximately 10 years behind China," said the Evalueserve report.
If patent filings in China continue to grow at the present rate, SIPO will overtake the US Patents Office by 2012 in innovation patents. SIPO grants three types of patents: invention patents which are valid for 20 years from the date of filing; utility model or 10-year patents; and design patents. The 10-year patents are easier and faster to file than 20-year patents as they do not require any substantive examination and cost less to file.
There are several reasons for the rapid proliferation of patenting in China, especially since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. In China, patents are issued faster than in India: the average time taken from filing to grant in 2007 was 26 months for invention patents, 6.8 months for utility model patents and 6.6 months for design patents. In India it takes three to five years for a patent to be granted.
The Chinese government also gives grants to research institutes and universities filing a large number of patent applications. The patent office has many initiatives to create intellectual property awareness among Chinese companies.
Patent filing also reflects the increase in R&D spending and the fast-growing economy has meant more money for research. Universities are flush with funds, said Ram Deshpande, a senior researcher with Evalueserve China.
China has developed its patent system in the past two decades and today has a good searchable online patent database, a robust appeal mechanism and a hierarchy of courts for handling intellectual property disputes. Thanks to these measures, patenting activity has picked up tremendous momentum. Four million patent applications were filed between 1985 and the end of 2007 - the first million took 15 years but the last million took about 18 months.
Manufacturing is the most active sector of patenting in China, with most patents in this class pertaining to systems or machines or composition of matter in the case of drugs. The highest number of 20-year patent applications in 2007 was filed in pharma, telecom and data processing systems.
Source: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080904152839794
Courtesy: Subbiah Arunachalam
2008 World Patent Report Confirms Increasing Internationalization of Innovative Activity.
2008 World Patent Report Confirms Increasing Internationalization of Innovative Activity. Increased patent filings in North East Asian countries (mainly China and the Republic of Korea) and in the US drove growth in worldwide filing of patent applications, which topped 1.76 million in 2006, representing a 4.9% increase over 2005, according to the 2008 edition of the WIPO World Patent Report.
World Patent Report: A Statistical Review (2008)
Full report is available at: http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/wipo_pub_931.html
Source: WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
World Patent Report: A Statistical Review (2008)
Full report is available at: http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/wipo_pub_931.html
Source: WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
