The blog provides analysis, views, best practice, global and international policy developments and management tips in various areas of the ever growing field of Technology Transfer and University IP Management.
On
November 10, President Obama announced his nomination of Dr. Rajiv Shah for
Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Dr.
Shah currently works at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Chief Scientist
and Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. While at USDA, Dr.
Shah has directed the start of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
an organization focused on bioenergy, sustainable food production, and
nutrition.
Dr.
Shah previously was the Director of Agricultural Development at the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. In this role, he oversaw the management of a global
vaccination fund. Dr. Shah also was a health care policy advisor for Gore's
presidential campaign in 2000.
Dr.
Shah earned his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and a
Master of Science in health economics at the Wharton School of Business. He is
a graduate of University of Michigan. Several organizations have welcomed
President Obama's selection of Dr. Shah and believe that Dr. Shah has the
experience and necessary skills to be a great leader in global development.
"KITT", which stands for Knowledge and Innovation Technology Transfer is a "machine" designed to do two things:
Instill Technology Transfer knowledge; and
Support the set-up of sustainable institutions in developing countries.
The concept behind this "machine" is:
Find a developing country that is needs to boost its technology transfer capacity.
Identify partners within the country.
With their help, identify candidates to be put in the "machine."
Pursue discussion with partners regarding their needs, while candidates receive IP/TT education.
Address these needs together with the candidates.
Upon the candidates return to the home-country, support them with the set-up of the TTO.
Quality control - follow-up meetings and conferences.
Putting the moral and social validity of such a model aside, we should pursue it because:
It fits with the International Technology Transfer Institute's (ITTI) and Franklin Pierce Law Center's (FPLC) mission.
It seems to answer for the current needs of developing countries.
It has potential in generating a steady body of students.
It promotes a positive U.S. image around the globe and does more to promote our economy and our national security than the use of traditional foreign policy tactics.
Whether KITT manages to satisfy any of the above points or all of them, it promotes ITTI's name and credibility, and therefore FPLC's as well.
Law on
Technology Transfer, No. 80-2006-QH11 (LTT) was enacted on November 29, 2006,
and became effective on July 01, 2007. The purpose of LTT is to regulate "technology
transfer activities in Vietnam, from Vietnam to overseas, and from overseas to
Vietnam" (LTT Article 1).
Before LTT
was enacted, technology transfer in Vietnam was regulated by Decree
No.11/2005/ND-CP (Decree 11), which was enacted on February 2, 2005. Although
Decree 11 listed transferable and non-transferable technologies, the definition
of "technology" was unclear. Under Decree 11, some restrictions were imposed on
technology transfer agreements (TTAs). First, TTAs must be in writing and
documents must be written in Vietnamese. If a party to the agreement is a
foreign individual or organization, it is allowed to use commonly used
language, such as English, in addition to Vietnamese. Second, except for some
special cases, the duration of the agreement must be up to 7 years from the
effective date of the agreement. Third, agreements on technology transfer to
and from abroad must be registered. Such agreements become effective from the
date of the registration.
LTT replaced
Decree 11 and consolidated regulations on technology transfer. Unlike Decree
11, LTT clarifies the definition of terms used in the law. For example, "technology"
is defined as "solutions, processes and technical know-how, whether attached or
unattached to tools and facilities, used to convert resources into products"
(LTT Article 3, Section 2). Compared to Decree 11, LTT gives more flexibility
to TTAs. Under LTT, a form of an agreement may be in writing or "some other
written form with equivalent validity such as a telegram, telex, facsimile or
data message or other form as stipulated by law" (LTT Article 14, Section
1).LTT allows contracting parties
to choose the language of a TTA (LTT Article 14, Section 2). LTT also abolished
the strict restrictions on the duration of TTAs. Moreover, under LTT, parties
can agree on the effective date of the TTA (LTT Article 19, Section 1) and have
no obligation to register the agreement (LTT Article 25, Section 1).
By David Connaughton on November 10, 2009 10:16 AM
|Permalink
Last January, WIPO Director Francis Gurry Presented a Global Leader In Intellectual Property award to the King of Thailand: King Bhumibol Adulyadej. This is a great recognition for Thailand, and provides an opportunity for WIPO to develop ties and assist Thailand in developing their IP and IP management regimes.
King Adulyadej is an accomplished inventor and artist. He holds copyrights in over 1,000 artistic works, and holds 20 patents and 19 trademarks. His copyrighted works include visual, musical and literary works. His patents are generally directed to innovations that help rural Thai citizens such as a water aerator which can conserve and purify water, and artificial rainmaking technology.
By presenting this award, WIPO publicly acknowledges the value of innovation and intellectual property in Thailand. This award showcases The King's leading by example. His works, intellectual property and the corresponding award sends a positive message to other Thai inventors that it is important to patent, utilize and commercialize their innovations to encourage technological development. WIPO Director Gurry stated: "In sharing the fruits of your creativity in the form of invention and musical and artistic works, Your Majesty has not only demonstrated the power of intellectual property to enrich and enhance the quality of daily life and work but has also encouraged people everywhere to create, respect and protect it."
The presentation of this award to the Thai King was also a wonderful opportunity for WIPO to have an audience with the Thai King, Prime Minister and other government officials to discuss intellectual property capacity goals, the role of IP in development, and how these goals can be implemented. Thailand has committed to using IP to further their economic development, and to implement the WIPO Development Agenda.
Thailand is certainly on the right path by committing to developing their IP programs and increasing their IP management capacity. This is an exciting time in their development.
The press release can be seen at: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0001.html
The House of
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs met on March 18, 2009 to examine
the appropriate role of the Defense Department in foreign assistance. Committee
Chair Howard L. Berman started the meeting by addressing some issues of
concern: "And what are the implications of putting a military face on
development and humanitarian activities? How does this affect the way we are
viewed in the world, and what is the practical impact on USAID's ability to
carry out development projects?" [2]
Testimony
from witnesses, including Philip L. Christenson, Former Assistant Administrator of USAID, Nancy Lindborg, President of Mercy Corps, General
Michael W. Hagee, Former Commandant of
the Marine Corps, suggests an imbalance of funding and support for the
State Department and USAID, thereby creating a need for the military to
undertake humanitarian programs.
General
Michael W. Hagee recommended there to be "the integrated blend of defense,
diplomacy, and development. But this strategic approach will only be effective
if all three smart power pillars are coherent, coordinated, and adequately
resourced." [3]
While
Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II, Director of
the Sustainable Security Program, Center for American Progress Action Fund
and Nancy Lindborg conveyed a concern of the Defense Department's impact on
humanitarian assistance. Mr. Brigety wrote, "there are a series of
disadvantages with the military's involvement in assistance missions. First,
the focus on the performance of programs of tactical or strategic value can
mean assistance efforts are directed to places of the greatest potential threat
rather than places of the greatest human need." [4]
Furthermore,
Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II wrote in his prepared statement, "the military's
growing involvement in this space risks the appearance of 'militarization' of
America's foreign assistance. This is a perception which makes many of our
partners - governments, NGOs, etc. - extremely uncomfortable ... (and) has real
operational consequences in the field when implementing partners refuse to
cooperate with the military, ... for fear of being linked to US foreign policy
and losing their operational neutrality." [5]
Ms.
Lindborg indicated, "When the lines blur between military and civilian actors,
insecurity can increase for civilians." She also noted, "When NGO's are
associated with the military, we are more likely to be perceived as a
legitimate target, and so have a greater vulnerability. Our value and ability
to work in insecure environments is thus further compromised." [6]
The
testimonies and written statements provided a breadth of information, advice,
and recommendations on how to address the issue, but there does not seem to
be a simple solution.
By David Connaughton on November 3, 2009 2:18 PM
|Permalink
Thailand has continued to further its rapid development of the past decade when, on September 24, 2009, Thailand acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Joining this treaty creates a direct and convenient route for foreign applicants to file patent applications in Thailand. Thailand Joins 142 other countries in this treaty. http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0040.html
Thailand's joining this treaty sends a strong message supporting innovation. Soon, the country's market will be a more attractive and global system to attract investors who will want to protect their investments with patents. Thailand will likely attract more foreign patent applications, which will result in more innovation, and greater exposure to new technologies.
The PCT allows applicants to file an international application which will face preliminary examination, streamlining and simplifying international patent filing. Applicants then elect what countries they would like to file their patents in.
As introduced in the previous entry, some countries in the
world have adopted mandatory disclosure requirement for patent applications
which involve genetic resources to promote access and benefit sharing (ABS)
despite the controversies. The certificate
of origin approach is similar to the mandatory disclosure policy. However, instead of mandating patent applicants
to disclose the origin of genetic resources by themselves, this approach
requires a certificate from the relevant authority where the genetic resources
(and associated traditional knowledge) are acquired as a proven that they are obtained
in compliance with the laws and regulations of the place of origin. Will it
work better? That is the question.
To begin with, let's have a look at its bright side. First,
this approach requires prior informed consent (PIC) of the genetic resources
and traditional knowledge holders. This is better because the mandatory
disclosure policy as such cannot stop patent applicants from taking advantage
of the genetic resources without the owners' consent as long as the information
is disclosed. And therefore, certificates of origin, to some degree, prevent
biopiracy. Moreover, compared to the mandatory disclosure approach, certificate
of origin concept will significantly reduce the workload of the patent office
to verify the reliability and accuracy of the disclosed information. With
creditable certificates, the patent office doesn't need to track the information
all the way down to the source of origin. Finally, this approach can go even
further beyond the governmental authority, and extend the granting power to
certain levels of organizations, research institutions, botanical gardens and
etc. where the genetic resources are found ex
situ. And that will greatly increase the efficiency of the whole procedure,
while promoting access of the genetic resources.
Unfortunately, certificate of origin approach has
disadvantages as well. First, although it promotes PIC, what if the genetic
resources owner is unreasonable? If the local authority asks an unreasonable
price in exchange of the certificates for the patent, it will actually deter
the access of genetic resources and counteract the concept of ABS. Despite
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognized countries' sovereign right
of ownership of genetic resources, relationship between nations on this issue
are complicated. Furthermore, when other issues (i.e. politics, economy and corruption)
get involved, certificate of origin approach will become an obstacle to access
genetic resources and traditional knowledge. It may prevent biobiracy, on the
other hand, it blocks goodwill as well.
Second, although the workload of the patent office will be
reduced compare with the mandatory disclosure approach, the credibility of the
certificate information might be an issue. In other words, someone has to track
down the information, either the patent office or others. This approach shifts
this burden from the patent office to someone else such as the local
authorities. However, the credibility of the authorities might not be as high
as what they are supposed to be. This is a serious problem in many developing
countries. And it becomes more problematic when international business is
involved. Even worse, when the certificate issuing authorities are granted to
different levels of non-governmental organizations, the credibility will unsurprisingly
deteriorate. If the certificate becomes unreliable, this approach will be
actually void.
Moreover, depending on local situation, applying a
certificate may take a long time, which will cause serious issue for modern
first filing patent system.
To sum up, like what happened to the mandatory disclosure
policy, it appears that the world is just not ready for the certificate of
origin concept yet. Until it is ratified by authorities and cooperated by other
policies, certificate of origin policy isn't very practical. And ITTI doesn't
expect it to be widely adopted by countries in the near future.
Mandatory disclosure of the origin of the genetic resources
in patent application is a part of my ITTI project. It aims to comply with
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Article 15 which governs access of
genetic resources, and thus to promote access and benefit sharing (ABS).
However, mandatory disclosure policy is very controversial around the world and
many counties have different opinion on this issue.
In general, many developing countries, which are normally
genetic resources owners, favour the mandatory disclosure policy. In contrast,
many developed countries are against this approach saying the disadvantages
overweigh its benefits. There are also some countries hold a neutral attitude.
According to current conditions of global patent system
structure and genetic resources relevant database, it appears that the
mandatory disclosure policy isn't very realistic and it can hardly be enforced.
First, there isn't a comprehensive genetic resources database to track down and
to find if the disclosure of origin is correct and accurate. Second, the policy
will certainly increase the workload of patent offices around the world to
track down the genetic resources. Moreover, mandatory disclosure requirement as
such cannot promote ABS, without the support from other relevant policies such
as prior consent and fair contractual relation based system.
Currently, only a few countries around the world apply the mandatory
disclosure requirement in their patent system, and China is one of them. The 3rd
revision of Patent Law of China (the new patent law) has become into effect on
October 1, 2009. And article 5 and 26 of the new patent law govern the genetic
resources and mandate its disclosure. Because it's only been 1 month since the
new regulation became into effect, there isn't too much information about the enforcement
and detailed situation of it. ITTI will continue to monitor the situation
regarding the new patent law of China.
Many developing countries are reliant
upon the performance of their agriculture for economic growth and an increase
in employment opportunities. To improve agricultural production, USAID is
working with countries in Africa and Asia to utilize agricultural biotechnology
as an instrument for agricultural development. USAID's agricultural
biotechnology programs are developing new crop varieties that are resistant to insects
and plant diseases. USAID also supports the development and integration of
biosafety systems in Africa and Asia.
These
programs for biosafety systems work with regional partners to help with
creating and implementing biosafety policies and procedures, increase countries'
capacity for technology development, and assist local research institutions
address regulatory and intellectual property rights issues.
USAID's
collaborative agricultural biotechnology programs work to improve food security
and make farmers' agricultural systems more environmentally sustainable. For
further information, please follow this link: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/agriculture/biotechnology/index.html
By Alex Chan on October 8, 2009 4:27 PM
|Permalink
The USPTO has made a recent announcement that it has signed
a Workplan for Bilateral Cooperation on intellectual property issues with the
African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO).This workplan, in essence, represents USPTO's
very first commitment to helping developed countries and least developed
countries in promoting and improving the current existing intellectual property
systems in some of the most needed African countries including, for example,
Ghana, Botswana, Malawi, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
There has always been a critical need and demand for a legal
framework in these African countries to enable private and public enterprises
and companies to address the current food shortage and food crisis.These needs and demands, however, are often
overlooked because of, inter alia, the lack of regulatory structure by which
private investment can be protected via IP rights (IPRs).By signing the cooperative agreement with the
USPTO, ARIPO seems to acknowledge the importance of knowledge sharing and
technology transfer, and the life-saving effects of IPR protection on the
current food production.
Needless to say, the cooperative agreement is historic
because the collaboration signifies Africa's willingness to build capacity
programs and its understanding that private companies are less likely to invest
in R&D and/or partner with public entities to create a business model that
would benefit interest of the public in the absence of IPR protection.The agreement further shows USPTO's continuous compliance in meeting the
technical cooperation obligation under Article 67 of the TRIPS agreement.
