Shubha Ghosh University of Wisconsin Law School
* Comparing Bayh-Dole Act with PUPFIP Bill, 2008 * Assessment of Bayh-Dole from a development perspective
* Law as product * Alignment of interests * Informal versus formal
* United States * Economic downturn of 1970’s * Global competitiveness * Technology and industry * India * Economic liberalization of 1990’s * TRIPS * Restructuring of universities
* United States * Federal governments * State governments * Start-up culture * India * National government * TRIPS * National industrial base
* USA * Elect to retain title subject to restrictions by agency * Reasonable time for disclosure of invention * Two years to elect after disclosure * File patent application within reasonable time * Funding agreement may provide additional limitations * Subject to administrative review * India * Enter into agreement with Govt before receipt of funds * Created IP management committee * Disclosure of publicly funded IP & intent to retain * Limits on publication before patent application * Govt approves assignments * Penalties
* USA * Speaks in terms of funding agency * Agency has NNIP * March-in rights * Rules on contracting between agency and recipient * India * Speaks in terms of central government * IP R’s default to central government * Govt may decline to take title * Govt has right to practice and to assign publicly funded IP to satisfy treaty obligations
* USA * Falls under definition of contracting party * Stanford v Roche * India * Disclose immediately after creation to recipient * At least 30 % royalties
Is there a need for regulation of works and inventions created through state funding?
* Problem of title * Problem of incentive * Creation of an environment for negotiation and transfer of rights
* Complementary institutions? * Formalism and informalism * Mertonian science and formal markets * Distributional issues and Wealth creation
* In 2006, publicly funded R&D in India was 80% of GDP and total R&D expenditure was.8% of GDP * In USA, comparable figures were 30% and 2.76% * In China, comparable figures were 30% and 1.61% * 3960 R&D institutes in India * 2020 private sector Source: Evalueserve; Kochupillai, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)
Source of data: Evalueserve
* Non-Indian companies * Qualcomm [1] * Philips Electronics [3] * Bayer [4] * Samsung [5] * Hindustan Unilever [6] * Ericsson [7] * Microsoft [8] * Thomson Licensing [9] * Honda [10] * Indian companies * CSIR [2] * Ranbaxy Labs [31] * Dr. Reddy’s [45] * Tata group [47] * IIT [56] * Bharat Heavy Electricals [59] * Cadila Healthcare [66] * Steel Authority of India [72] * Orchid Chemicals [73] * Larsen & Toubro [74] * Cipla [80] Source of data: Evalueserve
* Indian Institute of Science [174 apps and 8 grants] * National Research Development Council [108 applications and 70 grants] * National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research [60 applications and 6 grants] * Indian Council of Medical Research [53 applications and 19 grants] * All India Institute of Medical Sciences [39 applications and 13 grants] * Bhaba Atomic Research Center [23 applications and 17 grants] Source: Basheer, 23 Columbia Journal of Asian Law 1 (2010)
* Features * Risk Taking * Integration * Learning * Institutional linkages * Financial sector * Legal regulation of rights and uses * Corporate law * Transactional setting * Research and publication setting
* Law as product * Product design * Environment for product implementation