Accessing Other People's Technology for Non-Profit Research

As patents and other forms of intellectual property become more pervasive in the next generation of biotechnologies, designing policies and practices to ensure sufficient freedom to operate (i.e., the ability to practice or use an innovation) will be crucial for non-profit research agencies, especially those intent on developing technologies destined for commercial release. Are non-profit organisations exempt from intellectual property claims? What constitutes infringement of a patent? How does a non-profit establish its freedom to operate? We address these issues in this paper and evaluate various options for accessing other people’s technologies. Options include crosslicensing agreements, research-only or cost-free licences, market segmentation strategies, mergers or joint ventures, and patent pooling or clearinghouse mechanisms. Responding creatively to the new intellectual property environment will have far reaching consequences for the future of non-profit research.

[1]  E. Marshall.  Private Help for a Public Database? , 1998, Science.

[2]  Konstantinos Giannakas,et al.  THE ECONOMICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER IMPERFECT ENFORCEMENT: DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE TRIPS AGREEMENT , 2001 .

[3]  M. Enserink.  Patent Office May Raise the Bar on Gene Claims , 2000, Science.

[4]  M. Morris,et al.  Bringing the Benefits of Biotechnology to the Poor: The Role of the CGIAR Centers , 2000 .

[5]  P. Pardey,et al.  Hidden harvest: U.S. benefits from international research aid , 1996 .

[6]  D. Zilberman,et al.  An intellectual property clearinghouse for agricultural biotechnology , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  H. Leung,et al.  Collaborations in Rice , 2000, Science.

[8]  Paul Brazzell,et al.  Conflict of interest. , 2002, The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne.

[9]  C. Buller,et al.  Partnerships between public and private: the experience of the Cooperative Research Center for Plant Science in Australia , 1999 .

[10]  M. Qaim.  Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential Socioeconomic Implications of North-South Biotechnology Transfer , 1998 .

[11]  Jennifer Washburn,et al.  The Kept University. , 2000 .

[12]  E. Marshall.  NIH, DuPont Declare Truce in Mouse War , 1998, Science.

[13]  L. Bero,et al.  Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. , 1998, JAMA.

[14]  S. Kowalski.  The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of pro-Vitamin A Rice (GoldenRiceTM): A Preliminary Freedom-To-Operate Review , 2000 .

[15]  William H. Lesser,et al.  'HOLDING UP' THE PUBLIC AGBIOTECH RESEARCH SECTOR OVER COMPONENT TECHNOLOGIES , 2000 .

[16]  M. Blakeney,et al.  Proprietary by biotechnology inputs and international agricultural research , 1998 .

[17]  Gordon C. Rausser.  PUBLIC / PRIVATE ALLIANCES , 1999 .

[18]  R. Dalton.  Cereal gene bank accepts need for patents… , 2000, Nature.

[19]  Patricia Zambrano,et al.  South‐North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops* , 2003, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[20]  Henry T. Stelfox,et al.  Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J. Barton.  New International Arrangements in Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 2003 .

[22]  John Wilson,et al.  Doing Well by Doing Good: Volunteering and Occupational Achievement among American Women , 2003 .

[23]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .