1. COMMERCIALISATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THROUGH UNIVERSITIES: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS DR. S.C.ROY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

2. CONCEPT  OBJECTIVE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Solution To The Problems In Different Disciplines  Research and human development  Those creating IP are either ‘genius’ or by dint of their own ‘passionate hard work.  University system should have been creative oriented.  COMMERCIALISATION - Process of bringing intellectual property (IP) to the market in order to exploit it in return of business profits and growth.  JV with Industry

3. INTRODUCTION  The concept of education was socio- human oriented.  But today it has become job oriented.  Invention Gets Patented (Science)  The Innovation Remains In The Files /Papers Without Commercialisation (Social Science)  COMMERCIALISATION through integration with industries can bring impetus to the educational institutions by creativity

4. INTRODUCTION  Commercialising IP portfolios through proactive business development  licensing innovations to other companies  joint ventures and licensing arrangements.  For universities and public sector research organisations,  IP assets can be a means of creating new income streams  Attracting commercial partners.  Wider public benefit from transferring technology via research partnerships  Licensing of intellectual property or new venture creation.

5. IP PROGAM IN THE FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES / RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS  Universities can be connected with the cinematograph industry  New innovative feature movie can be created.  Music can be composed through the music department  Students can earn and maintain their educational expenditure  After completion of study they can be fully employed.  The two most common ways of commercialising research are  Starting a new company  Licensing to a new or existing company.

6. IP PROGAM IN THE FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES / RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS  Universities can be connected with the cinematograph industry  New innovative feature movie can be created.  Music can be composed through the music department  Students can earn and maintain their educational expenditure  After completion of study they can be fully employed.  The two most common ways of commercialising research are  Starting a new company  Licensing to a new or existing company.

7. IP PROGAM IN THE FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES / RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS  Contact and work with the ORS  Industry sponsored commercial partnerships  Research into outcomes should leverage the business partnership  create triple-bottom line impacts (economic, social and environmental)  Students as well staff are encouraged for the innovation as well as collection of other’s IP and commercialise  Pressure on universities, public research institutions (PRIs) and governments  To increase the economic outputs

8. IP PROGAM IN THE FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES / RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS  Promoting knowledge transfer via a dual, but rather linear, model of commercialisation.  supply-push forces  demand-pull model  Paths for commercialisation are increasingly integrated.  Intermediaries that broker commercialisation activities come up.

9. Global Footprint of Commercialization  JAPAN  Japan is transforming its intellectual property (IP) and economy through invention  Large pay-outs by Japanese companies to their former inventors, all point to change propelled by the need to be globally competitive.  Technical Licensing Organisation (TLO) Laws, the introduction in 2005 of a bespoke patent court, and procedural and litigation changes in the courts

10. Global Footprint of Commercialization  USA  In the USA, TLOs are serving as engines for economic development by spinning out new companies and creating new employment opportunities.  “Promoting University-Industry Technology Transfer”, has ushered in a new relationship between inventors, universities and industry.

11. Global Footprint of Commercialization  CHINA  The University of New Mexico's tech-transfer and economic-development organization, STC.  Both organizations see the arrangement as mutually advantageous.  STC will incur no patent costs and share in licensing fees and royalties and Chiba University will gain the assistance of experienced university technology- transfer professionals in commercializing its technology.

12. Global Footprint of Commercialization  SOUTH AFRICA  In 2002, the South African Research and Development Strategy identified disparate practices in respect of ownership, management and commercialization of intellectual property  R&D strategy proposed a need for harmonization of IP practices and establishment of a dedicated fund to finance the securing of intellectual property from publicly financed research.

13. THE PUBLIC FUNDED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL 2008  Creation of new products and processes through technological innovation is essential for a country’s economic growth.  India lags behind due to a variety of reasons  low level of commercialisation.  Lack of funding from industry.  Government control of the right to intellectual property developed in research institutions through public funds.

14. THE PUBLIC FUNDED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL 2008  Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property (PFIP) Bill, 2008  Creating and commercialising intellectual property from public funded research.  The Bill requires the scientist who creates an intellectual property to immediately inform the research institution.  The institution shall disclose this information to the government within 60 days.

15. THE PUBLIC FUNDED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL 2008  Bill bars scientists from public disclosure without a 30 days’ notice.  It also requires an institution to protect IP if there is commercial potential.  Any contravention entails fines.  Proponents argue that it would create an enabling environment for commercialisation.  Opponents argue that it might stifle innovation.  The Bill requires the scientist and the institution to inform the government about an IP and list the countries in which it wants to retain the title.

16. CONCLUDING REMARKS  Research is not pursued in a vacuum  The biotech industry developed and as new companies were being spun out of universities  The traditional big players, such as the pharmaceutical industry, perceived these new entrants to represent more attractive innovation partners than universities.  The risk-averse culture of larger pharma demanded better developed opportunities with more certainty of delivery and so it viewed biotech as the partner of choice.  Increase in IP licensing as a business strategy for large number of companies.

17. CONCLUDING REMARKS  First, the government must undertake a comprehensive study.  This should aim at rigorously and empirically examining the contours of such research  The justice Rajagopala Ayyangar committee report, submitted in 1959, is an excellent example in this regard. This council undertook a careful study of the Indian patent system for two years before making a slew of recommendations that went on to form the basis for the 1970 Patents Act. It contributed in no small measure to the success of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

18. CONCLUDING REMARKS  Secondly, it might be more optimal if India regulates the patenting of publicly funded research through a “policy” and not a “law” that would create binding rights and obligations.  Thirdly, given that publicly funded inventions are generated using taxpayer money, the Bill ought to provide for greater “public interest” safeguards, such as the “affordable” pricing of any goods that come out of publicly funded research.”

19. CONCLUDING REMARKS  Fourthly, the ipr facilitation centre has to be established in every university for the motivation of creativity and commercialisation. Even the private universities and NGOs should be allowed for innovation and commercialisation.  Finally, IPR education requires to be added from class VIII in the curriculum and schools should be added also for the commercialisation of IPR created by the children.