1. Technology Transfer Niva Elkin-Koren Center for Law and Technology University of Haifa October, 2005

2. Overview A New Bill  Encouragement of Knowledge and Technology Transfer for the Benefit of the Public Act 2005 What is it? What does it aim to achieve? How does it offer to do it? Is it a good thing?

3. Encouragement of Knowledge and Technology Transfer for the Benefit of the Public Act 2005 What is technology transfer? Why Tech-transfer is necessary?  Shrinking funding of research in public sector  Incentives for investments by the private sector  Ideology: research should be independent of government funding Spread the benefits of publicly funded research to the public at large  Universities are not simply ivory towers: could benefit society  Division of labor: public funding generates basic research Private funding produces commercial applications An interface is necessary

4. Sound Familiar? Baye-Dole Act 1980 Patent and Trademark Law Amendments of 1980  Permitting and simplifying the patenting of federally funded research The new bill: similar purpose  Provide the legal infrastructure for tech transfer  Improve efficiency  Improve IP management  Secure public interest

5. How? Ownership Central Governance of IP: all research output is owned by Research Centers (RC)  Research Centers: Governmental and public research centers subject to the State Comptroller Act and declared as such by MOS RC are subject to  A duty to protect intellectual property in research output  A duty to engage in tech-transfer activity Commercially exploit research output within the legal framework defined by law

6. Regulating Tech-Transfer Activity Commercialization through licensing, joint ventures, sale. Exploitation within Limits: Exploitation would not dilute ownership  Sale: requires MOS approval, only when economically reasonable  Joint ventures: RC should retain at least 51% of equity Exploitation would not interfere with public interest  No ownership when interfere with public interest (national security, public health, antitrust, unreasonably preventing R&D)  Compulsory license  Expiration of license Exploitation would not compromise the freedom to engage in R&D  No exclusivity is allowed when it is likely to interfere with  Non-commercial R&D, or  Commercial R&D in areas not covered by the exclusive license

7. Other goals IP Management  Notice: A duty to give notice on any invention related to research activity of the RC  Monitoring: Annual reports Licensors to RC RC to government National interests  Local manufacturing of joint ventures May conflict with Capital Investments Law the relaxed the restrictions  State’s share in revenues Retain Individual Incentives  Regulating employees’ share in revenues (ceiling and floor).

8. Of Possible Concern A duty to protect IP: are patents the only venue of knowledge exchange between public and private sector?  Open science / Open Source Public universities will turn into market players disqualified of competing with private sector and producing the same Does Baye-Dole provide a single standard that fits all?  Different history of relationship government-university- industry  Israeli universities are primarily public