The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey

Abstract

established the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights in May 2001. We are made up of members from a diversity of countries, backgrounds and perspectives. We have each brought very different viewpoints to the table. We incorporate voices from both developed and developing countries: from science, law, ethics and economics and from industry, government and academia. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development PolicyWe decided early on not just to attempt to suggest compromises among different interest groups, but to be as evidence-based as possible. This has been challenging, for there is often limited or inconclusive evidence, but our Secretariat, extensive consultations, and the papers we commissioned, helped us in identifying the available evidence, which we then carefully evaluated.We also recognised early on the importance of distinguishing nations (middle or low income) which have substantial scientific and technological capability from those which do not. We attempted to learn about the real impacts of intellectual property, both positive and negative, in each of these groups of nations. We chose to concentrate on the concerns of the poorest, both in low and middle income nations. We all concur in this report. Our aim is practical and balanced solutions. In some cases we have adopted suggestions made by others but the responsibility for the conclusions is ours alone. We hope that we have fulfilled our task and that the report will be a valuable resource to all those engaged in the debate on how intellectual property rights might better serve to promote development and reduce poverty.Finally I want to thank Clare Short, and the UK Department for International Development, for their foresight in creating the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. I have been honoured to chair it. It has been an extraordinary experience for me, and for all of us on the Commission. We received a challenging remit. We greatly enjoyed our task and the opportunity to learn from one another and, in particular, from the many who have contributed to our work.

Technology transfer: Industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation

“…Of licensed inventions associated with some form of intellectual property, 78% were licensed exclusively, consistent with the share of 79% reported for licensing of patents funded by the National Institutes of Health 8 . Nevertheless, our analysis did not support our original assumptions that licences to industry-sponsored inventions would be likely to be exclusive, or that sponsors would snap up the lion's share of exclusive licences.…”

Academic patents and technology transfer

“…18 Pressman et al (2006) employed this information to identify which DNA patents had disclosed NIH funding and examined whether the NIH-licensing guidelines were violated. Drivas and Economidou (2013) used this information to examine whether federally funded patents are more basic in nature than their non-federally funded counterparts.…”

Navigating the molecular diagnostic patent landscape

“…As a general rule patented research tools tend to be non-exclusively licensed [53], often for small fees. This is not meant to suggest that all research tools are licensed in this way.…”