Public sector IP management in the life sciences: reconciling practice and policy

Taubman, Antony and Ghafele, Roya (2007): Public sector IP management in the life sciences: reconciling practice and policy. Published in: Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation. A Handbook of Best Practices , Vol. 2, No. 1 (21 March 2007): pp. 229-246.

Abstract

This chapter reviews the options for effective public sector management of intellectual property (IP) in the life sciences, focusing on the need for a judicious, pragmatic choice of options along two axes: (1) deployment of exclusive rights over technology and (2) use of market mechanisms to bring a new technology to the public. The essence of public sector IP management is finding the right settings along these two axes that will deliver tangible outcomes in line with defined public-interest objectives. Experience shows that ex ante assumptions about how to gain optimal leverage from exclusive rights, and the appropriate degree of reliance on market mechanisms, are unlikely to serve a public sector IP manager well. In clarifying objectives and the practical means of achieving them, pragmatic coordination between the practical and policy levels is essential. Public sector IP managers are more likely to be assessed against public interest expectations than their private sector colleagues. In IP management in the life sciences, policy and practice are ultimately two sides of the same coin; practitioners cannot hope, expect, or plan to operate outside the broader policy perspective. Policy-makers therefore need to consider the actual practice of IP management when assessing a policy framework for innovation in the life sciences. IP managers should be open to using legal mechanisms flexibly for inclusion, or exclusion, as required to achieve their goals. Finally, managers should seek mechanisms to pragmatically structure and promote partnerships with those who have the resources necessary to bring life-sciences innovation to the public. Such partnerships may be centered in the public, philanthropic, or private sectors, but more likely fall into a hybrid mix of these categories.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Public Interest Intellectual Property Management, Agricultural Biotechnology, Developing Countries
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F59 - Other

References

Juma C and V Konde. 2002. The New Bioeconomy. Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology in Developing Countries. Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting. UNCTAD:Geneva.

2 Kettler H and A Towse. 2001. Public private partnerships. CMH Working Paper Series, no. WG2:21.

3 WIPO. 2006. International Patent Report. WIPO: Geneva.

5 WIPO. (year unknown). Guidelines on Developing Intellectual Property Policies. WIPO Publication Number 848(E). WIPO: Geneva. www.wipo.int/freepublications/ en/intproperty/848/wipo_pub_848.pdf.

6 Sampath PG. 2006. Breaking the Fence: Patent Rights and Biomedical Innovation in “Technology Followers.” United Nations University Working Paper # 2006-008. United Nations University: Maastricht. http://run.iist. unu.edu/handle/repository/4920.

Javorcik BS. 2004. The Composition of Foreign Direct Investment and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Evidence from Transition Economies. European Economic Journal 48: 39–62.

Lee JY and E Mansfield. 1996. Intellectual Property and U.S. Foreign Direct Investment. Review of Economics and Statistics 78: 181–186.

Maskus KE. 1998. The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 9: 109–61.

Maskus KE and M Penubarti. 1995. How Trade-Related Are Intellectual Property Rights? The World Economy 39: 227–48.

Primo Braga CA and C Fink. 1998. The Relationship between Intellectual Property Rights and Foreign Direct Investment. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 9: 163–88.

7 WIPO. 2006. Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore. Document No. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/11. www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/ tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_9/wipo_grtkf_ic_9_11.doc.

8 Yi Qiang provides evidence that patents do foster innovation in countries with sufficiently high levels of education and social, political, and economic freedom; however, the author remains cautious about conclusions of the innovation potential of patents in developing countries. Other scholars (Gallini, Horwitz, and Lai) have demonstrated that patents only foster innovation to a certain extent, after which patenting becomes counterproductive (“inverted U-shape”). Lerner argues that the current patent system is dysfunctional and calls for reform.

Qian Y. 2006. Do National Patent Laws Stimulate Domestic Innovation In a Global Patenting Environment? A Cross-Country Analysis of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection: 1978–2002. Review of Economics and Statistics (RESTAT). M.I.T.: Boston.

Gallini N. 1992. Patent Policy and Costly Imitation. Rand Journal of Economics 23: 52–63. Horwitz A and

E Lai. 1996. Patent Length and the Rate of Innovation. International Economic Review 37: 785–801.

Jaffe AB and J Lerner. 2004. Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System in Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

9 Noveck BS. 2006. Peer to Patent: Collective Intelligence and Intellectual Property Reform. New York Law School Legal Studies Research Paper 5/06-18e.

10 WIPO. 2006. Letters to the Editor: Technology Transfer and Development. WIPO Magazine, no. 6. www. wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipo_magazine/en/ pdf/2006/wipo_pub_121_2006_06.pdf. And WIPO. 2006. Letters to the Editor: IP and Universities: Putting Policies in Place. WIPO Magazine, no. 5. www.wipo.int/ freepublications/en/general/121/2006/wipo_pub_121_ 2006_05.pdf.

11 Carraro C, A Pomè and D Siniscalco. 2001. Science Versus Profit in Research: Lessons from the Human Genome Project. Centre for Economic Policy Research Paper No. 2890.

12 Mansfield E. 1995. Intellectual Property Protection, Direct Investment, and Technology Transfer, Germany, Japan, and the United States. International Finance Corporation: Washington, DC. www.bvindecopi.gob. pe/colec/emansfield.pdf.

13 Goldfarb B and M Henrekson. 2002. Bottom-up versus Top-down Policies towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 463.

14 Gallini N and S Scotchmer. 2000. Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System? Innovation Policy and the Economy No. 2.

15 Taumban A. 2007. The International Patent System and Biomedical Research: Reconciling Aspiration, Policy and Practice. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Journal. In press.

16 Taubman A. 2006. The Case of Myriad. WIPO Magazine, no. 4