Licensing Biotech Intellectual Property in University-Industry Partnerships (original) (raw)
Related papers
Intellectual Property in the Biotechnological Era
The biotechnological era is upon us. We are living through a time when our very definitions of 'life,' 'nature,' and what it means to be human are being challenged, questioned and redefined. Intellectual property has played a major role in setting this stage, in creating the conditions of possibility as it were. In broad strokes, we can see that the advent of Intellectual Property as both a legal and cultural phenomenon in the world has shaped the way we understand innovation, private property and public goods in foundational ways. Beginning in the West, the practice of protecting intellectual property for private gain has spread worldwide as a result of globalization. Pockets of resistance remain and contested cases are always being heard that push or contract the rules in different directions. The collusion of neoliberal ideologies, globalization and the 'information society' have created a perfect storm where intellectual property can flourish. The complexity of the current global situation means that it is important to resist the temptation to isolate the 'nation-state' as the sole source of this situation. As Debbie Halbert explains in The State of Copyright:
Intellectual property conundrum for the biological sciences
The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, 2004
Policy regarding academically generated biomedical intellectual property (IP) has been shaped by two important events: the Vannevar Bush report to then President Roosevelt in 1945 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This policy, which vests the intellectual property produced from federally funded biomedical research from the government to the academic institution, was designed to promote technology transfer and thus promote the health of the U.S. economy. However, the policy has led to significant challenges, particularly in implementation. Here it is argued that the difficulties are due to differences in the structure of motivations between biomedical scientists, institutional officials, and private sector entrepreneurs. Understanding these differences may lead to a review of policy with the goal of enhancing technology transfer for the future. Anat Rec (Part B: New Anat) 277B:5-9, 2004.
Policy Studies Journal, 1988
Many expect the emergent ciuster of new genetic techndogies cdiectiveiy referred to as 'biotechndogy" to provkie an important boost to the U.S. economy as a whde and to provkie substantial profit opportunities for partbuiar industries.^ Despite the commerciai promise of bbtechndogy, the fundamental scientific advances on which the emergence of bbtechndogy as a fieid is ijased were made not in industriai iabs but in iabs at prominent universities. lthough companies have invested mHiions of ddiars in the rapki improvement of their own fecHltles and research personnel, they have needed, and continue to need, the expertise resident in the university in order to reaiize the commerciai potential of biotechndogy. To gain access to such expertise, many companies iiave established a wkJe range of fomnal and informai ties to partbuiar university scientists, to specific departments, and even to whde universities (Unneli, 1982: 43-70; Kenney, 1988; Kioppenburg, 1988:223-240). Qne recent study found that 46 percent of aii firms in the biotechndogy industry were activeiy funding biotechndogy research in universities (Biumenthai, et ai., 1986a:243).
2009
Since the formation in 1976 of the first modern biotechnology company, Genentech, the biotechnology industry has grown to become one of the major engines of innovation in virtually all developed economies. Indeed, biotechnology’s growth in areas ranging from health, agriculture, environment and industrial processes has been phenomenal. This expansion has been paralleled by mounting public concerns because of potential ethical issues and impact on our health, food and the environment. The importance of innovation in biotechnology and its widespread applications in health, agriculture and commerce has helped bring issues related to intellectual property (IP) rights and technology transfer into sharp focus. The ongoing global debate on IP rights, especially related to health and agriculture, has hinged on proprietorship of knowledge and its ethical and political implications for innovation, knowledge sharing and technology transfer. The means by which knowledge and technologies are mov...
Cooperative Intellectual Property in Biotechnology
SCRIPT-ed, 2007
This paper briefly considers some of the perceived problems associated with the exclusive rights model of patent management in biotechnology. It then goes on to explore the range of legal options for dealing with some of these perceived problems, together with alternative co-operative approaches that are currently under discussion in various forums, including open access models. This review shows that there are many parallels in the issues currently being debated in the information technology and biotechnology industries in relation to the copyright and patent regimes of intellectual property.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: Past, Present and Future
Blurb: This book is a highly readable and entertaining account of the co-evolution of the patent system and the life science industries since the mid-19th century. The pharmaceutical industries have their origins in advances in synthetic chemistry and in natural products research. Both approaches to drug discovery and business have shaped patent law, as have the lobbying activities of the firms involved and their supporters in the legal profession. In turn, patent law has impacted on the life science industries. Compared to the first edition, published by Ashgate in 2003, which told this story for the first time, the present edition focuses more on specific businesses, products and technologies, including Bayer, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, aspirin, penicillin, monoclonal antibodies and polymerase chain reaction. It also does exclusively with health whereas the first edition also covered agriculture. Another difference is that this second edition looks into the future, addressing new areas such as systems biology, stem cell research, and synthetic biology, which promises to enable scientists to “invent” life forms from scratch.