Description
The group was composed of a broad variety of participants. These included policy makers from 13 countries, 8 participants from national Patent Offices, 3 members from Technology Transfer Offices and an academic.
Open Method of Coordination
Report of the Expert Group on
IPR AND RESEARCH
First cycle – Final report to CREST
June 2004
2
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP Page 5
CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 6
Context within which the work has been realised Page 6
Summary of Recommendations Page 6
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION Page 9
Background Page 9
Scope of the Group’s Mandate Page 11
Description of Process, phases of work and activities developed Page 12
Difficulties/Barriers encountered and how they were overcome Page 14
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Page 16
Results in respect of Actions A and B Page 16
Results in respect of Actions C and D Page 27
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Page 32
Summary of Key Issues identified and recommendations made Page 32
Recommendations for next cycle Page 32
CHAPTER SIX: APPENDICES Page 33
Appendix A List of Group Participants
Appendix B Details of Presentations made to the Group.
Summary of Recommendations from Presentations
Appendix C Synoptic Tables Summarising the Replies to the Questionnaires
in respect of Actions A and B
Appendix D Synoptic Tables Summarising the Replies to the Questionnaire in
respect of Actions C and D
Appendix E Possible issues to be addressed in the next cycle of OMC
Appendix F Impact assessment on recommendations- scope, target audience
and feasibility to implement at national/ EU level.
Appendix G Glossary of Terms
Appendix H Comments received from Latvia 3 June 2004
3
GROUP MEMBERSHIP
Country Name Organisation
Chair
Ena Prosser Enterprise Ireland Biotechnology Directorate
Consultant/facilitator
Tara Mac Mahon Independent Consultant, Ireland
Austria Georg Buchtela Austria Wirtschaftsservice
Belgium
Patrick Chaltin KU Leuven Research & Development
Belgium Nathalie Van Den Bossche
H. Bracquene
Ministère de la Communauté Française
Cyprus Elena Zacharuadou Law Office of the Republic
Denmark
Kaare Jarl Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Finland
Tuomas Aho Ministry of Trade and Industry
France
Alain Gallochat Ministère de la Recherche, Direction de la Technologie
Germany
Klaus Weber Federal Ministry for Education and Research
Greece
Emmanuel Samuelides Industrial Property Organisation
Ireland
Martin Shanagher Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Israel Hadas Ferber Israel Europe R&D Directorate
Italy Daniela Carosi Ministry of Productive Activities – Italian Trade Mark
and Patent Office (UIBM)
Latvia
Uldis Viesturs Institute of Microbiology and Biotechnology
Luxemburg
Serge Juchem Ministère de l’Economie
Netherlands Jeffry Matakupan Ministry of Economic Affairs
Norway
Sidsel Arbo Ministry of Trade and Industry Adviser
Portugal
Leonor Trindade Instituto Nacional para a Propriedede Industrial
Romania
Narcisa Tanase Ministry of Education, Research and Youth Directorate
for Technology Transfer and Innovation
Slovak Republic
Lucia Lalikova Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Andrej Piano Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
Spain Gerardo Pinas Ministry of Science and Technology, Spanish Office of
Patents and Marks
Sweden Catharina Sojde Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems,
United Kingdom
Janette McNeill,
Richard Mulcahy
Barbara Squires
Mark Bryant
UK Patent Office
4
European Commission
Secretariat
Denis Dambois
Frank Moeschler
5
CHAPTER ONE: COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP
The group was composed of a broad variety of participants. These included policy makers from 13
countries, 8 participants from national Patent Offices, 3 members from Technology Transfer Offices and
an academic. Of all of the Committee for Scientific and Technical Research (CREST) members, only
Iceland and Lithuania did not have representatives at any of the meetings.
Dr. Ena Prosser (IE) was appointed Chairperson of the intellectual property rights (IPR) group. Ms Tara
Mac Mahon was appointed facilitator in April 2004.
The broad mix of skills that were represented was an important asset to this expert group as it permitted
us to broaden the debate and gain non-governmental views on prospective recommendations which were
being suggested. The Action items covered by the group concerned both education and enterprise policy.
In hindsight, additional members with education policy experience may have assisted the progress in
Action C and Action D.
The table below shows the composition of the full group. The names and titles of individual members may
be seen in Appendix A.
Table 1: Multidisciplinary Composition of the Expert Group
Government Non-Government
Policy
National Patent
Office
TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
Academic
FI, IE, FR, IL, NL,
DK, BE (W), LU, NO,
SE, CY, RO, DE
ES, IT, PT, SE,
UK, EL, SL, SK
IE, AT, BE (F) LV
Attendance at the meetings was in general good (between 60% and 75% at most meetings bar one).
Indeed, the blame for the meetings with low attendance may partially be due to the short notice and
rescheduling of meetings (see the Table below).
Table 2: Analysis of participation at CREST meetings in Brussels
No. of
attendees
(out of total
of 26)
Note
DEC 18 attendees * Short notice
JAN 20 attendees
FEB 18 attendees
MAR 18 attendees
APR 10 attendees * Holidays
MAY 15 attendees * Change of date
JUNE 13 attendees * Change of date
This suggests that the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) will work particularly well when there is clear
planning of the work programme and outputs, coupled with a continued use of multi-disciplinary skills
recruited from the CREST national systems.
6
CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH THE WORK HAS BEEN REALISED:-
The IPR group has completed a number of objectives as defined in December 2003.
Deliverables from the Group and Timetable.
– The 5 expert groups reported on progress achieved by April 2004.
– The 5 expert groups finalised their first reports by 15 June 2004.
– These reports will be discussed in CREST in July/September 2004.
– CREST will adopt a consolidated report in September 2004.
B THE RECOMMENDATIONS: -
The recommendations outlined below relate to possible joint or concerted actions to be launched by
several member states or by the Commission. This is based on the findings of the expert group in areas
such as:-
a) clarity on IPR ownership and achieving economic growth through clear and simple trans-national
understanding,
b) professionalism of technology transfer officers, and
c) awareness of different IPR regimes and how that relates to entrepreneurial innovation in economic
development.
Additional recommendations relate to the development of European guidelines on certain specific aspects
of IPR and innovation. Finally, the expert group has aimed to give clear guidance on which
recommendations can be addressed by new initiatives at national or EU level (legislative or
standardisation proposals; studies; expert groups).
Additional details of these recommendations are provided in CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS.
The group encourages the CREST group to adopt its recommendations. To assist in the understanding
and to aid their adoption, the group has attached an impact assessment in Appendix F.
7
Recommendations Potential impact Feasibility
A) National IPR systems: Recommendations to achieve
transparency and co-operation in Europe and to maximise
global competitiveness..
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and
operational rules regarding: ownership, disclosure,
compensation, and the sharing of profits to be created for
all stakeholders at a national level. Specific reference to the
requirement and benefit of (mandatory) disclosure to the
Public Research Organisation of all IP is a key gap in some
systems and the group supports the inclusion of clear
disclosure obligations in national systems.
Long term High
2. The group recommends the development of European
guidelines, with respect to the management and
exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by
several EU-based professional associations (EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA). Such guidelines can only be
expected to succeed with the participation and backing of
national stakeholders. The availability of data regarding the
disclosure of inventions, spinouts, licenses and IPR is
considered to be a vital element to understand and to
benchmark systems at a European level.
Average (up to
two years)
Very high, subject
to non-gov/EC-
funded orgs
listening to
proposed way
forward
B) Technology Transfer, people and professionalisation:
Recommendations towards filling a European expertise &
information gap
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states
endeavour to ensure that professional technology transfer
systems are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national
and EU levels. Issues to be tackled include:
a. The need for professional and skilled people
b. The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to
be well organised with critical mass
c. The need for incentives throughout the technology
transfer chain (incl. career structure and rewards
for professionalism)
d. The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding at
national level
e. Incentivise links and collaboration between
sectoral, national, European, and international
networks (without creating additional pan-European
associations)
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of
Technology Transfer Organisations should be improved
through IP/technology transfer training and international
benchmarks should be established.
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
8
Recommendations Potential impact Feasibility
5. Recognising that there are multiple and fragmented
awareness initiatives, the group recommends that they be
focussed more effectively to ensure a higher impact across
Europe and develop an “awareness multiplier” across our
innovation systems.
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
6. Recognising that North America has a competitive
advantage in technology transfer due in part to a single
world-class Technology Transfer Association, the group
recommends that Europe should have a single world-class
professional association/network for technology transfer.
All member states and the Commission should promote
cooperation between existing Technology Transfer
Associations and networks, without creating additional pan-
European associations.
Requires several
years to show
effectiveness
High, if
incentivised
Requires several
years to show
effectiveness
7. The group recommends the development of IPR
performance indicators in order to balance academic and
commercial priorities in Public Research Organisations and
strongly encourages the adoption of the North American
model through the implementation of recommendation 6.
Medium term (to
get quality data)
Medium
Requires several
years to establish
benchmarks
C) Innovation awareness: Recommendations to improve
understanding of research, entrepreneurial activity and
innovation across Europe.
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of
programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and
awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
Long term Average / high
Dependent on
sustained
investment
(results will be
indirect)
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated
IP/ technology transfer awareness initiatives for
undergraduate students at a national level.
Short term Average / high but
hard to monitor
9
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND:-
Europe must invest in research at all levels to compete internationally. Policies and systems to maximise
the environment in which research investment will thrive must address the national IPR systems in each
country and increase awareness and trans-national co-operation in R&D where possible. Public Research
Organisations have historically held two key missions – those of education and research. However, to
benefit fully from the significant levels of investment in R&D which have been granted to them in recent
years, an additional responsibility has fallen on their shoulders – that of the generation and transfer of
knowledge.
In many cases, open publication and making research results freely available is the most effective means
for knowledge transfer. Indeed, research outputs usually require substantial investment before they can
be brought to market and find applications. Competitive advantage will derive from many factors,
depending on the nature of the market and technology, but protection of the underlying research results is
fundamental for such opportunities to be exploited. The issue is not simply one of protection in order to
encourage commercial investment. University researchers require continuing access to the results of their
research for use in future projects and teaching. This is a key economic and social issue globally.
Within Europe, each member state in CREST has a different innovation system and each member state
has individual IP systems and legislation. These systems can be very broadly classified as:-
a) systems where institutional ownership of IPR is the norm,
b) systems where the inventors (specifically university professors) own the IPR they generate, and
c) a range of additional systems, where the IPR is managed centrally, is controlled by legislation or
where it is co-owned with funding agencies, with Public Research Organisation and others.
While within CREST, the first system dominates in the majority of countries, the lack of understanding of
the differences between these co-existing systems can lead to increased costs in trans-national IPR
management, and can cause unnecessary confusion and wariness in trans-national research. Systems to
increase clarity and understanding are a priority to improve competitiveness and encourage trans-national
research collaboration.
Europe needs to strike a clear balance between the accepted need to disseminate research for the public
good and to protect and exploit research for innovation and economic activity. While this report focuses on
the latter issue, it is important to continue to understand that this balance is vital and necessary for all
successful innovation economies. The role of the Public Research Organisations in the North American
innovation system is generally recognised as the international benchmark for entrepreneurial activity and
innovation derived from Public Research Organisation-based innovation. The existence of a strong
professional non-governmental organisation AUTM
1
, which plays a vital role in the training of technology
transfer professionals, and also collects and analyses accurate metrics, allows the innovation system to
be competitive and responsive to change, and drives best practice and professionalism as a non-
governmental organisation. A summary of the understanding of the North American system gained by the
publication of metrics prepared by AUTM is shown in Figure 1 below.
1
Association of University Technology Managers, www.autm.net/index_ie.html
10
Figure 1: Summary of the North American innovation system from 1991-2001 (courtesy of Columbia
University)
The Commission-funded initiative ProTon
2
was created with the intention of creating an umbrella
organisation that ideally could incorporate all existing technology transfer bodies from across Europe
(COREP
3
, EARMA
4
, CSIC, etc). However, it is clear from discussions that a number of large
representative organisations from within Europe (in particular AURIL
5
and ASTP
6
) offer an alternative
preferred by a majority of PROs in some member states. In addition, DG Enterprise supports a network
of national Technology Transfer Offices (e.g. Innovation Relay Centres (IRCs)).
Technology transfer officers in Public Research Organisations are the personnel who are responsible for
the formal transfer of new inventions, creations, discoveries, innovations, processes and the like which
result from scientific research conducted at Public Research Organisations, to a commercial environment
for public use. Internationally, technology transfer officers are recruited from a broad range of disciplines,
such as science, engineering, law and business.
Unfortunately, there is a general lack of awareness and basic skills regarding IPRs and technology
transfer in society as a whole and, perhaps more alarmingly, in the Research and Technology Transfer
Communities. This is considered by the group to be an obstacle to awareness throughout the innovation
system.
2
www.proton-europe.org
3
Consorzio Per La Ricerca el’Educazione Permanente, www.corep.it
4
European Association of Research Managers and Administrators, www.earma.org
5
Association for University Research & Industry Links, www.auril.org.uk
6
Association of European Science & Technology Transfer Professionals, www.astp.net
11
The group decided to frame its work around the following four Actions:-
Actions A and B, which relate to management of IPR and technology transfer by Public Research
Organisations
Action A: Develop recommendations to help member states review – and, where appropriate,
adapt – their national regimes governing the ownership, licensing and exploitation of IPR
resulting from publicly-funded research, with the aim of promoting technology transfer to industry
and spin-off creation.
Action B: Support the development and implementation of European guidelines for the
management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations and public-private
partnerships. These guidelines will help public research institutions to develop and enforce, on a
voluntary basis, charters setting out the main principles to be applied regarding e.g. the
ownership and licensing of research results, the sharing of revenues, etc.
Actions C and D which relate to IPR, innovation and technology transfer awareness issues:-
Action C: Ensure that before graduating, every student – especially from science, engineering
and business schools – receives basic awareness/training regarding intellectual property and
technology transfer.
Action D: Support EU-wide coordinated IPR/ technology transfer awareness and training
activities targeting in particular the European research community.
B. SCOPE OF THE GROUP’S MANDATE: -
The need for this group came following the Commission’s communication “Investing in research: an action
plan for Europe” (COM(2003)226). The Council invited member states, acceding states and the
Commission to apply the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) to support the implementation of the
Action Plan and the achievement of the 3% objective, and to use CREST as an operational interface.
Five expert groups were established to support CREST in that task and help participating countries in
achieving concrete progress in different fields of action.
The opportunity presented to the European Research Area is to promote the coherence and effectiveness
of the legal IPR regimes applicable in publicly funded research. Such regimes govern, in particular, the
ownership and licensing of university inventions. The example of the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA has
shown that these regimes can have a strong impact on the exploitation of publicly funded research results
and on the associated socio-economic impact. Substantial work was recently conducted or launched,
both by the Commission (various studies from Research DG, the “ITTE” study and expert group currently
managed by the Enterprise DG) and by the OECD
7
. In addition, changes were recently introduced at a
national level, for instance in 2002 in Germany (abolition of the “professor’s privilege”). The OMC group
reviewed the findings and have conclusions from these various activities (see Appendices).
In order to understand the overall framework in which IPR operates at a European level, the group
considered the technology transfer function to be a key aspect of their work. The group considered this
especially relevant in terms of the implementation of any recommendations.
7
Seehttp://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/EN/product/922003021P1
12
The group considered especially the following issues: -
i) The management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations (PROs) from an operational
perspective, taking account of the existing national contexts. In addition to the stakeholders concerned
(Public Research Organisations (which generally include universities and research institutes)), many
bodies
8
called for the development of “charters” or “guidelines” which could facilitate the management and
exploitation of the R&D results and associated IP generated by Public Research Organisations, including
university-industry relationships.
ii) A number of on-going trans-national initiatives specifically related to this OMC group’s work were
identified and considered supportive, including the following:
– an expert group convened by DG Research (report currently being prepared for publication)
9
– the PROTON network funded by DG Enterprise
10
– a “private” initiative jointly prepared by the EIRMA
11
, the EARTO
12
, the EUA
13
and the PROTON
network (with a conference which took place in February 2004).
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS, PHASES OF WORK AND ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED:-
Through the Open Method of Co-Ordination, and from December 2003 until March 2004, the group
agreed its objectives and priorities, developed a common view on its objectives and completed data
collection. From April to June 2004, the group has focused on synthesis, analysis and drafting its
recommendations.
The chairperson steered and organised the work of the group, in accordance with the roadmap and the
work plan agreed by the group and with the Commission. The chairperson also ensured interface with
CREST, to which she regularly reported.
The chairperson identified and appointed a facilitator, Ms Tara MacMahon to assist in the development of
the workplan and the drafting of this report.
The other members of the group, Appendix A participated in the meetings and contributed to all stages of
the group work, liaising as appropriate with other experts in their country. They provided information on
policies and measures in their country according to agreed templates, and other specific contributions as
agreed with the chairperson.
The recommendations and suggested implementation of these recommendations were compiled from
three sources: -
1. Presentations made to the group (see Appendix B).
2. Replies to Questionnaires (see Appendix C and Appendix D).
3. Group discussions in-group meetings, with some sub-group activity between the formal sessions.
8
For instance, the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) proposed “that the Commission establish a Working Party from
Industry and Academia, along with legal and patents expertise, charged with the creation of pragmatic models for Intellectual
Property Rights for industry-university relations in Europe”
(seehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/pdf/recommendations2.pdf)
9
draft report available on the Internet:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/iprmanagementguidelines-report.pdf
10
seehttp://www.gate2growth.com//ProTon.asp
11
http://www.eirma.asso.fr/index.html
12
http://www.earto.org
13
http://www.unige.ch/eua
13
1. Presentations made to the Group
The group attended and discussed a number of presentations (made by both group members and
external invitees), outlining national and other (e.g. OECD; EPO) experiences and initiatives. Details of
these presentations are listed in Appendix B.
2. Replies to Questionnaires:-
The group developed Questionnaires in order to collect the information necessary to properly examine the
four Actions. The aim of the Questionnaires was to produce an overview of the national situations
regarding different aspects of the issues to be addressed, in order to provide a means of comparing the
situation of the different countries and their evolution over time. The replies to these Questionnaires were
then analysed in the context of the above four Actions.
The Questionnaires were completed by the following member states: -
Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Lavtia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Synoptic tables summarising the replies to these Questionnaires are
provided at Appendix C and Appendix D.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the questionnaires,
as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to clarify various replies.
However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result, whilst every effort was made to
ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and D, and the tables included in
Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of finalising this report.
3. Group Discussions
The group discussed various issues arising from the four Actions, from both their personal and national
experiences. The group analysed relevant national initiatives, and identified good practices and possible
obstacles.
While recognising that there were four Action items, the group divided the data generation and analysis
into two key tasks. The group then divided into two sub-groups, with one sub-group considering issues
relevant to Actions A and B, and the other sub-group considering issues relevant to Actions C and D.
Table 3 below outlines the key subgroups selected to drive each theme and draft initial recommendations.
Table 3: Details of the key sub-groups:-
Sub-Group A/B Sub-Group C/D
Focus:
IPR Regimes – National & EU
Level
IPR Training & Awareness
Leader: Jeffry Matakupan Gerardo Penas
Participants:
Catharina Sojde
Georg Buchtela
Patrick Chatlin
Lucia Lalikova
Sidsel Arbo
Daniela Carosi
The sub-groups agreed draft recommendations based on the various discussions between, and
presentations to, the group, and also suggested ways in which these recommendations could be
implemented, with primary focus on:-
- Possible joint or concerted actions to be launched by several member states.
- The development of European guidelines on certain issues.
- The identification of needs to be addressed by new initiatives at national or EU level (legislative or
standardisation proposals, studies, expert groups, etc.)
- Possible implementation steps for the next cycle (should it exist).
14
Copies of each version of the report were circulated to all members of the group for comment, and
minutes of each meeting were also circulated. Each member of the group was given the opportunity to
comment on the issues being discussed and the draft report, at each stage of the OMC process.
A draft report was prepared and discussed in detail at a two-day meeting of the group in Brussels on 3rd
and 4
th
May 2004. A revised draft was then prepared in May, with additional communication between
expert members, with the final draft having been agreed at the expert meeting on 1 June 2004.
Finally, the group briefly considered possible issues to be addressed by the new group, in the next cycle
of work (should CREST agree) (see Appendix E).
The group has found all information gathered from this process to be very useful, and believes that it will
be of substantial benefit to individual member states in the course of developing their IPR and research
systems. Individual group members intend to use the information collated in the course of this CREST
work at a national level, following completion of the report.
D. DIFFICULTIES/BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED AND HOW THEY WERE OVERCOME:-
There were three main difficulties and barriers encountered during the first cycle of the OMC process.
1. Timing:
Issue: The tight deadlines which were imposed upon the group and the relatively “heavy” procedural
burden put upon it meant that the group was under constant pressure and was rarely able to consider
issues in the depth which it would have liked, having to focus upon the next deliverable. Also, the short
time span between meetings meant that progress between each meeting was often little, and
representatives did not have time to interact with colleagues. Furthermore, the lack of time most
participants had in which to actively engage in the process meant that the chairperson was unable to call
upon sufficient additional resources from within the group to meet the requirements being made by
CREST.
Solution found: Having expressed concerns about this state of play to the Commission secretariat, an
appropriate facilitator was identified and hired in April to assist the group in the drafting of the final report.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree):
a) to either extend the length of the next cycle, or to diminish the work-programme.
b) to extend the time between meetings to between 1.5 months and 2 months.
c) to ensure that individuals who participate at the meeting are given sufficient time in which to assist the
process and to consult with colleagues, both within their administrations and externally with
representative associations.
d) representatives should be expected to serve for a minimum of 1 to 2 years (preferably) on the CREST
expert group and, if changes in staffing occur, a handover meeting should take place where both
participants are present. This would enable members to build closer ties between themselves and
create a more cohesive group. Furthermore, it would avoid, or at least minimise, the extent to which
elements which have been previously discussed or agreed during meetings, need to be revisited, and
would ensure continuity of the discussions. It would also give each group a better opportunity to develop
greater interaction and inter-connection between each of the other OMC groups.
e) to provide a full-time / permanent facilitator (with expertise in the fields under discussion) on which the
Chairperson and/or Rapporteur could call to conduct research and to draft initial reports for further
discussion with the entire group.
f) the group recommends that the next cycle commence with a two-day session, which would include an
informal dinner. This would enable each group member to get to know the other members more quickly,
as well as enabling the group to get to grips with the work programme more speedily.
g) introduction of a procedure whereby members who do not attend any particular meeting are named in
the Minutes of the Meeting. This will emphasise the importance of attendance of the meetings.
15
h) if a further expert group is convened by CREST, some members of the current group should remain, for
continuity and to avoid duplication.
2. Scope of the work:
Issue: The scope of the work programme was overly broad.
Solution found: Two sub-groups were created, who led on half of the workload each. The results of the
sub-groups’ work were then presented to the entire group in the May meetings and the group as a whole
endorsed the recommendations put forward.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree): A narrower work programme
should be adopted. This would ensure that more substantive discussion and procedure. In addition, the
expertise and composition of the next group should be considered carefully. If the members do not
possess adequate expertise in all areas relevant to the proposed Actions for the next cycle, then the work
for which the new group does not have adequate expertise should be re-allocated to another more
appropriate group.
3. Identification of best/worst practices:
Issue: The group found it difficult to agree on any best practices in respect of any particular aspect of the
Actions, from the questionnaire results. The group did not consider it appropriate to try to identify any
worst practices.
Solution found: The group did not identify any worst practices, and only one best practice – namely, the
UK’s publication of national statistics in respect of technology transfer activities. Also, for those countries
considering national guidelines, the recently published Irish guidelines, and the process for developing
guidelines, was generally welcomed.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree): The group should be instructed to
only identify best and worst practices if doing so would be beneficial to the group/the report.
16
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1 – ACTIONS A AND B:
MANAGEMENT OF IPR AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY PUBLIC
RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS
Action A: Develop recommendations to help member states review – and, where appropriate,
adapt – their national regimes governing the ownership, licensing and exploitation of IPR resulting
from publicly-funded research, with the aim of promoting technology transfer to industry and spin-
off creation.
Action B: Support the development and implementation of European guidelines for the
management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations and public-private
partnerships. These guidelines will help public research institutions to develop and enforce, on a
voluntary basis, charters setting out the main principles to be applied regarding e.g. the ownership
and licensing of research results, the sharing of revenues, etc.
4.1.A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF RECENT AND PLANNED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS/MEASURES IN
MEMBER STATES:-
Both legislation and key policies in the field of IP are dynamic in many CREST member states – they are
ever-changing and rarely static. As a result, it is extremely difficult to carry out a clear analysis of what
does or does not work in this controversial field. This is especially true when one seeks to contrast a
national or European system with the North American model, especially given that the innovation cycle is
generally 5-10 years and that retrospective analysis is difficult in this area. This will also impact the
collection of metrics on European innovation systems, as the changes in national regimes may take
several years to impact on innovation data.
From the responses received to the Questionnaires, at least nine of the member states are intending to
make some major changes to their national regimes in this field, and eleven others have recently
undertaken them.
Table 4: European IPR: A highly dynamic environment (source : replies to Questionnaires 14, 15 and 16,
from: QUESTIONS 14 – PROPOSED CHANGES)
Currently considering
implementing change
Significant change
in last 5 years
Guidelines / code
of practice
Considering
National guidelines
DK
FI
DE
IL
IT
LV
ES
SE
AT (’03)
CY (’02)
DK (’99)
DE (’02)
IE (’99)
IT (’01)
LV (90’s)
NO (’03)
RO (’03)
ES (’02)
UK (’01)
IE
UK
BE (W)
BE (F)
FR
DE
IL
LV
NL
PT
IT
DK
EL
NO
PT
ES
17
These national initiatives do not take into account the “macro” issues which need to be considered and
which are currently being debated in the EU. These issues include:
• the Community patent,
• the grace period,
• software patenting,
• State Aid and the valuation of IPR transfer within national systems.
The group referred to these issues throughout the first cycle and acknowledged that all of these key
issues have a direct effect on the environment in which users of the system operate. However, they were
considered to be outside the scope of the OMC expert group on IPR and the Actions discussed in this
report.
The group recommends that countries embracing or considering new policies in IPR consult those
member states that have already made the change, or those that are considering change, and learn from
the experiences of the other systems. A number of examples are set forth in this report.
In order to heighten awareness, the group has identified several key elements of IP national systems at
trans-national level where groupings of countries have similar systems. As indicated in other sections of
this report, the group considers that these informal groupings are a valuable tool in cross learning, to
achieve best practice.
Such groupings exist in the following areas:
• Classifications of ownerships systems
• Countries which are considering change and the reasons behind this change
• Countries which have National Guidelines and Codes of Practice
• Countries with national policies on the incentivisation of researchers.
The clear identification of informal groupings or clusters of countries having similar (or at least
comparable) legal regimes, support structures, etc. by CREST can be used to promote focused exchange
of experience and good practices, and further convergence of the national regulatory/administrative
environments and is a clear success for the OMC methodology.
Furthermore, across Europe, in respect of those countries who support guidelines rather than legislation,
the agreed best practice for the development of guidelines is for Governments to develop them in
collaboration with industry, university and other public sector research establishments. Such guidelines
have been introduced by a cluster of countries including IE, UK, BE (W), BE (F), FR, DE, IL, LV, NL, PT in
recent years and could be used by others who are contemplating the generation of guidelines.
4.1.B GENERAL TRENDS: -
(a) Ownership systems
There are three broad groups of ownership systems in our classification (see Table 5 below). The results
of the Questionnaire clearly show that there is a growing trend across Europe towards Public Research
Organisation (institutional) ownership of IPR, as opposed to professor privilege (which still exists or
partially exists in five countries). Germany has adopted such an approach. Finland is considering
changing to institutional ownership in certain circumstances.
18
Table 5: Classification of general ownership systems for publicly funded research (source: replies to
QUESTION 2 – OWNERSHIP OF IPR)
A
Institutional Ownership
B
Professor’s Privilege
C
Alternative systems
IE
UK
BE (F)
DK
FR
DE
SE* (research institute only)
E*L + joint with inventor
IL
L* (for patents)
LV (joint with inventor)
LU
NL
NO
PT (joint with inventor)
ES
SK
FI
RO
SE* (only University
professors)
EL */ joint with Public
Research Organisation
IT
L* (for copyright)
BE (W)
CY
AT
* means ownership can fall
into more than one of the
above three groups of
ownership, depending on
circumstances
The group agrees that the existence of three broad groups of ownership systems is not a barrier in itself
(and therefore no recommendations were made on this subject). While the group acknowledges that the
existence of several systems can be a source of some confusion, the discussions led to the agreed
opinion that all relevant IPR guidelines should highlight the fact that these three broad groups of
ownership systems exist, when developing IPR guidelines for working with other countries. It should be
noted that there was a concern expressed by some countries regarding this subject and whether it could
infringe State Aid rules. The group agrees that this is a key question which might be looked into in greater
depth by the next cycle (should it exist) and be considered a “cross cutting” issue with other OMC groups
(pubic policy).
(b) Lack of Clarity in Rules
From the responses received to the Questionnaires, it is clear to the group that the national rules
governing (a) ownership of, (b) disclosure of and (c) compensation/sharing of profits in respect of, R&D
results (and the corresponding IPR) generated by universities and Public Research Organisations may
appear unclear in some countries, and have no consistency between countries. Without communication
and awareness programmes, the complexity and lack of clarity at national level may hamper and/or delay
the exploitation of university/ Public Research Organisation R&D results, and university-industry relations.
Indeed, unless this awareness is heightened, such discrepencies may result in an uneven playing field,
hampering cross-border collaborations and technology transfer activities.
(c) Technology Transfer, People and Professionalisation
In many countries, technology transfer and Technology Transfer Organisations are not seen as central to
the mission of the Public Research Organisations, and therefore no funding is specifically earmarked for
technology transfer activities. Indeed, it is clear from our survey that no member state has an appropriate
19
system which effectively and equitably incentivises and rewards all individuals who play a part in any of
the four phases of the technology transfer process (i.e. the IP creation phase, the IP identification phase,
the IP protection phase, and the IP exploitation phase).
The questionnaire replies indicate that most countries allow all routes of commercialisation, including spin-
outs, licenses, etc. Several countries (e.g. FI, EL, NO) allow the transfer of rights by assignment. Many of
these mechanisms require specific expertise and industry knowledge to work in practice.
4.1.C RECOMMENDATIONS:-
4.1.C.1) National IPR systems: Recommendations to achieve transparency and co-operation in
Europe and to maximise global competitiveness.
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and operational rules regarding: ownership,
disclosure, compensation, and the sharing of profits to be created for all stakeholders at a
national level. Specific reference to the requirement and benefit of (mandatory) disclosure to
the Public Research Organisation of all IP is a key gap in some systems and the group
supports the inclusion of clear disclosure obligations in national systems.
2. The group recommends the development of European guidelines, with respect to the
management and exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based
professional associations (EIRMA, EARTO, ProTon and EUA). Such guidelines can only be
expected to succeed with the participation and backing of national stakeholders. The
availability of data regarding the disclosure of inventions, spinouts, licenses and IPR is
considered to be a vital element to understand and benchmark systems at a European level.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Systems and rules to maximise the generation and disclosure of new IP
The group strongly recommends that, irrespective of whether a country has an institutional ownership or a
professor privilege regime, all countries should emphasise and develop systems to maximise the
generation and disclosure of new IP at an institutional level in order to maximise commercialisation
possibilities and to enable the auditing, measuring and monitoring of same.
When making any revisions to rules on these issues, the concerns of all parties involved in technology
transfer, including Public Research Organisations, SMEs and large multinationals, should be taken into
account.
Clarification/consideration should be given to whether or not the same rules in respect of ownership,
compensation and sharing of profits should apply to universities and to other Public Research
Organisations (differences are observed in many countries).
The group recommends that the first owner of the IP should consider the best route for
commercialisation, taking particular account of the number of potential fields of exploitation which are
possible for the IP in question, and implications for State Aid rules.
20
(b) Disclosure requirement
Ideally all member states (especially professor privilege member states) should introduce national
systems to maximise the obligation on researchers to disclose details of current research to the
appropriate Technology Transfer Organisation on a regular basis. This will enable universities/ Public
Research Organisations to have knowledge of the current research being carried out at any particular
time. The feasibility for imposing such a requirement may be low in various countries, and these might
consider other mechanisms such as incentivisation / metrics / contract conditions which may reach the
same result.
(c) Possible guidelines re co-ownership
Consideration should also be given to the possibility of introducing clear guidelines on the issue of co-
ownership of IPR. Again, the group reviewed the various EU systems and showed that a wide variety of
systems exist at national level (see replies to Questionnaire 3, Appendix C).
(d) Implementation of Recommendation 1 - national guidelines or legislation
To implement the above recommendation, national guidelines or legislation are considered a good
practice at EU level.
The group has identified those countries that have published national guidelines (see Table 4 above) and
recommends that, where any other country is considering the development of national guidelines, that it
refer to those countries. The key to introducing new rules and the clear lessons from the US, is that
incentivisation is necessary.
The implementation of this recommendation should involve each member state reviewing the summaries
of the replies to the Questionnaire in more detail to identify relevant informal groupings with which they
may wish to achieve cross-learning and achieve best practice.
(e) Implementation of Recommendation 2 - European guidelines in respect of the management
and exploitation of IPR,
Clear and co-ordinated guidelines in respect of the management and exploitation of IPR are the backbone
to effective IPR commercialisation. “Guidelines” in this case were interpreted by the group as a series of
broad principles which would work with national systems.
In relation to Action B, the group supports the development of guidelines in respect of the management
and exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based professional associations
(EIRMA
14
, EARTO
15
, ProTon
16
and EUA
17
). However, the success of such guidelines is dependent upon
the validation and support of stakeholders.
CREST should note that the group has not seen the draft guidelines currently being developed by EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA and therefore is unable to comment until these are available to the group.
EIRMA and ProTon presented their initial work regarding these guidelines and the group would like to
endorse their general ambitions. That said, the group raised concerns about the scope of the guidelines
14
European Industrial Research Management Association, www.eirma.asso.fr
15
European Association of Research and Technology Organisations, www.earto.org
16
www.proton-europe.org
17
European University Association, www.eua.be/eua
21
under development, as it was not clear to them that the rather unique needs of SMEs (in particular) were
being considered in their development, at the time of presentation to the expert group.
It is also recommended to EIRMA etc. that, once the guidelines have been drafted, that they are brought
to the next cycle of the OMC (should it exist) or CREST, and for members of that group to conduct a
validation and review process. This step would result in the guidelines being recognised by national
administrations and as such they could be held as being the agreed European guidelines in this field for
all Public Research Organisations. This implementation aid should increase the effectiveness and speed
of adoption of IPR best practice.
The group notes that guidelines could be developed by different groups in isolation, and would encourage
the groups to continue to come together to develop one clear set of guidelines. One way of improving this
exploitation is for Public Research Organisations and industry to agree on European guidelines setting
forth basic principles regarding in particular the management and exploitation of knowledge and IPR. The
“users” would develop the guidelines, but public authorities may play an important role in their
implementation. The guidelines should deal with issues that would be of concern/relevance to SMEs as
well as large multinationals.
If it is decided to develop European guidelines, it may be of particular value to consult with those member
states that have already introduced national guidelines, in order to identify (a) issues that may need to be
dealt with in the European guidelines, and (b) issues that may arise from the introduction of European
guidelines.
Proposals should be made at this consultation phase for national or cluster-group measures to encourage
and facilitate the take-up and the effective use of these new European guidelines, to ensure compatibility
with any pre-existing national guidelines, and to deal with any conflict between the European guidelines
and any pre-existing national guidelines. A single individual/contact point should be identified in each
member state to achieve this.
The group believes that these guidelines will be particularly important for countries where no national
guidelines exist. However, the group did not reach general agreement on whether such guidelines should
be binding.
4.1.C.2) Technology Transfer, people and professionalisation: Recommendations towards filling a
European expertise & information gap: -
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states endeavour to ensure that
professional technology transfer systems are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national
and EU levels. Issues to be tackled include:
a. The need for professional and skilled people
b. The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to be well organised with critical
mass
c. The need for incentives throughout the technology transfer chain (incl. career
structure and rewards for professionalism)
d. The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding at national level
e. Incentivise links and collaboration between sectoral, national, European, and
international networks (without creating additional pan-European associations)
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of Technology Transfer Organisations
should be improved through IP/ technology transfer training and international benchmarks
should be established.
22
5. Recognising that there are multiple and fragmented awareness initiatives, the group
recommends that they be focussed more effectively to ensure a higher impact across
Europe and develop an “awareness multiplier” across our innovation systems.
6. Recognising that North America has a competitive advantage in technology transfer due in
part to a single world-class Technology Transfer Association, the group recommends that
Europe should have a single world-class professional association/network for technology
transfer. All member states and the Commission should promote cooperation between
existing Technology Transfer Associations and networks, without creating additional pan-
European associations.
7. The group recommends the development of IPR performance indicators in order to balance
academic and commercial priorities in Public Research Organisations and strongly
encourages the adoption of the North American model through the implementation of
recommendation 6.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Sufficiently resourced professional technology transfer systems
CREST member states should ensure that there are sufficiently resourced professional technology
transfer systems to facilitate and stimulate the innovation system at a national level. This must be
achieved through the provision of dedicated (earmarked) funding at Public Research Organisation level
and by ensuring there are sufficient professional and skilled people recruited and trained to staff these
offices.
It is essential that these offices are well organised with critical mass locally or achieved through
networking with subject matter experts.
At Public Research Organisation level, it is advised that the US system of incentives throughout the
technology transfer chain (incl. career structure and rewards) is best international practise.
Smaller Public Research Organisations should be incentivised to join forces in order to create a critical
mass and justify the investment in specialist expertise.
High levels of skills and resources are required for IP exploitation to be successful. Member states should
be reminded that the funding of technology transfer activities is a national investment, and is not simply
funding for which it will receive no return. This funding is part of the whole ecosystem of research and
development and this is generally a lengthy return on investment.
Similarly, the group recognises that technology transfer activities are not income generating in the short-
term. The group therefore recommends that each member state should consider developing a financial
scheme to initiate and fund a good technology transfer scheme. This could be the subject of periodic
review.
Consideration needs to be given to, and guidelines created in respect of, the funding of Technology
Transfer Organisations in general and who pays for same (e.g. the Department of Enterprise or Research,
etc.). Proper benchmarks/guidelines need to be set as to how much money should be given.
Self-sufficiency of the Technology Transfer Organisations is possibly the long-term goal, but it may not
happen – the current priority should be to provide adequate funding to ensure the Technology Transfer
Organisations can properly carry out their activities.
23
(b) Implementation of Recommendation Three
The implementation of this recommendation requires further work by the next cycle (should it exist).
Specific examination of current funding and technology transfer systems needs to be made (nationally,
regionally and trans-nationally) to identify how to create critical mass to achieve professionalisation and
expertise. The group has identified that this is not a straightforward matter. The group therefore
recommends that the next cycle consider the possible criteria for allocation of funding to Technology
Transfer Organisations and Offices. The group recognises that a key factor of the US system is the
incentivisation of Public Research Organisations in respect of technology transfer.
Each national administration should look at the various technology transfer systems which exist in other
member states, and evaluate which system best fits their needs. Particular consideration should be given
to whether best practice supports the location of Technology Transfer Organisations being within the
university campus (enabling technology transfer officers to develop a good relationship and trust with the
researchers) or outside the university campus (with private sector incubation, or inter-institutional groups),
or combinations of the above. In some countries, this may be better implemented at Public Research
Organisation level. The outcome and recommendations made in the ITTE Project
18
could be considered
by the next cycle (should it exist).
(c) Publication of revenue details and other metrics; career structure for technology transfer
officers
The group recommends that, where possible (not possible in, e.g., UK; AT; HU), and given the limitations
in this regard due to different national regimes, details of the revenues from IPRs are published at
institution level.
In addition to professionalisation, such transparent metrics will improve the mobility of technology transfer
professionals (between industry and Public Research Organisations) and the natural transfer of best
practices throughout Europe.
A clear career structure for technology transfer officers should also be developed. Lack of career
advancement acts as a substantial disincentive to individuals to join Technology Transfer Offices and
Public Research Organisations to carry out technology transfer activities. Possible criteria for career
advancement could be, e.g.: number of patents filed per annum; number of knowledge transfer events per
annum; number of licenses executed per annum; size of research group.
To understand the relationship between academia, Technology Transfer Organisations and industry, it is
necessary to explore the motivation and incentives that exist at research level. The questionnaire replies
indicate that 7 countries have specific commercialisation/incentive policies in this regard but several of
these countries noted that this is not generally enforced.
The group acknowledges the imbalance of publication over commercialisation of technology transfer in the
promotion and funding of institutions at a national level. This should be addressed as a policy question
(cross cutting issue with policy mix group and university industry group).
18
Seehttp://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/EN/product/922003021P1
24
Table 6: Analysis of member states where innovation metrics inform academic career development
(source: replies to QUESTION 13 – PATENTS /LICENSES AS ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS)
Patents included Not included
Varies at Public Research
Organisation
ES
DK (in principle)
FI
DE
SK
LV
SE
AT
NO
FR (inclusion being
considered)
RO
CY
IL
NL
UK (inclusion being
considered)
PT
BE (F)
IE
In order to benefit both researchers and Technology Transfer Offices alike, the group believes that the EU
should fund the activity, development and collection of metrics through ProTon or ASTP or other unified
associations or networks. Also, to “kick-start” this process, the EU could offer a public prize for the most
successful Public Research Organisation of the EU/ European Research Area in technology transfer.
(d) Incentivisation/rewarding of all members of the technology transfer value chain
Structures/guidelines should be put in place to ensure that all members of the technology transfer value
chain are adequately incentivised and rewarded (both financially and otherwise), in order to
acknowledge/endorse the view that they are all valued professions and critical players in the technology
transfer value chain.
Figure 2: Innovation Value Chain
25
With respect to the IP creation phase, the inventor is the most incentivised. The group recognises that
this is a good principle, but agrees that appropriate incentivisation should also be given to the Public
Research Organisation and to the technicians and researchers who are not the ultimate inventors, and to
the technology transfer personnel. In particular, individuals involved in the IP identification and IP
protection phases are not adequately rewarded. In some countries (e.g. Sweden; Ireland), professors are
incentivised, but public sector Public Research Organisations are not. With respect to the IP identification,
protection and exploitation phases, the development of professionalism in these areas is paramount.
Once professionalism has been achieved, appropriate rewards should be given.
Failure to properly incentivise and reward the individuals involved in the technology transfer process could
result in IP creation, protection and exploitation activities not being fully maximised to their potential.
Consideration should be given to the following: (a) who should be rewarded/incentivised, (b) what financial
rewards/incentives should be given to them, and (c) what other rewards/incentives should be given to
them.
While recognising that incentivisation is good, several experts suggested that a cap should be placed on
the amount of financial rewards that should be given to inventors and researchers. All members did not
accept this.
This recommendation could be implemented through the development of national guidelines in respect of
rewards and incentives, which are reflected at institutional level.
• The group noted that the analysis of the questionnaire replies from the member states revealed
that incentivisation and compensation and sharing profits are generally agreed at institutional
level.
• It is clear that DK, FR, DE, NO, PT, ES and BE(F) have specific systems in legislation or with
Government and approval to support the incentivisation of the technology including allocations of
profits between researchers, their departments and the institution. This cluster of countries could
be used to assess the impact of this measure for towards the generation of European guidelines.
• Skilled professionals are critical to each of the four phases of technology transfer activities, in
order to develop competency and critical mass.
• Inadequate incentives and mis-allocation of rewards has created inequitable elitism within the
profession, with the result that it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain good researchers and
technology transfer officers in the system.
• AUTM was recognised by all of the representatives as an example of best practice – it represents
technology transfer officers, but also provides training for new and existing members as well as
collates data that benchmarks institutions from across the US, Canada and more recently,
Mexico. The summary of the understanding of the North American system gained by the
publication of metrics prepared by AUTM is shown in Figure 1 (see Chapter Three {Introduction}).
The UK has also taken a national approach and has published national statistics
19
, many of which
are directly comparable to the AUTM data.
(e) EU-wide certification and training programme for technology transfer professionals
To implement this recommendation, the group strongly endorses an EU-wide certification and training
programme for technology transfer professionals. The group recognises that many technology transfer
personnel come from different areas of expertise (e.g. science, law, business), and agree that this is good,
19
Further details may be found at the following link:http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_07/04_07.pdf
26
as there is a need for varying expertise in this role. In developing and implementing this recommendation,
the group recommends that the next cycle look to the professionalisation of other careers where
professionals are sourced from a number of different disciplines, for guidance. Examples of these career
structures include marketing, institutes, controllers and administration. The group pointed out that the
transfer of these trained individuals into industry is the norm in the US and that this adds significantly to
the absorption capacity of new start-ups and high technology sectors to adopt new technology through the
networks and expertise of licensing professionals throughout the innovation system.
(f) Development of a single European world-class professional association/network for
technology transfer
The group recommends that national administrations promote collaboration with an appropriate
association, to ensure that it gains critical mass and can become an effective European alternative to
AUTM. The group did not reach agreement that ProTon is the association with which they should
collaborate. Such collaboration may be done through granting contracts for joint work – for example in the
realms of creating a recognised certification of the profession, standardisation, training (courses,
workshops, etc European IP Academy (EIPA).
Recommendations should be made which are aimed at promoting synergies and uniformity in the
collection of data on the patenting/licensing/spin-off creation activities of universities and Public Research
Organisations. Consideration should be given as to the type of data that should be collected.
The group also noted that EU funding could be divisive when one association is funded over another, and
suggests that, in its funding strategies, the Commission adopt strategies that encourage inclusiveness and
consolidation of pan-European Technology Transfer Associations.
27
4.2 – ACTIONS C AND D:
IPR, INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AWARENESS ISSUES
Action C: Ensure that before graduating, every student – especially from science, engineering
and business schools – receives basic awareness/training regarding intellectual property and
technology transfer.
Action D: Support EU-wide coordinated IPR/ technology transfer awareness and training
activities targeting in particular the European research community.
4.2.A. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF RECENT AND PLANNED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS/MEASURES IN
MEMBER STATES AND THE GENERAL TRENDS:-
In European society there is a low degree of awareness about IPR/ technology transfer. This issue has
been recognised by national administrations and it is clear from the consultation that most countries are
implementing IPR awareness initiatives. All but three countries have general awareness-raising initiatives
and members of the group would be keen to see Higher Education Institute courses to begin to include
modules on IPR / technology transfer.
A common approach does not exist in the different countries. The general feeling is that the existing
courses are insufficient. Indeed, they are usually non-compulsory for undergraduates (even for
science/engineering/ business schools students) and their provision could be described as being
inconsistent. Where there exists undergraduate courses, these are primarily for legal undergraduate
degrees. The situation for postgraduates is slightly better, with many courses now offering IP modules as
part of the training. Again, the composition of the group was more biased towards IPR profession and the
group struggled to get complete information from the education experts nationally as this is a new
process.
Table 7: Compulsory undergraduate IP COURSES at national level (source: replies to Questionnaires 3
and 4 of survey re Actions C and D)
YES NO
Considering introducing
broad course
FI
RO
All other member
states who
replied
FI
FR
EL
PT
ES
IE
A key difficulty is that of changing Higher Education Institute curricula throughout Europe. This is partly
due to the variety of the responsible bodies (national or regional public authorities, autonomy of the
universities in some countries, …) and the fact that, although IP awareness is a recognised problem, it
has not been identified as a priority action for European Administrations.
While there are no specific undergraduate courses available, several countries which have Higher
Education Institutes which offer specific Masters of Postgraduate courses in IP include: BE (F), FR, DE,
IT, NL, ES, SE, UK.
28
Table 8: Analysis of proposed course content in those countries considering introducing IPR training in
Higher Education Institutes undergraduate courses (source: replies to QUESTION 4; IP IN
UNDERGRADUATE COURSES of survey re Actions C and D):
Innovation FR, LV, LU, NL, RO, ES, SE
Technology
Transfer
EL, IE, LV, LU, RO, SL, SE
Entrepreneurship EL, IE, LV, LU, NL, RO, SE
IPRs FR, EL, IE, LV, LU, NL, RO, ES, SE
Exploitation
strategies
IE, LV, LT
Most member states are in consensus that awareness and training are crucial, both at EU and national
level. This is not possible without a clear initiative of awareness. The exploitation of academic R&D
results cannot be effectively maximised if public-sector researchers are not aware of the relevance and
importance of such activities (patenting; licensing; creation of spin-offs) and do not have at least a basic
knowledge of the issues which arise in aspects of IP identification, protection and commercialisation.
Such awareness and basic skills are even more important for the graduates to be hired by private
companies. The graduates of the 21st century are no longer expected to focus solely on the production of
new knowledge, but also require awareness of its management, protection and exploitation.
As a general rule, graduates lack experience in IP.
Isolated examples of awareness initiatives (few of them relating to undergraduate science/engineering
training) are:
• UK and IT: IP awareness campaign in secondary schools
• France: regional delivery awareness scheme
• In several countries: post-graduate courses on IP (mainly for IP specialists).
Table 9: Analysis of the key bodies responsible for IPR awareness training in Higher Education Institutes
at a national level (source: replies to Questionnaire 1 of Survey re Actions C and D).IP COURSES
Higher Education
Institute
Patent / trademark
office
Tech TO Education Ministry
AT, BE (F)*, DK*, FI,
DE, IL, IT, IE*, LV,
NL, NO, RO*, SK*,
SE, UK*
DK*, FR, RO*, SK*,
ES*, UK*
BE (F)*, ES*, UK*,
IE*
PT, RO*
While 19 countries indicated that IP courses are provided in Higher Education Institutes as
either undergraduate or post graduate courses, there is considerable variability in the content
and detail at Higher Education Institute level.
A full analysis of the content of key courses was prepared in Q2 (b) of the questionnaire and
is available on request.
“*” signifies more than one body.
In their deliberations, the group also noted that the lack of systematic monitoring of such initiatives and
their impact (many recent activities) leads to an inability to really understand the impact of awareness
29
training. The group considers this a very important aspect of awareness training and concludes that the
next cycle (should it exist) should specifically address the impact assessment and the issues surrounding
course development.
4.2.B. RECOMMENDATIONS: -
Innovation awareness: Recommendations to improve understanding of research, entrepreneurial
activity and innovation across Europe:-.
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of programmes for general IP/
technology transfer training and awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated IP/ technology transfer awareness
initiatives for undergraduate students at a national level.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Development of programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and awareness at
EU level
The group agrees it is desirable and feasible to deal with some of the issues raised above, at European
level. The valuable sources of training and awareness which currently exist should be fully utilised. These
national and international organisations could coordinate to develop an awareness and training
programme which could be implemented at EU and national level, and could work together to promote
convergence and synergies regarding awareness and training (development of common curricula and
material, etc.).
The possibility of developing joint initiatives (setting up networks of universities offering focused training
regarding IP, technology transfer, innovation, entrepreneurship) should be investigated.
The European Patent Office is currently preparing a large-scale initiative aiming to set up a European-
scale IP training institution, the European IP Academy (“EIPA”), also involving national Patent Offices. The
Commission could support this project. The group recommends political support to the EIPA.
(b) Interfacing with national and regional organisations
In parallel with this process at EU level, it will be necessary to ensure interfacing with, and commitment
from, the appropriate national organisations which will be responsible for implementing the IP/ technology
transfer awareness/training programmes at national and regional level (e.g. Higher Education Authorities;
national Patent Offices; DG Enterprise).
National co-ordination is needed to ensure that the awareness and training programme(s) is/are extended
regionally to every Public Research Organisation.
Financial support should be provided at a national level to develop databases of training/awareness
initiatives and implement awareness programmes.
In order to further the development of IP/ technology transfer awareness, the group proposes pilot
programmes (communication and training) to be set up by a voluntary group of EU Higher Education
Institutes and national Patent Offices aimed at researchers and Technology Transfer Organisation staff of
Public Research Organisations. For instance, the French campaign on IP could be extended to other
30
countries. Also, the Portuguese experience (UIPP/GAPI Network/PATLIB Centres) could be used as a
good example.
The development of a European masters on IP/ technology transfer, possibly based on distance learning,
should be considered.
Each member state will need to identify the organisations responsible for implementing the IP/ technology
transfer awareness/training programmes, and ensure that they take local needs into account (local IP/
technology transfer support infrastructure, etc.).
The relevant body(ies) in charge of these issues in each country (national or regional public authorities,
universities, NPOs, …) should be clearly identified and take responsibility to launch or participate in
actions.
(c) Content of awareness and training programmes
Awareness and training need to deal with all aspects of IP as outlined in Table 8: identification, protection
and commercialisation. Emphasis should be placed on:-
- IPR commercialisation;
- the role played by IPR in innovation and entrepreneurship activities;
- issues related to national and trans-national joint ownership (between different Public Research
Organisations and between Public Research Organisations and Industry); and
- training programmes should cover enforcement.
Comprehensive training needs to be provided to all Public Research Organisations throughout all member
states of the EU, in order to develop and promote professionalism within Public Research Organisations.
The training should cover all phases of the technology transfer process (i.e. the IP creation phase, the IP
identification phase, the IPR protection phase, and the IPR exploitation phase – licensing, enforcement,
…), with particular emphasis on technology transfer, patentability, effectiveness of trade secrets, and the
importance of comprehensive lab notebooks, and properly drafted patent specifications and technology
transfer contracts.
(d) Evaluation of “intangibles” in Public Research Organisation’s annual financial statements
Some member states were of the view that each Public Research Organisation should be encouraged
and possibly obliged to evaluate “intangibles” in its annual financial statements (balance sheet and profit &
loss statements), and to provide details of its equity in spin-off companies. As well as serving certain
purposes under Actions A and B (see above), this would also help to raise awareness. This
recommendation was not agreed by all group members, and was contrary to confidentiality provision in
some national regions
(e) Implementation
To implement these two recommendations, the group recognises that awareness and training needs to
extend beyond science, engineering, business schools and the research community in terms of innovation
(e.g. marketing/public relations schools (trade marks and goodwill; design rights); law schools).
It is important that appropriate national contact points (including representatives from the academic
community) are nominated for the next cycle (should it exist).
The group recommends that the IPR Helpdesk could also provide (or act as a portal to) general
information on the IPR system at national level, possibly based on the grouping recommended in this
report (e.g. countries having a professor’s privilege).
The group supports the extension of the researchers curricula and linkage of career progression to the
exploitation of the results of research activity.
31
(f) Suggested implementation steps for next cycle
Some implementation steps for the next cycle could include: -
1. Propose the main features of the pilot plan to be launched.
2. Develop a business plan for European masters course on IP.
3. Create a database of national contacts.
4. Identify best practices when there is more experience.
5. Define other possible roles of IPR Helpdesk in cooperation with DG-Enterprise.
6. Encourage that the skills of a technology transfer professional are defined.
7. Define a possible framework to use IPR and technology transfer data to reward Public Research
Organisation and researchers.
8. Launching the Award.
9. Define metrics.
32
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
A. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE:-
As the first cycle of this OMC methodology, the group supports the methodology as outlined in this report,
and recommends its continuation, subject to several changes.
The group’s key recommendations are comprehensively outlined in CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, with further comments on these recommendations in CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS and in
Appendix F.
While this report contains summarised statements, significant effort and learning emerged from the data
collection phase and the comparison and understanding of the different national regimes.
The group recommends that the identification of cluster of countries with similar systems, policies and
barriers should be encouraged as a smart method to improve learning and the adoption of best practise in
Europe. The group has identified several areas in this report where it believes that national policy makers
may learn from the experience of others in the following areas:
• Classifications of ownership systems
• Countries which are considering changes (in a specific or in a general way) and the
reasons behind these changes
• Countries which have national guidelines and codes of practice
• Countries with national policies on the incentivisation of researchers
• Countries with postgraduate courses in awareness and IPR management
• Countries with published national metrics on IPR.
In addition, the group also considered the target audience for its recommendations and has aimed to
assist CREST by assessing the feasibility or the anticipated difficulty associated with the implementation
of each of its recommendations.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT CYCLE:-
The group suggests some possible issues to be addressed in the next cycle (should it exist) at Appendix
E. The group had insufficient time to consider each of these points, but recommends that they are the
issues which CREST should take into account when considering the scope of the work plan for the next
cycle (should it exist). It should be noted that these issues are not listed in any order of priority.
In addition, the group refers the reader to Chapter 3 (Introduction), where some suggestions are made as
to how to run the next cycle (see heading entitled “DIFFICULTIES/BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED AND HOW THEY
WERE OVERCOME”)
33
CHAPTER SIX: APPENDICES
Appendix A
Composition of the Group
Country Name Organisation
Chair
Ena Prosser Enterprise Ireland Biotechnology Directorate
Consultant/facilitator
Tara Mac Mahon Independent Consultant, Ireland
Austria Georg Buchtela Austria Wirtschaftsservice
Belgium
Patrick Chaltin KU Leuven Research & Development
Belgium Nathalie Van Den Bossche
H. Bracquene
Ministere de la Communaute Francaise
Cyprus Elena Zacharuadou Law Office of the Republic
Denmark
Kaare Jarl Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Finland
Tuomas Aho Ministry of Trade and Industry
France Alain Gallochat Ministère de la Recherche, Direction de la
Technologie
Germany
Klaus Weber Federal Ministry for Education and Research
Greece
Emmanuel Samuelides Industrial Property Organisation
Ireland
Martin Shanagher Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Israel Hadas Ferber Israel Europe R&D Directorate
Italy Daniela Carosi Ministry of Productive Activities – Italian Trade
Mark and Patent Office (UIBM)
Latvia
Uldis Viesturs Institute of Microbiology and Biotechnology
Luxemburg
Serge Juchem Ministère de l’Economie
Netherlands Jeffry Matakupan Ministry of Economic Affairs
Norway
Sidsel Arbo Ministry of Trade and Industry Adviser
Portugal
Leonor Trindade Instituto Nacional para a Propriedede Industrial
Romania
Narcisa Tanase Ministry of Education, Research and Youth
Directorate for Technology Transfer and
Innovation
34
Slovak Republic
Lucia Lalikova Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Andrej Piano Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
Spain Gerardo Pinas Ministry of Science and Technology, Spanish
Office of Patents and Marks
Sweden Catharina Sojde Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems,
United Kingdom
Janette McNeill,
Richard Mulcahy,
Barbara Squires,
Mark Bryant
UK Patent Office:
35
Appendix B
Presentations
Part One: Presentations made to the Group: -
The group attended and discussed a number of presentations (made by both group members and
external invitees), outlining national and other (e.g. OECD; EPO) experiences and initiatives. Details of
these presentations are:-
Presentation Title Organisation Presentation Speaker
Academic Patenting in OECD
countries.
OECD M. Cervantes
National Code of Practice for
Managing IP from Publicly
Funded Research
ICSTI E. Prosser
European IP Academy
EPO D. Sant
From Science to Business
Techtrans DK J. Damsgaard
French Policy on the
Valorisation of the Results
from Public Research
Organisations.
French Ministry of Research A. Gallochat
The Challenge of Effective
Knowledge Transfer in Europe
ProTon G. Capart
Outsourcing R&D is Not New
at All
EIRMA A. Dearing
Technology Transfer
Institutions in Europe
EC (DG ENTR) C. Lettmayr
Presentation of the Finnish
situation
Ministry of Trade and Industry,
FIN
T. Aho
Presentation on the IRC and
IPRhelpdesk
EC (DG ENTR) A. Escardino
36
Part Two: Recommendations made based on Presentations made to the Group
Recommendations based on the presentation Capart (ProTon)
• The support of the governments and EU for the creation and professional management of intellectual
property within Public Research Organisations ;
• The clarification of IP ownership regimes for public research at a national level (professor’s privilege
vs. ip-ownership of Public Research Organisations.
Recommendations based on the presentation Aho
• The need for clear and widely accepted legal principles (who owns the IP, who and how do you create
a fair compensation for the researcher/ Public Research Organisation, who enforces the IP)
Recommendations based on the presentation Cervantes (OECD)
• Governments and the European Commission should subsidise patenting and licensing costs at Public
Research Organisations;
• Governments and the European Commission should support TTO-networking initiatives (national and
international) to raise the professional level of TTOs;
• Governments and the European Commission should promote IP-training & awareness within Public
Research Organisations.
Recommendations based on the presentation Dearing (EIRMA)
• Public Research Organisations should be provided with the expertise to support the science-business
transfer.
Recommendations based on the presentation Gallochat
• There should be a clear legal-framework concerning the ownership of IP;
• The culture within Public Research Organisations should be changed to a more technology transfer-
friendly surrounding where patents and collaboration with industry are being recognised as part of
their core-business.
Recommendations based on the presentation Lettmayer (DG Enterprise)
• There is a gap between the EU-countries concerning the amount of money spent on TTOs compared
to the Public Research Organisations expenditure on R&D as % of GDP. There seems a need for
several countries to spend more resources on TTOs.
Recommendations based on the presentation Damsgaard
• There should be a clear understanding what the expectations and obligations of Public Research
Organisations are on the subject of technology transfer;
• Public Research Organisations should be able to take an equity-stake in companies.
Recommendations based on the presentation Prosser
• Take sufficient time for the process for making national guidelines;
• Guidelines should be a living document that can flexibly respond and support the wide variety of
contexts that occur with regard to IP.
37
Appendix C
Synoptic Tables Summarising Replies to
Questionnaire in respect of Actions A and B
The synoptic tables attempt to provide a “user-friendly” summary of the replies to the Questionnaires.
In compiling the tables, we have not attempted to interpret any particular reply in any way, but have done
our best to merely record the reply in the table, as it was given in the Questionnaire reply.
When reviewing the tables, you should note the following:-
- A filled in dot signifies a “yes”.
- An empty dot signifies a “no”.
- A dash signifies that a reply should have been given, but was not.
- An empty box signifies that no reply was given, and no reply should have been given.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the questionnaires,
as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to clarify various replies.
However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result, whilst every effort was made to
ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and D, and the tables included in
Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of finalising this report.
39
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
QUESTION 1 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
AT BE
W
BE F CY DK FI
N
FR DE EL IE IL IT LV LT L NL NO PT RO SK SL ES SE UK
1. What governs
ownership of IP
resulting from
publicly-funded R&D
carried out in PROs?
_
_
_
_
- Patent/other IP law
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Employment law
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Contract law
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Business code/ civil
code
?
- PRO/institution
policy/ rules/statutes
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Collective
bargaining agreement
?
- Other
legislation/rules
?
?
?
?
?
40
QUESTION 2 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(a) In general, in
PROs, does the
researcher have
ownership rights in
the IPR?
?
20
?
?
21
?
?
?
22
?
?
Note
1
?
?
23
?
24
_
_
?
&
?
25
?
?
?
26
?
?
_
?
27
Note
2
?
If no, who owns the
rights?
Note
1
_
_
_
Note
2
- PRO
?
?
?
28
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
29
?
?
?
30
- PRO/funding body
?
?
- PRO/funding body/
university/private
sector
?
- PRO/author
?
20
Austria: No for non-academic research (usually due to individual contracts); No for academic research since January 2004 (due to law).
21
Belgium, Flanders: No, but most PROs give the researcher part of the revenues or financial bonus.
22
Finland: Government bill on university inventions is being finalised and expected to be passed to Parliament rather soon. It would expand ownership rights of PROs in case
of contract research
23
Israel: No - but most PROs give the researcher part of the revenues of financial bonus.
24
Italy: Yes, but according to Article 12bis of the Italian Copyright Law, software developed by inventors belongs to the employer, including PROs.
25
Luxemburg: Yes for copyright, no for patents.
26
Portugal: Yes, partially (and partially owned by PRO).
27
Spain: No. The PRO owns the IP, but the researcher has rights to participate in the benefits of the exploitation.
28
France: PRO (i.e. employer)
29
Portugal: PRO, partially (and partially owned by researcher).
30
UK: PRO, but occasionally the funding body.
Note 1: Greece: Depends on PROs, usually joint ownership.
Note 2: Sweden: Researchers at HEI: Yes, owned by researcher; Researchers at research institutions (partly state-owned companies not part of the education system): No,
owned by research institute.
41
QUESTION 2 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(b) Does funding play
a role in determining
ownership?
?
?
?
?
?
?
31
?
32
?
?
?
33
?
?
34
?
35
_
_
?
?
?
?
_
?
36
?
?
2(c) What other
factors may determine
ownership?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Not
e 1
- Institution
policy/internal
regulation of PRO
?
?
?
- Value/impact of
invention
?
?
- Decision of PRO
?
- Agreement between
the parties
?
?
- Involvement of
industry/private
sector/external
partners
?
?
?
?
- Partial funding from
private sector
?
?
- No other factors
?
31
Finland: see footnote above
32
France: Yes, if funding from industry & contract.
33
Ireland: Some funders have veto on exploitation, but no ownership or joint ownership.
34
Italy: in case of a research contract between research and industry
35
Latvia: If industry, yes.
36
Spain: Yes, in case there has been a contract with third parties.
Note 1: UK: Contractual arrangements may apply.
42
QUESTION 2(D) -
PAYMENT OF IP
PROTECTION
COSTS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(d) In general, who
pays for the IP
protection costs?
_
_
_
Note
2
Note
3
_
_
_
Note
4
_
Note
5
- The owner
?
37
?
38
?
39
?
?
40
?
41
?
42
?
?
- The institution
?
43
?
?
44
?
?
45
37
Austria: The owner i.e. the institution; due to the new legal situation there exists a new programme for the universities (uni: invent) disposing of a certain budget dedicated to
finance patents.
38
Belgium Flanders: the owner, except as otherwise stipulated in license agreements/assignments.
39
Cyprus: The owner of the rights, which is usually a PRO or a funding body.
40
France: The owner (otherwise stipulated in the licence agreement).
41
Ireland: The owner i.e. the institution; due to the new legal situation there exists a new programme for the universities (uni: invent) disposing of a certain budget dedicated to
finance patents from government agencies. PRO passes on costs to licensee as soon as possible.
42
Italy: According to the current law, it is the researcher; however most PRO’s finance IP protection costs of their researchers on the basis of a contract. According to article 65
of the draft industrial property code, which Italian government should vote by this year, since IPR belongs to the performing organisation, PRO’s will pay such costs.
43
Denmark: The institution – but often co-financed by licensee or government appropriation.
44
Norway: The institution, if it wants to use its right to commercialise. Otherwise, the researcher.
45
Spain: Universities do not pay fees at all. PRO other than university must pay fees.
Note 2: Israel: In HEI: the HEI or subsidiary; in other PRO: the PRO or the researcher of its research institute.
Note 3: Latvia: The institution and/or the researcher (author(s)/owner(s)).
Note 4: Romania: Where the patent is obtained within PROs, the costs for protection shall be borne by the respective institution, in case this aspect is foreseen in the labour
contract. In case the person who patents is a natural person, the protection costs shall be born by that person.
Note 5: Sweden: If not the researcher himself, the company who buys the patentable invention, government agencies like VINNOVA, NUTEK, Almi, different state-governed
foundations like the Technology Bridge Foundations, or state-owned companies handling the researcher’s patents. For the moment it is very hard to find public money for
patent costs.
43
QUESTION 3 –
JOINT OWNERSHIP
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
3. Describe the
conditions in which
joint ownership
occurs (legally or in
practice).
_
Note
1
_
Note
1
_
- Joint research (e.g. 2
PROs; PRO and
private
partner/company)
?
?
?
?
46
?
47
?
?
- Joint creation
/inventorship
?
?
48
?
?
49
?
- Contract
condition/agreement
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Decision of PRO
?
50
?
?
- Public R&D
employment law
?
46
France: In case of joint research. Joint ownership regulated by legal provisions or contractual agreement.
47
Germany: Occurs only in co-operations between PRO and private companies. Regulation is by private contract.
48
Cyprus: If there are two or more creators and the contribution of each one cannot be separated from the other’s (Law 59/76).
49
Italy: if several persons have developed an industrial invention, the provisions of the Civil Code on joint ownership shall unless otherwise agreed upon, regulate the rights
deriving from the patent.
Note 1: Netherlands and Greece to provide more detail of circumstances where joint ownership arises, if possible.
50
Belgium Flanders: Depending on the contract/agreement
44
QUESTIONS 4-6:
REQUIREMENTS
TO EXPLOIT
PUBLICLY-FUNDED
RESEARCH
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
4. Any requirements
to exploit IP from
publicly funded
research?
?
?
?
51
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
52
?
N 3
- Yes, in law
?
?
53
?
?
?
- Yes, in institutional
policies
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Yes, in funding
provider terms
?
54
?
?
?
?
?
5. Is there a sanction
attached to this
requirement?
?
_
?
55
?
?
56
?
?
?
57
?
58
?
?
59
?
_
_
?
?
?
_
?
60
?
6. If yes, are they
enforced?
_
?
Note
2
?
?
?
61
?
?
?
62
_
_
_
?
63
-
51
Belgium (Flanders): Not in general, but for some, “best efforts” and national/regional exploitation is required,
52
Spain: Not specifically, but it is applicable to all inventions. However, seldom applied.
53
Denmark: Required by law, where PROs have required ownership.
54
Austria: Some funds require it, but quite seldom.
55
Belgium (Flanders): Sanction is re-payment of funding.
56
Denmark: Only sanction: full ownership reverts to inventors if PROs do not evaluate inventions within specified time.
57
Germany: Yes, theoretically, (violation of service regulations)/ No, if an invention has not been recognised as such.
58
Ireland: Theoretically, as the funding contract is breached, damages could be sought. Has never happened.
59
Italy: Where the inventor fails to initiate economical exploitation of the patent within five years after the patent being granted, all the exploitation rights are automatically but
not exclusively transferred for free to the PROs.
60
Spain: Yes – granting compulsory licenses.
61
Germany: To be decided in the individual case. Probably compensation for damages. Up to now, no case has occurred.
62
Italy: This norm is too recent to assess its effects in practice.
63
Spain: Seldom applied.
Note 2: Cyprus to clarify if sanction is enforced.
Note 3: UK: Voluntary guidelines
45
QUESTION 7:
REQUIREMENT TO
EXPLOIT
PUBLICLY-FUNDED
IP
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
7. Do funding body
Terms & Conditions
generally require
commercialisation
strategies to be in
place before funding
made available?
_
_
_
Yes/no
?
?
64
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Depends on type of
funding/type of
project
?
?
?
65
?
64
Belgium (Flanders): No, not in general, but there are exceptions.
65
Greece: Depends on framework, but usually there are such requirements.
46
QUESTION 8 –
RESPONSIBILITY
TO ENFORCE IPRS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
8. Who is primarily
responsible for the
enforcement of
(specific) IPRs?
_
_
_
_
- PROs
?
?
66
?
67
?
?
?
?
- Owner
?
?
68
?
?
69
?
?
?
?
?
- PRO/licensee/other
?
?
?
- Depends on licence
contracts
70
?
?
?
- Other
?
66
Germany: PRO. In case of regulation by contract: licensee
67
Netherlands: In principal, the PRO. In most cases, the PRO would license the IP to a licensee with the requirement to enforce the IP.
68
Denmark: Owner of the IPR. However, in practice, PROs do not actively pursue infringements.
69
France: The owner, or the licensee when stipulated in the licence agreement.
70
For both Austria and Ireland there is no general rule, but usually the research institutions avoid being responsible, as they do not want to take risk.
47
QUESTION 9:
MOST COMMON
EXPLOITATION
ROUTES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
9. What is the most
common route for
exploitation?
_
_
- No specific way –
all possibilities open
?
?
?
?
- Spin-outs
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
71
?
?
?
72
- Licenses
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Transfer of
knowledge
?
- Transfer of Rights
?
?
?
?
- Other
?
?
?
?
?
- Not known
?
71
Norway: Spin-outs have been dominant, licenses of less importance
72
UK: Currently spin-outs, but licensing becoming more common.
48
QUESTION 10;
LIMITATIONS IN
PROS TO
LICENCE/ASSIGN/
TRANSFER
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
10. In PROs, are there
limitations on
licensing/assignment
transfer possibilities?
?
?
?
?
?
73
?
?
?
?
?/?
74
?
?
?
75
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes, please specify-
_
- Joint ownership
_
?
- Certain restrictions
on field/scope and
term of licenses
granted
_
?
?
- Preference for non-
exclusive licence
_
?
?
- Limitation on
transfer possibilities
_
?
73
Denmark: Most PROs have developed institutional strategies on commercialisation.
74
Ireland: Not generally. The National Code of Practice has a preference for licensing rather than assigning.
75
Latvia: No, except the conditions in agreements.
49
QUESTION 11:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
11. Are there
laws/regulations/other
stat provisions
governing: -
(a) Compensation
?
76
?
?
?
?
77
?
?
?
?
78
?
79
?
?
?
_
?
?
80
?
?
81
?
82
?
83
_
?
?
84
?
85
(b) the sharing of
profits/revenues
?
?
?
?
86
?
87
_
?
?
?
88
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
?
?
89
?
76
Austria: Yes, a fair compensation must be paid.
77
Denmark: If PRO claims ownership, the inventing researcher should be compensated. When ownership is offered to the researcher, he should compensate the institution.
78
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, but yes for inventions of employees.
79
Ireland: Yes for universities only, not for other PROs. At universities, fair compensation must be paid. Need to be stated at institutional level. Generally changes with
amount of monies.
80
Netherlands: Inventor must be reasonably compensated for his invention.
81
Portugal: Yes, for public R&D employees only (general rule).
82
Romania: Yes – the income to the owner from exploitation is tax-free for the first 5 yrs since the first implementation taken into consideration since the data of
implementation and included in the period of validity of the patent. The natural persons exploiting the invention, respective owner of the implemented patent shall take
advantage of the above mentioned provisions
83
Slovak Republic: Yes, patent law.
84
Sweden: Yes for research institutions, but no for HEIs.
85
UK: Yes- Patents Law gives some rights to an inventor of a particularly successful invention
86
Cyprus: If agreed between the parties. Law 59/1976 includes provisions concerning the sharing of profits/revenues.
87
Denmark: Yes, sharing of net profits.
88
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, but yes for inventions of employees.
89
Sweden: No, for both HEIs and research institutions.
50
QUESTION 12:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
12. If so, does your
legislation specify the
share between the
parties?
?
?
?
90
?
?
91
?
?
?
?
92
?
93
?
94
?
95
?
_
?
?
?
?
96
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes, please specify
the share (%) for:-
_
Note
1
_
_
_
_
- Researchers
33
97
_
50
98
30
30-
70
= and
not
less
than
50
_
_
33
50
_
33
_
- Department
33
_
25
99
_
0-
30
_
_
_
33
_
_
_
_
- Institution
33
_
25
100
70
0-
40
= and
not
less
than
30
_
_
33
50
_
33
_
- Other
_
_
_
_
_
_
Note
2
_
_
33
_
90
Belgium Flanders: No, but internal PRO regulations do.
91
Denmark: Rules on profit sharing to be developed by individual PRO and approved by the Government.
92
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, otherwise yes.
93
Ireland: No, but there are norms for over €500k. These norms are provided in the table.
94
Israel: No, but the internal regulations of the PRO may regulate the sharing of profit.
95 Italy: According to article 65 of the draft industrial property code which the Italian government should vote in by this year, the inventor will receive no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the
economical exploitation of the patent.
96
Portugal: Yes, for public R&D employs (general rule)
97
Denmark: The percentage shares outlined above for researchers, department and institution are the typical percentage shares, if IP is accorded to the PRO.
98
France: 50% of net revenues (until a limit of €65k per year and per inventor and 25 % beyond this limit).
99
France: Generally 25%, but up to the institution.
100
France: Generally 25%, but up to the institution.
Note 1: Greece: For invention of employees using the means of employers, 60% for employee and 40% for employer, for service inventions (resulting from contractual obligation) compensation for employee.
Note 2: Norway: Upon Agreement.
51
QUESTION 12:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Are there sanctions
for non-compliance?
_
?
?
?
101
?
102
_
?
103
?
104
?
105
?
?
?
?
106
_
?
?
107
?
?
?
108
?
109
_
?
110
_
?
111
101
Cyprus: Yes, the sanctions for non-compliance are identical to those referring to breach of contracts.
102
Denmark: No, the inventor can bring his case to court
103
France: Yes (non-compliance with law).
104
Germany: Yes. To be decided on an individual case basis, probably compensation for damages.
105
Greece: Any provision in a contract limiting the rights of employees is invalid.
106
Latvia: Yes, in compliance with the agreement.
107
Netherlands: No, the inventor can bring his case to court.
108
Romania: In case of non-fulfilment of the contract the contractual civil liability shall come into force.
109
Slovak Republic: Yes, general (civil code; business code).
110
Spain: No sanctions on the said specific legislation, but subject to general sanctions on non-compliance regime either on administrative or civil basis.
111
UK: civil law
52
QUESTION 13 –
PATENTS
/LICENSES AS
ACADEMIC
CREDENTIALS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
13. In your system,
are patents (and/or
licenses) recognised as
academic credentials?
?
_
?/?
112
?
?
113
?
?
114
?
_
?
115
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
116
?/?
117
If yes, to what extent?
_
- For getting a certain
academic status
?
_
- Patent is part of a
science – pedagogical
evaluation to obtain
academic credentials
?
?
_
- Patents considered
like a good publication
?
?
_
- Licensing very
highly recognised
?
112
Belgian/Flanders: Depends on the PRO
113
Denmark: Possible according to provisions on employment of public researchers, but less common in practice. Some research councils recognise patents equally to
scientific publications.
114
France: Not yet, but under consideration
115
Ireland: Noted on national expertise website.
116
Sweden: Some HEIs recognise patents as an academic credential. According to national legislation there is a possibility – but not an obligation to do that.
117
UK: No, however the next Research Evaluation Exercise in 2008 will take into account all aspects of excellence in research including such things as practical application
and enterprise activities.
53
QUESTIONS 14 –
PROPOSED
CHANGES:
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
14. Are any major
changes in the
national regimes being
contemplated in the
near future?
?
?
?
?
?
118
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
119
?
120
If yes, what are the
key points?
- adaptation of patent
law to new
environment
?
?
- changes to patent
laws. Key point
cannot be given until
2005
?
- to investigate the
possibilities re joint
ownership between
HEIs and the
researchers at HEIs,
to enhance the
incentives for the
HEIs to engage in
commercialisation
?
?
118
Denmark: Evaluation of the 1999 act on IP ownership at PRO’s is to be completed early summer 2004. Additional Act on Technology Transfer at PRO’s is expected to be
passed by Parliament in 2004.
119
Sweden: Yes, maybe.
120
UK: No ( Minor changes to practice)
54
QUESTION 14 –
PROPOSED
CHANGES:
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
- adjusting old patent
and copyright
legislation to the needs
of the 21
st
century
?
?
- Draft industrial
property code being
voted on in 2004.
Main terms deal with
authorship,
ownership and profit
share re patents
?
?
121
- regulation of the
researcher’s
share/constitutionality
of current regulation
?
?
121
Italy: According to Article 65 of the draft of industrial property code which Italian Parliament should vote by this year, in PROs IPR belongs to the performing organisation;
the authorship of the patent is acknowledged to the inventor; the inventor will receive no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the economical exploitation of
the patent. If there is more than one inventor, inventorship is shared among inventors; in this case, the share of no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the
economical exploitation of the patent will be equally distributed among the inventors, unless they had defined a profit sharing criterion proportional to the contribution of
each inventor. The main reason for the change is due to a strong negative reaction of PROs to the 2001 legislation and a pause in patent filing on the part of researchers
linked to PROs.
55
QUESTION 15 –
RECENT CHANGES
TO NATIONAL
REGIMES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
15. Were there
recently any changes
in your national
regime (ownership
provisions etc.)?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If so, when?
‘03
‘02
‘99
‘02
‘99
‘01
90s
‘03
‘03
‘02
‘01
What was their
impact?
- Not identified/too
early to tell
?
?
?
- Abolition of
professor privilege
?
122
?
- Professionalisation
of TT
?
- Build-up of an
infrastructure at
universities to ensure
and support granting
and commercialisation
of patents
?
?
?
- Increase in the
number of patents
?
?
122
Denmark: This can be “impact”, or rather the contents of the new legal regime. If considered impact, more countries should have markings here
56
QUESTION 15 –
RECENT CHANGES
TO NATIONAL
REGIMES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
- Considerable
?
- Universities got right
to take ownership of
patents from
employees
?
?
123
- Re-introduced fiscal
facilities for owners of
patents or for the
licensees
?
123
Ireland: And from funding agencies
57
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
16. Are there national non-
statutory guidelines?
?
?
?
?
?
124
?
125
?
126
?
?
127
?
?
128
?
?
129
_
_
?
130
?
?
131
?
?
_
?
?
?
If no, being considered?
?
?
?
132
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
If yes:
Were they developed/updated
in last five years?
_
?
133
1998
?
?
?
134
?
?
?
?
?
?
Were industry & other
stakeholders involved in their
initial development?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
135
Do they cover govt-funded
research?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Do they cover industry-funded
research at PROs?
?
?
?
?
136
?
?
?
?
?
?
Do they cover co-funded
projects in industry & PROs?
?
?
?
?
137
?
?
?
?
?
?
124
Denmark: Guidelines on public announcements of private funding of public research only.
125
Finland: No official guidelines being considered but at least one private initiative to harmonise practices
126
France: Yes (recommendations for adopting an IP charter).
127
Greece: No, but there are mechanisms supported by the state such as Liaison Offices. There is also legislation which describes in detail the procedure for establishment of spin-off companies to exploit IP.
128
Israel: Yes. Government-funded programmes to encourage transfer of knowledge and know-how from the PROs (esp. HEIs) to industry.
129
Latvia: Yes. However, not only IP, but the full scale from creation to exploitation. It is called National Innovation Programme.
130
Netherlands: National non-statutory guidelines currently being drafted. Will be introduced before end 2004. This table provides details of proposed guidelines.
131
Portugal: Yes, but only in some PROs (IP Regulation on Universities).
132
Denmark: Joint "Code of conduct" on public-private R&D-cooperation is being developed by national industry organisation and national university organisation.
133
Belgian Flanders: Broad guidelines not going into detail about ownership and compensation
134
Greece: Late 1990s
135
UK; as part of the consultation process and on the steering board of MIP guidelines
136
Greece: Yes, under conditions.
137
Greece: Yes, under conditions.
58
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Are they compulsory?
_
?
?
?
/
?
138
_
?
?
?
139
?
_
?
Where they are
compulsory:-
_
_
- Are there sanctions
for not following the
guidelines?
_
?
140
_
_
- Is their application
monitored?
_
?
?
?
_
Where they are not
compulsory:
_
_
- Are they widely
used?
_
?
?
?
?
141
?
_
_
_
N/
K
- Is their application
being monitored?
_
?
142
?
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
- How do you promote
their implementation?
_
_
_
- special gov funding
for PRO/industry who
use guidelines
?
- informing
researchers; publicity;
info; workshops;
?
?
?
?
?
?
- public endorsement
by PROs, unis &
industry
?
?
138
Germany: Some aspects of the guidelines are compulsory whilst others are not (Germany to confirm).
139
Latvia: I wouldn't use the terms: compulsory, sanctions, etc. The goals are: successful entrepreneurship, development, GDP, prosperity, recycling of money invested in RTD, etc.
140
Germany: Yes – payback of development funds.
141
Ireland: Too early to tell.
142
France: Not yet.
59
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Do the guidelines
cover; -
_
Note
1
Ownership issues?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Licensing conditions?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Sharing of revenues?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Negotiation?
_
?
?
?
_
?
143
?
_
_
_
?
Monitoring &
evaluation?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Conflicts of interest?
_
?
?
?
_
_
?
_
_
_
?
Gov funding for PRO
and/or private entities
using the programmes
_
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Support for
exploitation (financial
and administrative)
?
?
143
Ireland: At PRO, not nationally.
Note 1: Latvia to clarify what the guidelines cover
60
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Where there are
national guidelines,
what is their key
point/reason for
introduction?
- Regulation of IPR
?
?
- Payback of
development funds
?
- Efficient use of tax
revenues
?
- To speed up &
clarify ownership of
IPR
?
?
- Better use of
university knowledge
?
?
?
?
- Skilled personnel/ to
encourage optimum
use of human
resources at PRO
?
?
- Motivation for
exploitation/stimulate
long-term
partnerships
?
?
?
?
61
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
QUESTION 17:-
NATIONAL KEY
STRUCTURES/
INITIATIVES:-
AT BE
W
BE F CY DK FI FR DE EL IE IL IT LV LT L NL NO PT RO SK SL ES SE UK
17. Are there national
structures and/or
initiatives (other than
guidelines) to support
the management &
exploitation of IPR?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes:-
Are there any
available statistical
records?
?
?
?
?
?
144
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
145
?
On attached page:-
(a) Details and impact of these key structures/initiatives;
(b) Details of barriers faced in the operation of these structures/initiatives;
(c) Details of annual budget available for this support; and
(d) Extent to which the implementation of these support measures is completed.
144
Denmark: Yes, but only limited.
145
Sweden: Yes. There are statistics over patents owned by the holding companies and companies who handle the researcher’s patents. But due to professor privilege it is not
possible to know the total number of patents from research within the HEIs.
62
QUESTION 17 (B): NATIONAL STRUCTURES/INITIATIVES – DESCRIPTION AND IMPACT
Describe the key national structures/national initiatives
If available, what has been the impact of these
structures/initiatives?
Germany (Fraunhofer Company, Max Planck Company, INSTI-Project (INSTI = stimulation of innovations),
funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research since 1995).
Key structures/initiatives: financial aid / training schemes / Installation of networks for different target-
groups all over Germany.
Creating a positive climate for inventors and inventions, increasing
number of patent applications, increasing number of
commercialisation of patents
Portugal Units of support (UIPP) / Financial aid.
Not yet available.
Spain Transfer Technology Network at universities and PRO.
Greater TT indicators at PRO.
Sweden 1) The establishment of holding companies for the HEI. The HEI (with some exceptions) are public
authorities without the right to commercialise. Therefore where these holding companies established. 2)
The establishment of Technology Bridge Foundations with a mission to support commercialisation of
research results from HEI and to enhance the HEI´s cooperation with industry. 3) There is also a work
going on which aims at finding public financing for pre-seed (for example financing to cover cost of
patent).
The creation of new structures for commercialisation within and
around the HEIs (for example companies to handle the researchers
patents), spin-offs, licence agreements and change of attitude towards
commercialisation within the HEIs.
Romania Yes, Governmental Decision on the setting up, functioning, evaluation and assessment of the entities
within the innovation and technological transfer infrastructure, and also the means for supporting it.
Key structures/initiatives: The National Program regarding the setting up the technological transfer
centres, liaison offices with industry, technological and business incubators.
Increase the number of the technological transfer centres, liaison
offices with industry, technological and business incubators.
Latvia Financial aid / tax reductions / training schemes / other.
Not yet estimated.
Austria Uni:invent and tecma, 2 programs giving financial (paying for patents) and non financial support
(marketing of patents) and training,
uni:invent is a new program started recently (1/2003).
Cyprus Financial aid: eligible cost in RTD projects.
N/A
Denmark A - STRUCTURES DIRECTED TOWARDS PRO's - A1: Cross institutional networks for training of
tech trans officers. A2: Financial support for PRO patenting. A3: Cross institutional web-site
www.techtrans.dk. A4: New Act on Technology Transfer to be presented for Parliament in 2004 entitling
PRO's to establish institutional companies for technology transfer. B - STRUCTURES DIRECTED
TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL ENTREPRENEURS - B1: Science Parks. B2: Technology Incubators.
1) Professionalisation of technology transfer.
2) Creation of PRO IPR portfolio.
Ireland There are other groups such as the Programmes in Advanced Technology (PAT’s), Enterprise Ireland,
that work with the Universities with people and services to support university ownership. programs
giving financial (paying for patents) and non financial support (marketing of patents) and training. New
patent support scheme and other project management and expertise supplied to develop business plans
and commercial strategies.
Patent fund is a new program started recently (1/2004). PATs model
has changed, under review.
63
Describe the key national structures/national initiatives
If available, what has been the impact of these
structures/initiatives?
Netherlands There are two policy-initiatives that are being implemented to support the management and exploitation
of IP. The first one is the Knowledge Transfer subsidy-scheme (SKE). This scheme is aimed to subsidy
among other things TTO-offices and the filing of patent applications. The SKE is part of a bigger plan to
stimulate high-tech start-up's. The second initiative is aimed at supporting the creation of a national
network of TTO-officers. The aim is to raise the level of professionalism within the trade of technology
transfer. Both are being in the process of being implemented.
France Contract model project (formally private initiative).
Greece
Bonus to researchers.
Italy In November 2002 Italian universities created a network of TTOs linked to universities themselves with
the following aims:
1. having homogeneous principles and criteria for patent, spin-off and technology transfer;
2. providing available information to support and encourage collaboration among researchers on patents
and the exploitation and commercialisation of inventions through licensing, spin-off and enterprise
incubators.
Main services provided by the TTOs operating in the network are:
• Preparing the disclosure form to evaluate the idea/invention
• Preparing the secrecy agreement form
• Providing fast (< 45 d) evaluation for national patent application
• Supporting and financing the patent procedures (national and international)
• Evaluating the potential market
• Carrying the business negotiation
• Providing technical support for feasibility studies and prototypes
• Managing the administrative activities related to patent exploitation
• Evaluating spin-off projects
• Supporting the business planning
• Providing training on technology transfer.
Norway Financial aid, training schemes (entrepreneurship), research parks and incubators.
We have just recently started to monitor the impact of these
structures/initiatives.
Belgium
Flanders
Monetary subsidies for TTO’s
QUESTION 17 (C): NATIONAL STRUCTURES/INITIATIVES – BARRIERS, SUPPORT AND STAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION
64
What barriers have been faced in
the operation of the national
structures/initiatives?
Which (annual) budget is available for
this support ?
To what extent is the
implementation of these support
measures completed ?
Germany None Cannot be specified Referring to the companies and the project
named under 17., implementation is
complete.
Portugal Lack of information / knowledge.
Spain Certain reluctance in the academic world;
differences in the approaches of TTO and
Professors.
517 Meuros all the universities and research centres
Sweden
The main barriers have been lack of funding
and lack of experience due to a few years of
operation
1) For the first imitative: Each holding company got
about 600K euro when established. 2) For the second
initiative the seven Technology Bridge Foundations
got all together 100 M euro worth of shares in state
owned companies. It was calculated that the income
from capital would be about 550K euro a year
for all seven foundations - which of course was
dependent on the development of the stock exchange.
3) For the ongoing imitative: At the time of the
establishment of the first and the second imitative
there was public financing for pre-seed (for example
financing for cost of patent) available. Now there is
hardly any such financing available. The ongoing
work is aiming at finding pre-seed financing
amounting to 27M euro per year.
1) Not all the HEIs has holding
companies. The research institutes are
companies (partly state owned)
themselves so they don’t need holding
companies. 2) The help from the
technology bridge foundations should be
available for all HEIs (no direct aid to
research institutes) but due to the
foundations financial situation they can’t
help all HEIs and have to prioritise.
Romania
This is a multi annual programme and the budget is
established for each year. 60 mld lei, approximate 1.5
mil euros are available for 2004
Support is available for 100% of the
universities and 75% for the PROs.
Latvia Long explanation, but the bottle-necks are not
only the IPR items.
100 k€ E.g. : Support is available for 75 % of the
universities and all PROs.
Austria 3 mio € Support is available for all universities
and all PROs.
65
What barriers have been faced in the
operation of the national
structures/initiatives?
Which (annual) budget is available for this support ?
To what extent is the
implementation of
these support
measures completed ?
Cyprus Have not been identified. 18.360.000 euros (approx) for the period 2003-2005.
Support is available for all
PROs.
Denmark A: Limited market for public research IPR's. Contrasting
expectations from PRO's and industry. B: Hesitant
venture capital market in recent years. Limited growth
rate in ITC and Biotech industry.
A: Approx. € 2 million annually B: Approx. € 15 million annually. A: Support is available for all
PRO's.
Ireland Confusion on who does what. €1m for patent; €10m for people, databases and commercial space for
incubation.
External review by agencies,
targets set of licenses, start-up
etc..
Netherlands 10 million. € annually. All PRO's are allowed to
submit proposals. Based on
their proposal the government
can grant a subsidy for this
process of technology transfer.
Norway
€10.1m, €9.6m is available for PROs in general. €0.6m is reserved for 5
universities.
Finland
Some hesitation and reluctance among academic circles,
however, depending on faculties in question
not available
Support is available for all
universities and all PROs.
United Kingdom
Academic freedom vs commercialisation, understanding
of the system
Depends on the initiative; eg over £77m was paid out in total through
HEIF on promoting knowledge transfer in general (not just IP
exploitation).
Second HEIF fund underway
66
QUESTION 18 –
MEASURING OF
MANAGEMENT
AND
EXPLOITATION
(PAGE 1 OF 2):-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
18. Are management
and exploitation of
IPRs in PROs and
public-private
partnerships being
regularly monitored
at national level?
?
?
?
146
?
?/?
147
?
?
?
?
?
148
?
?
?
149
_
_
?
150
?
?
?
151
?
152
?
?
?
153
If yes, do the measures
include:-
- Universities?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
_
?
?
- Other PROs?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
_
?
?
What % of all
universities are
covered by the
monitoring?
_
All
_
_
100
_
All
All
_
_
All
All
All
What % of all PROs
are covered by the
monitoring?
_
All
All
_
80
_
_
All
_
_
_
All
_
146
Belgium (Flanders): Yes (just started).
147
Denmark: Occasionally only. Evaluation of 1999 Act and supportive schemes to be completed in 2004.
148
Ireland: Not regularly, but 2-3 years by Forfas and funders.
149
Latvia: More precisely, there have been attempts to measure. The Central Statistics Bureau published the Innovation Survey Results in 2003. The publication presents information on publications in the field of
innovations, on co-operation in introducing innovations and factors hampering it. Some IPR information is also available. Other statistics are published yearly.
150
Netherlands: No. There are some figures concerning this issue, but there are not general figures covering the whole subject. This issue is being looked at. Especially in combination with the earlier mentioned policy
initiatives, there are some possibilities to measure this on a national scale.
151
Romania: Not at national level. Measured at each PRO level.
152
Slovak Republic: Not at the national level. Measured at each PRO level.
153 UK: Yes, as part of the annual Higher Education-Business Interaction survey (HEBI)
67
QUESTION 18 –
MEASURING OF
MANAGEMENT
AND
EXPLOITATION
(PAGE 2 OF 2):-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
What indicators are
being used?
_
_
- No of patent
applications
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- No of granted
patents
_
_
?
?
?
154
?
?
?
- No of licenses
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
155
?
?
?
- Revenue from
licenses
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
- No of invention
reports
_
_
?
?
- Disclosures
_
_
?
?
- Employment by TT
_
_
?
?
- Spin-outs
_
_
?
- Other
?
?
156
154
Ireland: Some.
155
Ireland; Some.
156
UK: See full report at See full report athttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2004/04_07/04_07.pdf
68
Appendix D
Synoptic Tables Summarising Replies to
Questionnaire in respect of Actions C and D
The synoptic tables attempt to provide a “user-friendly” summary of the replies to the Questionnaires.
In compiling the tables, we have not attempted to interpret any particular reply in any way, but have
done our best to merely record the reply in the table, as it was given in the Questionnaire reply.
When reviewing the tables, you should note the following:-
- A filled in dot signifies a “yes”.
- An empty dot signifies a “no”.
- A dash signifies that a reply should have been given, but was not.
- An empty box signifies that no reply was given, and no reply should have been given.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the
questionnaires, as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to
clarify various replies. However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result,
whilst every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and
D, and the tables included in Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of
finalising this report.
69
QUESTION 1:
TEACHING OF IP
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1. Which body would
be responsible for
teaching (providing
materials) IP courses
in a HEI’s
curriculum?
_
_
_
_
- HEI
?
?
157
?
?
158
?
159
?
?
?
160
?
161
?
?
162
?
?
?
- Patent Office
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Trade Mark Office
?
?
?
- TTOs
?
?
?
- Education Ministry
?
?
- No designated body
?
?
163
?
164
?
157
Belgium (Flanders): The Faculty of Law (Centre for IP).
158 Finland: HEI organise themselves courses sometimes with the assistance of outside professionals
159
Germany: HEI give teaching assignments to temporary lecturers.
160
Latvia: Universities are autonomous. In general, curricula must be accredited, but usually accreditation commissions/authorities do not correct separate study courses. It is the responsibility
of a particular Professor/Chair/Faculty.
161
Netherlands: The Manager Education at each faculty has responsibility to decide which courses are due. At the faculty of law, IPR is one of the courses at BA or MA level. A professor has
some room to manoeuvre and allow the national Patent Office to provide guest lectures.
162
Romania: The Ministry of Education and Research has an agreement signed with WIPO. State Office for Inventions and Trademarks and Romanian Office for Copyright, and Law Faculty.
163
Greece: Not defined. The organiser selects the competent persons.
164
Ireland: Not defined. The organiser selects the competent persons, often a patent agent, the TT executive or an industrial scientist.
70
QUESTION 2:
PROVISION OF IP
COURSES BY HEIs:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2. Are IP courses
provided in HEIs
(either postgraduate
or undergraduate)?
?
_
?
165
?
?
?
?
?
166
?
167
?
168
?
?
Not
e 1
_
?
?
?
?
169
?
170
?
171
_
?
172
?
?
Where yes, details of courses are provided on attached page
165
Belgium (Flanders): Yes, but differences between HEIs.
166
Germany: Yes, in part of HEI.
167
Greece: In law school and post-graduate courses/seminars. The NPO also organises seminars for undergraduates.
168
Ireland: Yes, but there is no uniformity.
169
Portugal: No (in a regular base).
170
Romania: Yes, undergraduate.
171
Slovak Rep.: Yes, undergraduate.
172
Spain: Yes, just for post-graduate.
Note 1: Latvia: It depends on the corresponding curricula/HEIs.
71
QUESTION 2(B): DETAILS OF IP COURSES PROVIDED IN HEIs
(EITHER POSTGRADUATE OR UNDERGRADUATE)
Country Details of IP courses provided by HEI (either postgraduate or undergraduate)
Luxemburg Courses given to all students in 5th of 6th semester of Institut Supérieur de Technologie (recently integrated into the University of
Luxembourg) = technical engineering school. 24 hours module deals with Intellectual Property (12 hours) and technology watch
and competitive intelligence (12 hours). Technology Watch includes a part "Use of Patent Information". The program introduces
patents, trademarks, design, copyright, trade secrets. Technology watch introduces the several patent information sources,
exploitation of information in patent documents and in bibliographic references, exercises: search on espacenet. An examination
takes place at the end of the module. Background of teachers: IP consultant - patent and trademark attorney and patent information
specialist with scientific background.
Netherlands At approx. 20 faculties IP courses have been incorporated in the curriculum. Ten faculties belong to the Technical Universities in
The Netherlands, the others to the General Universities. In all less than 25 % of the faculties where IP courses could be relevant.
Denmark A: Practical courses are provided in technical and life sciences - primarily directed at post graduate students. Duration from 1-13
weeks. B: Theoretical courses are provided by law- and business schools - primarily directed at graduate and undergraduate
students. Duration one semester. Courses are voluntary.
Spain Just for postgraduate. They are stand alone seminars specially addressed to Law specialists, not technicians. The seminars are co
funded by student tuition and external sponsorship.
Romania Undergraduate. 1. IP is taught in Faculties of law as stand - alone programmes. 2. The minimum duration of the IP
teaching is one academic semester. 3 On average, 56
hours (28 hours per lecture + 28 hours per practical lecture) are dedicated to IP teaching per year. 4. The IP courses taught in the
faculties of law are dealing mainly with: patents, know-how, design, integrated circuits, new varieties of plants, trademarks,
geographical indications, licensing, copyright, neighbouring rights, etc. 5. The IP courses at the faculties of law are supported by
the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks and Romanian Office for Copyright. 6. The IP courses at the faculties of law are
funded entirely from HEIs own budget.
Germany In part of HEI. 1), 2) IP can be taught as stand-alone programmes and as one-off seminars. 3) In technical courses: practically
oriented, in non-technical courses: focus on economic aspects (commercialisation). 4) Introduction usually in higher (5th or 6th)
semester, but basically open to all faculties without any restriction. 5) Ca. 28. 6) Different IPR, Internationalisation of IPR, IPC, use
of IP-databases etc. 7) Scripts by lecturers, free materials e.g. by PO, brochures developed within the INSTI-project (funded by the
Federal Ministry of Education an Research) and brochures, developed by institutions and initiatives who concern themselves
professionally with IPR. 8) The state of Germany, the federal states, third party funds and HEI themselves. 9) Ca. 6.000. 10) Yes. If
IP is taught as compulsory subject choice, they even get a mark. 11) Patent attorneys, patent junior judges, Professors of
jurisprudence and other experts who concern themselves professionally with IPR.
France Seminars and workshops within wider programmes of education- In most cases IP courses are provided In postgraduates
programmes.
72
Country Details of IP courses provided by HEI (either postgraduate or undergraduate)
Israel There are very few courses in IP in the HEI. Most of the courses are given in law faculties and includes all aspects of IP. Some IP
training is given in other faculties ( life science, exact science, business administration, economy) but usually not as a stand alone
issue but as part of courses teaching about economical aspects of R&D. Most of the courses are short (about 40 semester hours).
When the courses are not given in the faculty of law or economy, it is usually intended for advanced students.
The courses are funded by the HEI; in the faculty of law, the IP teachers are lawyers of professors specialising in the subject.
There isn't any organised list of courses or IP training, and the list of courses changes from one year to another.
Slovak Republic 1. Stand - alone subject (IP) - Law Universities 2. Seminar within a wider programme - Technical, Business, Philosophical (Faculty
of Journalism), Art Universities 3. IP is taught in the 3rd. - 4th. year of study, between 1-33 hours 6. Main aspects - Law
Universities (IP Law), Technical Uni. (Patent, Design), Business Uni. (Technology Transfer, Trade Mark), Art Uni. (Copyright),
Journalism (Copyright) 7. IP courses funds HEI 10. There is no certificate 11. teachers, lawyers, experts from Patent Office.
Austria They are stand-alone seminars specially addressed to law specialists and to some technicians. There are only very few general
seminars.
Norway Mostly at postgraduate level. Some study programmes in law schools contain optional courses in IP. A few programmes in law
schools have obligatory courses in IP. In business schools marketing programmes contain IP.
Ireland Under-graduate legal studies only( 8 universities) and post graduate courses/seminars for legal, MBA, business, MSc. Technology
Management and research SET degrees ( MSc & PhD), in larger universities only ( TCD, UCD). Excellent programmes at UCD (
Journey of an Entrepreneur serie and the NITM IPR module).
Italy
Most of the courses are given in law and economics faculties (as industrial law courses) usually in the second or third year and
cover all items of IP but from a legal point of view.
Belgium (Flanders)
The specifics of the IP course vary with the specific HEI. The IP course covers most kinds of IP, including copyright, trademarks,
design right and patent right and they are taught by members of the Faculty of Law at undergraduate level. They are taught at the
Faculty of Law and also in some other Faculties (i.e. Medical Sciences, Engineering, etc.). At postgraduate level, there is a Master
course in IP and several stand alone courses/programs exist, as for example organised by the TTO.
Finland In case of undergraduate studies: general courses in IPR are given at least at faculties of law and faculties of technology. In case of
postgraduate studies: more and more training and typically with tailor-made” content with regard to specific needs of the audience.
UK Courses for IP lawyers are available at many institutions - IP law often being a module in a law degree and many other degrees now
include IP awareness modules (esp. in science/ engineering subjects)
73
QUESTION 3: IP
COURSES AT
UNDERGRADUATE
LEVEL:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
3. Is there a general
obligation on HEIs, at
national level, to
include IP courses in
their undergraduate
programmes?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
173
?
174
_
?
?
?
In science/engineering
courses?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
In business schools?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
In courses for
lawyers?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
175
?
In other fields?
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
_
?
?
173
Romania: Yes (only faculties of law).
174
Slovak Rep.: No, at a national level, part of HEI’s own study programme.
175
Sweden: There is an obligation to include civil law but IP law is not specified.
74
QUESTION 4; IP IN
UNDERGRADUATE
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
4. If IP is not normally
provided in HEI
undergraduate
courses, is there an
intention on the part
of national authorities
to introduce such
training activities in
the near future?
Note
1
_
?
?
?
?
176
?
177
_
?
178
?
179
?
?
Note
2
_
?
180
?
?
?
181
_
?
_
?
182
?
?
Which subjects are
considered most
relevant?
_
_
_
_
Note
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
?
_
- Innovation
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Technology transfer
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Entrepreneurship
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IP tools (patents;
trade marks; designs;
copyright; etc.)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IPR identification,
protection and
exploitation strategies
?
?
?
?
176 Finland: Yes, there is intention more and more to introduce (TT, entrepreneurship, IP tools) especially in the technical universities. But curriculum is decides by HEIs
177
France: Yes – “Plan for innovation Fontaine/Haignere” objectives.
178
Greece: There are discussions initiated by NPO.
179
Ireland: No. Will be considered by the Implementation Group of the National Code of Practice on IPR.
180
Luxemburg: In Luxemburg, university programmes are being set up – not yet defined. If IP courses will be introduced, question has to be reconsidered in one year.
181
Portugal: Yes, in the near future.
182
Spain: Yes, in technical school as a private project.
Note 1: Austria: The design of the courses is done by the academic senate, not by national authorities.
Note 2: Latvia: The Ministry of Education and Sciences does not control in the administrative way the content of curricula and study courses.
Note 3: Denmark: Curriculum decided by HEIs.
75
QUESTION 5: IP IN
POSTGRADUATE
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
5. If IP is not normally
provided in HEI
postgraduate (incl.
Master, PhD), courses,
is there an intention
on the part of the
national authorities to
introduce such
training activities in
the near future?
Note
1
_
?
?
?
?
?
183
_
?
184
?
185
?
?
186
?
_
?
187
_
?
?
188
?
189
?
190
_
_
?
?
Which subjects are
considered most
relevant?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
- Innovation
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Technology transfer
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Entrepreneurship
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IP tools (patents;
trade marks; designs;
copyright; etc.)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
183
France: Yes: “Plan for innovation Fontaine/Haignere” objectives (2005: IP courses for 50% students in engineering courses and business schools).
184
Greece: There are discussions initiated by NPO.
185
Ireland: Is being considered by funders of research. Three-hour IPR seminar will be mandatory for some commercialisation funded researchers in 2004.
186
Italy: NPO is in contact with some HEI’s to set up masters in IP
187
Luxembourg: In Luxembourg, university programmes are being set up. Not yet defined. If IP courses will be introduced, question has to be reconsidered in one year.
188
Portugal: No, in the near future.
189
Romania: Starting with 2005, the programme of the Law University shall include a course in the field of IP.
190
Slovak Republic: At the HEI, no, but only Patent Office provides two year’s accredited postgraduate course on IP and after completion of this course is given a certificate.
Note 1: Austria: The design of the courses is done by the academic senate, not by national authorities. There are some studies where IP is on the curriculum.
76
QUESTIONS 6 AND
7: OTHER IP
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
6. Do any HEIs offer a
Masters in IP for
postgraduate students
(and if yes give
details)?
?
_
?
191
?
?
?
?
192
?
193
?
194
?
195
?
?
196
?
?
?
197
?
198
?
?
?
_
?
199
?
200
?
201
7. Are such activities
being conducted (or
considered) in
secondary education?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
202
?
203
?
204
?
205
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
1?
?
?
_
?
?
?
206
191
Belgium (Flanders): Yes. Mostly available for people with background of law – 10 hrs per week for 1 year – all kinds of IP are covered.
192
France: Yes. CEIPI (patent 560 hrs or trade mark 240 hrs); 250 students. Also, CFEPI (opening 2005). Also, about 10 university degrees awarded after five-year course of
study (IP rights).
193
Germany: Yes, e.g. FH Amberg-Weiden, Bavaria: Engineer in patent system.. In basic course: 75 hrs per week; in main course: 79 hrs per week plus 6 hrs of practice.
Currently 100 students. Subjects: Basics in many fields of technics (e.g. electronics, mechanics), construction/CAD, IPR, patent investigation, patent law, patent system,
patent management, market analysis, marketing etc..
194
Greece: Not exclusively.
195
Ireland: Not exclusively, as a core subject.
196
Italy: Yes, usually together with patent consulting offices. 15/20 students, 10/12 months; copyrights, patents, trade marks, TT, designs, international and national laws.
197
Netherlands: Yes, at the Technical University in Eindhoven. 20 students, 3 months M Sc course in IPR.
198
Norway: No (not complete Masters courses, but some Masters include substantial elements of IP).
199
Spain: Yes. Approx. 20 students, over 400 hrs, dealing with patents, trade marks, TT, designs, international and national laws.
200
Sweden: Yes, but in Sweden a Master is part of undergraduate studies.
201
UK: no standard requirements beyond the usual format of a masters degree.
202
France: Yes. About 1000 IP lectures per annum in secondary schools.
203
Germany: Such activities have been conducted since 1995 within the scope of the project “INSTI-Inventors Clubs”. About 80 of the Inventors Clubs are located at schools,
where pupils get familiar with the basics of the patent system.
204
Greece: In broad sense, yes.
205
Ireland: In broad sense, yes, to encourage science uptake, entrepreneurship and innovation. Not specifically IPR.
206
UK: Yes. The Patent Office has produced a highly popular teaching package called the "THINKkit"
77
QUESTION 8: TRANS-NATIONAL INITIATIVES
Country Are you aware of any trans-national initiatives? Which bodies partake/what do thy cover in such an initiative?
Luxembourg Leonardo/DIPS project: New e-learning course on IP: IP-rights, valorisation,
use of IP-information. LIIP-project (5th framework program) development
of IP awareness creation material, diffusion actions.
LIIP: National IP-offices of 5 countries, partner institutions. DIPS:
IP-consultant, universities, public research centres, private
companies, e-learning experts
Netherlands EU DG- Innovation, World Intellectual Property Organisation- Division
SMEs and universities, European Patent Office, Academy.
IP law and rationale, procedures on granting, costs, patent
literature, patent strategy
Denmark "ScanBalt IP-Region" is under development as an educational network for
the Scandinavian and Baltic Countries for training of IP-professionals.
The initiative is sponsored by The Nordic Innovation Centre and
intended to involve a variety of regional, national and international
actors
Spain There is a consortium between CEIPI (Université Robert Schumann), Queen
Mary and Universidad de Alicante.
Latvia The National Innovation Programme, mentioned in the first batch of answers
Germany
In Japan IPR are compulsory at HEI and in secondary education. There are
currently considerations, to introduce IPR in primary schools.
The state of Japan, HEI, secondary and primary schools.
France
Project : European IP Academy
European Patent Office, National Patent Office and IP teaching
institutes - Training for new and current professionals, IP judges,
managers in business.
Slovak Republic 1. WIPO Academy (2002), 2. WIPO Distance Learning, 3. EPO Academy
1. WIPO+Faculty of Law+Patent Office 2. IP professionals 3.
IPO SR personnel
Austria Training for researchers as part of the programme called uni:invent
HEIs itself Patent attorneys (as part of their self marketing), tecma
(a part of aws)
Ireland
Membership of ProTon, AURIL and ASTP gives technology materials but
this is not aimed at graduates or undergraduates
Country Are you aware of any trans-national initiatives? Which bodies partake/what do thy cover in such
an initiative?
78
Romania 1. There is an ongoing regional cooperation program concluded with
the European Office for Patents, which involves the organisation of
seminars and other assistance means related to IP.
2. Cooperation agreement with OHIM based on which a cooperation
program between OSIM and OHIM is developed in order to prepare
the getting over to the European mark and design.
3. The cooperation program with WIPO based on which WIPO grants
assistance to the Law University.
4. The National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation –
INVENT Program
5. WIPO Distance Learning
Romanian State Office for Inventions and
Trademarks, Ministry of Education and Research,
Law Faculty, other administrative organisations,
WIPO.
Italy
1. In the framework WIPO/Italy cooperation: a Law Master in IP and a
specialisation course (9 months) for professionals and academics who
already have a grounding in IP at the Internationalisation Training
Centre of ILO (Turin, Italy); the curriculum is intended to provide an in
depth examination of the classical topics of IP law as well as a
specialised analysis of the latest developments in the field, protection of
IP both at national and internationals levels, infringements and
remedies, antitrust.
2. LIIP-project (Linking Innovation Intellectual Property) in the
framework of 5th program: development of IP awareness creation
material, diffusion actions.
3. Always in the framework of 5th program there is the project: “Co-
operation Platform for National Patent Offices and Innovation
supporting Organisations by developing and using an IPR-Guide for
SMEs (IPR-Guide) contract n° IPS-2001-40010”.
1. WIPO World Wide Academy, University
of Turin, International Labour Organisation
(ILO)
2. LIIP: National IP-offices of 5 countries
(Luxemburg, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain).
3. IPS-2001-40010: IP-consultant,
universities, public research centres, private
companies, e-learning experts. Anyway,
these initiatives are aimed at SMEs and
PROs.
Finland
There are occasionally international initiatives with the Finnish participation
especially under the aegis of WIPO
National Patent Office organises on an occasional
basis trans-national courses
Portugal 1. WIPO – Distance Learning
2. Project ‘Valorisation of IP system’ part of a programme at the
Economie Ministry support by EU.
Training in IP for people that work in the
universities, private business associations and
technological centres – the training is given by the
National IP office. The National Office gives classes
and organises seminars to disseminate IP from
different universities
UK
Notable is the European IP Academy which has academics as one of its
target audiences
Patent offices in Europe; EPO
79
Appendix E
Possible Issues to be Addressed in the Next Cycle (should it exist)
The group suggests that the following areas be considered by the next cycle, if one is established. The
group had insufficient time to consider each of these points, but recommends that they are the issues
which CREST should take into account when considering the scope of the work plan for the next cycle
(should it exist). It should be noted that these issues are not listed in any particular order of priority.
Some of these issues may require expertise in areas which the next group do not have, and we would
therefore recommend that each issue below be considered by the group with the most appropriate
expertise.
1. Implementation of Recommendation 1: IPR ownership systems :
While the group acknowledges that the existence of three broad groups of ownership systems can be
a source of some confusion, the discussions led to the agreed opinion that all relevant IPR guidelines
should highlight the fact that these three broad groups of ownership systems exist, when developing
IPR guidelines for working with other countries. It should be noted that there was a concern expressed
by some countries regarding this subject and whether it could infringe State Aid rules. The group
agrees that this is a key question which might be looked into in greater depth by the next cycle (should
it exist) and be considered a “cross cutting” issue with other OMC groups (public policy).
2. Implementation of Recommendation 1: Draft guidelines currently being developed by EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA (see: EIRMA etc)
The group supports the development of guidelines in respect of the management and exploitation of
IPR, such as those being prepared by EIRMA, EARTO, Proton and EUA. However, the success of
such guidelines is dependent upon the validation and support of stakeholders. The group would like
to recommend to EIRMA etc. that, once the guidelines have been drafted, that they are brought to the
next cycle of the OMC and for members of the group to conduct a validation and review process.
3. Implementation of Recommendation Three: Sufficiently resourced professional technology
transfer systems
The implementation of this recommendation requires further work by the next cycle (should it exist).
Specific examination of current funding and technology transfer systems needs to be made (nationally,
regionally and trans-nationally) to identify how to create critical mass to achieve professionalisation
and expertise. The group has identified that this is not a straightforward matter. The group therefore
recommends that the next cycle (should it exist) consider the possible criteria for allocation of funding
to Technology Transfer Organisations and Offices. The group recognises that a key factor of the US
system is the incentivisation of Public Research Organisations in respect of technology transfer.
4. Implementation of Recommendation 3: ITTE Project
The outcome and recommendations made in the ITTE Project could be considered by the next cycle.
5. Implementation of Recommendations 3 and 4: Possibility of EU-wide certification and
training programme for technology transfer professionals (see page 25 of report)
The group recognises that many technology transfer personnel come from different areas of expertise
(e.g. science, law, business), and agree that this is good, as there is a need for varying expertise in
this role. In developing and implementing recommendations 3 and 4, the group recommends that the
next cycle look to the professionalisation of other careers where professionals are sourced from a
number of different disciplines, for guidance. Examples of these career structures include marketing,
institutes, controllers and administration.
80
6. Implementation of Recommendations 8 and 9: Technology transfer training and awareness
(see awareness training)
In their deliberations, the group noted that the lack of systematic monitoring of technology transfer
training and awareness initiatives and their impact (many recent activities), leads to an inability to
really understand the impact of awareness training. The group considers this a very important aspect
of awareness training and concludes that the next cycle should specifically address the impact
assessment and the issues surrounding course development.
81
Appendix F
Recommendations: Target audience Scope Impact Support Feasibility
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and operational
rules regarding: ownership, disclosure, compensation, and the
sharing of profits to be created for all stakeholders at a national
level.
Policy makers,
European inno
community in
general
Broad
clarification / understanding of
guidelines on National environment;
aim to set minimum elements of
frameworks to ensure best practices
etc taken up
Long term Average High
2. The group recommends the development of European
guidelines, with respect to the management and exploitation of
IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based
professional associations (EIRMA, EARTO, ProTon and EUA).
Policy makers in
countries with no
guidelines,
technology transfer
staff in both ind and
academia
Average
Simplify interaction between Higher
Education Institute and industry
Average –
up to two
yrs
Average Very high, subject to non-
gov/EC-funded orgs listening
to proposed way fwd
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states
endeavour to ensure that professional technology transfer systems
are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national and EU levels.
Issues to be tackled include:
- The need for professional and skilled people
- The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to be well
organised with critical mass
- The need for incentives throughout the technology transfer chain
(incl career structure and rewards for professionalism)
- The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding
- Incentivised links and collaboration between sectoral, national,
European, and international networks (without creating additional
pan-European associations)
Policy makers Nat
and EC level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
v. Broad - To promote National or
European guidelines,
professionalisation is necessary in the
first instance.
Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of Technology
Transfer Organisations should be improved through IP/ technology
transfer training.
Technology transfer
community
v. Broad -
professionalisation of technology
transfer.
Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
5. The group recommends that awareness initiatives be focussed
more effectively to ensure a higher impact across Europe and
develop an “awareness multiplier” across our innovation system
Nat and EC level v. Broad Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
6. The group recommends that Europe should have a single world-
class professional association/network for technology transfer. All
member states and the Commission should promote cooperation
between Technology Transfer Associations and networks, without
creating additional pan-European associations.
Policy makers Nat
and EC level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
Narrow
Creation of a single body to inform
policy makers and collate data
Requires
several
years to
show
effectivene
ss
High High, if incentivised.
Requires several years to
show effectiveness
82
7. The group recommends the development of IPR performance
indicators in order to balance academic and commercial priorities
in Public Research Organisations.
policy makers Nat
and Ec level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
Narrow
to permit policy makers to identify
best practices etc
Medium
term (to
get quality
data)
High Medium. Requires several
years to establish benchmarks
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of
programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and
awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
European inno
community in
general
v. broad
increase training + general
awareness – macro issue
Long term Average Average / high
Dependent on sustained
investment (results will be
indirect)
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated IP/
technology transfer awareness initiatives for undergraduate
students at a national level
all undergrad
students
v. Broad
awareness of IPR/ technology
transfer for all undergraduate student
Short term Average Average/high
Hard to monitor
83
Appendix G
Glossary of Terms
ASTP: Association of European Science & Technology Transfer Professionals
AURIL: Association for University Research & Industry Links
AUTM: Association of University Technology Managers
COREP: Consorzio Per La Ricerca el’Educazione Permanente
CREST: Committee for Scientific and Technical Research
EARMA: European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
EARTO: European Association of Research and Technology Organisations
EIRMA: European Industrial Research Management Association
EUA: European University Association
Higher Education Institutes: This generally includes universities and higher education providers.
IP: Intellectual Property.
IPR: Intellectual property rights. Includes patents; copyright; database rights; registered designs and
trademarks.
OMC: Open Method of Coordination
Public Research Organisations: Generally, this is considered to include both (a) universities which
undertake research and (b) dedicated research institutes. Note: In several countries, policies relating to IPR
may differ between university and other PRO state research organisations.
Technology Transfer: The four phases of the technology transfer process, namely, the IP creation phase,
the IP identification phase, the IP protection phase, and the IP exploitation phase.
Technology Transfer Association: This includes networks and professional organisations that link
together in respect of various technology transfer activities (e.g. AUTM; ASTP; AURIL; PROTON).
Technology Transfer Office: Generally, this is the department within university/ Public Research
Organisation which is responsible for technology transfer. In some countries, Technology Transfer Offices
may be responsible for activities of several universities or Public Research Organisations.
Technology Transfer Organisations: Centralised groups, which employ personnel to undertake
technology transfer (e.g. national technology transfer organisations (e.g. Innovation Relay Network).
84
Appendix H
Comments received from Latvia 3 June 2004
As usual, I am summarising my reflections on the last WG meeting. After 3-4 May, I would like to
draw your attention to the following.
About the TT: there are different types of TT (Attachment 1), at least two
– transfer of tested technology/products/equipment from one place/company to another;
– transfer from laboratory/demonstration line to the company, producing, marketing, etc.
The second (TT II) type of TT could/must be boosted by IPR, but it isn’t a simple trade IP
procedure. The TT comprises several specific steps, for example, seen in Attachment 2 and 3. It is
impossible to finance TT II by public funds (PF). So, I still don’t agree with the WG that TT must be
funded mainly from public sources. Countries have plenty of possibilities to support TT II, PF
included, but only partially to support/promote.
Of course, there is a practice that TT offices at universities (HEI) are financed by PF, but, in such a
way, we will not catch up with USA. TT II requires a lot of money. And in the “3% initiative”, 2% is
envisaged from industry, but only 1% from PF.
Regarding IRC: Jeffry’s objection that IRC’ main goal is not TT. I am sending by post some
brochures about IRC to all addresses. The TT goal is recommended there. My suggestion is to
continue utilising the existing IRC system for TT. Of course, the WG could recommend to improve
the practice, but it is still acting and has been successfully utilised. And the trend is to self-
financing of IRC.
Regarding professionalism. I don’t think that TT should be taught as a profession. It isn’t just the
same, whether TT is performed in pharmacy or in machine building. For example, students should
have a basic speciality, studying also at specific TT courses.
I have read the Irish “National Code of Practice for Managing Intellectual Property from Publicly
Funded Research”. There are a lot of useful suggestions. A part of them should be applied in our
recommendations. It is especially that Ireland is progressing rapidly.
And I still remind that the USA experience isn’t analysed by the WG. We still don’t analyse, how
our main competitor works.
The WG recommends to develop only guidelines (EU, national). Probably, on the basis of these
guidelines, further elaboration of action plans and their enforcement should be recommended.
It would be desirable to add a glossary to the final report. For example, the key word TT is treated
very differently, especially when reading “The Journal of Technology Transfer”. In a similar way –
other terms, which will be used in the final report.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Uldis Viesturs
85
Attachment 1
3 main ways of development
1. Transfer of new technologies (the goal of IRC, for example); TT.
2. Multiplication of the well-known approved technologies; TM.
3. Innovations: creation and marketing of new/improved technologies, equipment, products, services.
Development of really new technologies, products. Real innovations demanding the activation of the full
scale ERTDI complex. Problems of intellectual property protection/trade arise simultaneously. Grants,
subsidiaries, donations, venture capital are required. Special instruments, science parks, technological
centers/incubators, specific SMEs should be created and supported by special legislation and financing
(NIP, etc.) IPO must arise via NASDAQ, for example.
86
Attachment 2
Conventional stages of R and D and
implementation of results (IP)
Faults,
Losses, Disappointments, Bankruptcy
Possible shortening of performance’s stages speeds up the
development, but increases the risk.
?
Eureka
Licensing
(LCA etc.)
RTDI perfomance
Demonstration
Pilot scale
Evaluation of impacts
on environment,
perception of locality
Country
Design
Feasibility
Capacity
Construction
Start up
Choice of site
Repeated
evaluation
87
Flow diagram of RTDI (+I)P realization and the main financing stages for this purpose
Demonstration projects (EU terminology)
PRINCIPAL EXPENDITURES STAGES FOR RTDI REALISATION
(3 to 7, even 10 years
and more on the average)
using modern INOVATION instruments,
this time can be reduced dramatically, preserving
the products’/services’ quality
Attachment 3
doc_619640114.pdf
The group was composed of a broad variety of participants. These included policy makers from 13 countries, 8 participants from national Patent Offices, 3 members from Technology Transfer Offices and an academic.
Open Method of Coordination
Report of the Expert Group on
IPR AND RESEARCH
First cycle – Final report to CREST
June 2004
2
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP Page 5
CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 6
Context within which the work has been realised Page 6
Summary of Recommendations Page 6
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION Page 9
Background Page 9
Scope of the Group’s Mandate Page 11
Description of Process, phases of work and activities developed Page 12
Difficulties/Barriers encountered and how they were overcome Page 14
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Page 16
Results in respect of Actions A and B Page 16
Results in respect of Actions C and D Page 27
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Page 32
Summary of Key Issues identified and recommendations made Page 32
Recommendations for next cycle Page 32
CHAPTER SIX: APPENDICES Page 33
Appendix A List of Group Participants
Appendix B Details of Presentations made to the Group.
Summary of Recommendations from Presentations
Appendix C Synoptic Tables Summarising the Replies to the Questionnaires
in respect of Actions A and B
Appendix D Synoptic Tables Summarising the Replies to the Questionnaire in
respect of Actions C and D
Appendix E Possible issues to be addressed in the next cycle of OMC
Appendix F Impact assessment on recommendations- scope, target audience
and feasibility to implement at national/ EU level.
Appendix G Glossary of Terms
Appendix H Comments received from Latvia 3 June 2004
3
GROUP MEMBERSHIP
Country Name Organisation
Chair
Ena Prosser Enterprise Ireland Biotechnology Directorate
Consultant/facilitator
Tara Mac Mahon Independent Consultant, Ireland
Austria Georg Buchtela Austria Wirtschaftsservice
Belgium
Patrick Chaltin KU Leuven Research & Development
Belgium Nathalie Van Den Bossche
H. Bracquene
Ministère de la Communauté Française
Cyprus Elena Zacharuadou Law Office of the Republic
Denmark
Kaare Jarl Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Finland
Tuomas Aho Ministry of Trade and Industry
France
Alain Gallochat Ministère de la Recherche, Direction de la Technologie
Germany
Klaus Weber Federal Ministry for Education and Research
Greece
Emmanuel Samuelides Industrial Property Organisation
Ireland
Martin Shanagher Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Israel Hadas Ferber Israel Europe R&D Directorate
Italy Daniela Carosi Ministry of Productive Activities – Italian Trade Mark
and Patent Office (UIBM)
Latvia
Uldis Viesturs Institute of Microbiology and Biotechnology
Luxemburg
Serge Juchem Ministère de l’Economie
Netherlands Jeffry Matakupan Ministry of Economic Affairs
Norway
Sidsel Arbo Ministry of Trade and Industry Adviser
Portugal
Leonor Trindade Instituto Nacional para a Propriedede Industrial
Romania
Narcisa Tanase Ministry of Education, Research and Youth Directorate
for Technology Transfer and Innovation
Slovak Republic
Lucia Lalikova Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Andrej Piano Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
Spain Gerardo Pinas Ministry of Science and Technology, Spanish Office of
Patents and Marks
Sweden Catharina Sojde Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems,
United Kingdom
Janette McNeill,
Richard Mulcahy
Barbara Squires
Mark Bryant
UK Patent Office
4
European Commission
Secretariat
Denis Dambois
Frank Moeschler
5
CHAPTER ONE: COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP
The group was composed of a broad variety of participants. These included policy makers from 13
countries, 8 participants from national Patent Offices, 3 members from Technology Transfer Offices and
an academic. Of all of the Committee for Scientific and Technical Research (CREST) members, only
Iceland and Lithuania did not have representatives at any of the meetings.
Dr. Ena Prosser (IE) was appointed Chairperson of the intellectual property rights (IPR) group. Ms Tara
Mac Mahon was appointed facilitator in April 2004.
The broad mix of skills that were represented was an important asset to this expert group as it permitted
us to broaden the debate and gain non-governmental views on prospective recommendations which were
being suggested. The Action items covered by the group concerned both education and enterprise policy.
In hindsight, additional members with education policy experience may have assisted the progress in
Action C and Action D.
The table below shows the composition of the full group. The names and titles of individual members may
be seen in Appendix A.
Table 1: Multidisciplinary Composition of the Expert Group
Government Non-Government
Policy
National Patent
Office
TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
Academic
FI, IE, FR, IL, NL,
DK, BE (W), LU, NO,
SE, CY, RO, DE
ES, IT, PT, SE,
UK, EL, SL, SK
IE, AT, BE (F) LV
Attendance at the meetings was in general good (between 60% and 75% at most meetings bar one).
Indeed, the blame for the meetings with low attendance may partially be due to the short notice and
rescheduling of meetings (see the Table below).
Table 2: Analysis of participation at CREST meetings in Brussels
No. of
attendees
(out of total
of 26)
Note
DEC 18 attendees * Short notice
JAN 20 attendees
FEB 18 attendees
MAR 18 attendees
APR 10 attendees * Holidays
MAY 15 attendees * Change of date
JUNE 13 attendees * Change of date
This suggests that the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) will work particularly well when there is clear
planning of the work programme and outputs, coupled with a continued use of multi-disciplinary skills
recruited from the CREST national systems.
6
CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH THE WORK HAS BEEN REALISED:-
The IPR group has completed a number of objectives as defined in December 2003.
Deliverables from the Group and Timetable.
– The 5 expert groups reported on progress achieved by April 2004.
– The 5 expert groups finalised their first reports by 15 June 2004.
– These reports will be discussed in CREST in July/September 2004.
– CREST will adopt a consolidated report in September 2004.
B THE RECOMMENDATIONS: -
The recommendations outlined below relate to possible joint or concerted actions to be launched by
several member states or by the Commission. This is based on the findings of the expert group in areas
such as:-
a) clarity on IPR ownership and achieving economic growth through clear and simple trans-national
understanding,
b) professionalism of technology transfer officers, and
c) awareness of different IPR regimes and how that relates to entrepreneurial innovation in economic
development.
Additional recommendations relate to the development of European guidelines on certain specific aspects
of IPR and innovation. Finally, the expert group has aimed to give clear guidance on which
recommendations can be addressed by new initiatives at national or EU level (legislative or
standardisation proposals; studies; expert groups).
Additional details of these recommendations are provided in CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS.
The group encourages the CREST group to adopt its recommendations. To assist in the understanding
and to aid their adoption, the group has attached an impact assessment in Appendix F.
7
Recommendations Potential impact Feasibility
A) National IPR systems: Recommendations to achieve
transparency and co-operation in Europe and to maximise
global competitiveness..
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and
operational rules regarding: ownership, disclosure,
compensation, and the sharing of profits to be created for
all stakeholders at a national level. Specific reference to the
requirement and benefit of (mandatory) disclosure to the
Public Research Organisation of all IP is a key gap in some
systems and the group supports the inclusion of clear
disclosure obligations in national systems.
Long term High
2. The group recommends the development of European
guidelines, with respect to the management and
exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by
several EU-based professional associations (EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA). Such guidelines can only be
expected to succeed with the participation and backing of
national stakeholders. The availability of data regarding the
disclosure of inventions, spinouts, licenses and IPR is
considered to be a vital element to understand and to
benchmark systems at a European level.
Average (up to
two years)
Very high, subject
to non-gov/EC-
funded orgs
listening to
proposed way
forward
B) Technology Transfer, people and professionalisation:
Recommendations towards filling a European expertise &
information gap
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states
endeavour to ensure that professional technology transfer
systems are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national
and EU levels. Issues to be tackled include:
a. The need for professional and skilled people
b. The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to
be well organised with critical mass
c. The need for incentives throughout the technology
transfer chain (incl. career structure and rewards
for professionalism)
d. The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding at
national level
e. Incentivise links and collaboration between
sectoral, national, European, and international
networks (without creating additional pan-European
associations)
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of
Technology Transfer Organisations should be improved
through IP/technology transfer training and international
benchmarks should be established.
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
8
Recommendations Potential impact Feasibility
5. Recognising that there are multiple and fragmented
awareness initiatives, the group recommends that they be
focussed more effectively to ensure a higher impact across
Europe and develop an “awareness multiplier” across our
innovation systems.
Mixed short and
long term impact
High, subject to
political support
and finance
6. Recognising that North America has a competitive
advantage in technology transfer due in part to a single
world-class Technology Transfer Association, the group
recommends that Europe should have a single world-class
professional association/network for technology transfer.
All member states and the Commission should promote
cooperation between existing Technology Transfer
Associations and networks, without creating additional pan-
European associations.
Requires several
years to show
effectiveness
High, if
incentivised
Requires several
years to show
effectiveness
7. The group recommends the development of IPR
performance indicators in order to balance academic and
commercial priorities in Public Research Organisations and
strongly encourages the adoption of the North American
model through the implementation of recommendation 6.
Medium term (to
get quality data)
Medium
Requires several
years to establish
benchmarks
C) Innovation awareness: Recommendations to improve
understanding of research, entrepreneurial activity and
innovation across Europe.
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of
programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and
awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
Long term Average / high
Dependent on
sustained
investment
(results will be
indirect)
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated
IP/ technology transfer awareness initiatives for
undergraduate students at a national level.
Short term Average / high but
hard to monitor
9
CHAPTER THREE: INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND:-
Europe must invest in research at all levels to compete internationally. Policies and systems to maximise
the environment in which research investment will thrive must address the national IPR systems in each
country and increase awareness and trans-national co-operation in R&D where possible. Public Research
Organisations have historically held two key missions – those of education and research. However, to
benefit fully from the significant levels of investment in R&D which have been granted to them in recent
years, an additional responsibility has fallen on their shoulders – that of the generation and transfer of
knowledge.
In many cases, open publication and making research results freely available is the most effective means
for knowledge transfer. Indeed, research outputs usually require substantial investment before they can
be brought to market and find applications. Competitive advantage will derive from many factors,
depending on the nature of the market and technology, but protection of the underlying research results is
fundamental for such opportunities to be exploited. The issue is not simply one of protection in order to
encourage commercial investment. University researchers require continuing access to the results of their
research for use in future projects and teaching. This is a key economic and social issue globally.
Within Europe, each member state in CREST has a different innovation system and each member state
has individual IP systems and legislation. These systems can be very broadly classified as:-
a) systems where institutional ownership of IPR is the norm,
b) systems where the inventors (specifically university professors) own the IPR they generate, and
c) a range of additional systems, where the IPR is managed centrally, is controlled by legislation or
where it is co-owned with funding agencies, with Public Research Organisation and others.
While within CREST, the first system dominates in the majority of countries, the lack of understanding of
the differences between these co-existing systems can lead to increased costs in trans-national IPR
management, and can cause unnecessary confusion and wariness in trans-national research. Systems to
increase clarity and understanding are a priority to improve competitiveness and encourage trans-national
research collaboration.
Europe needs to strike a clear balance between the accepted need to disseminate research for the public
good and to protect and exploit research for innovation and economic activity. While this report focuses on
the latter issue, it is important to continue to understand that this balance is vital and necessary for all
successful innovation economies. The role of the Public Research Organisations in the North American
innovation system is generally recognised as the international benchmark for entrepreneurial activity and
innovation derived from Public Research Organisation-based innovation. The existence of a strong
professional non-governmental organisation AUTM
1
, which plays a vital role in the training of technology
transfer professionals, and also collects and analyses accurate metrics, allows the innovation system to
be competitive and responsive to change, and drives best practice and professionalism as a non-
governmental organisation. A summary of the understanding of the North American system gained by the
publication of metrics prepared by AUTM is shown in Figure 1 below.
1
Association of University Technology Managers, www.autm.net/index_ie.html
10
Figure 1: Summary of the North American innovation system from 1991-2001 (courtesy of Columbia
University)
The Commission-funded initiative ProTon
2
was created with the intention of creating an umbrella
organisation that ideally could incorporate all existing technology transfer bodies from across Europe
(COREP
3
, EARMA
4
, CSIC, etc). However, it is clear from discussions that a number of large
representative organisations from within Europe (in particular AURIL
5
and ASTP
6
) offer an alternative
preferred by a majority of PROs in some member states. In addition, DG Enterprise supports a network
of national Technology Transfer Offices (e.g. Innovation Relay Centres (IRCs)).
Technology transfer officers in Public Research Organisations are the personnel who are responsible for
the formal transfer of new inventions, creations, discoveries, innovations, processes and the like which
result from scientific research conducted at Public Research Organisations, to a commercial environment
for public use. Internationally, technology transfer officers are recruited from a broad range of disciplines,
such as science, engineering, law and business.
Unfortunately, there is a general lack of awareness and basic skills regarding IPRs and technology
transfer in society as a whole and, perhaps more alarmingly, in the Research and Technology Transfer
Communities. This is considered by the group to be an obstacle to awareness throughout the innovation
system.
2
www.proton-europe.org
3
Consorzio Per La Ricerca el’Educazione Permanente, www.corep.it
4
European Association of Research Managers and Administrators, www.earma.org
5
Association for University Research & Industry Links, www.auril.org.uk
6
Association of European Science & Technology Transfer Professionals, www.astp.net
11
The group decided to frame its work around the following four Actions:-
Actions A and B, which relate to management of IPR and technology transfer by Public Research
Organisations
Action A: Develop recommendations to help member states review – and, where appropriate,
adapt – their national regimes governing the ownership, licensing and exploitation of IPR
resulting from publicly-funded research, with the aim of promoting technology transfer to industry
and spin-off creation.
Action B: Support the development and implementation of European guidelines for the
management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations and public-private
partnerships. These guidelines will help public research institutions to develop and enforce, on a
voluntary basis, charters setting out the main principles to be applied regarding e.g. the
ownership and licensing of research results, the sharing of revenues, etc.
Actions C and D which relate to IPR, innovation and technology transfer awareness issues:-
Action C: Ensure that before graduating, every student – especially from science, engineering
and business schools – receives basic awareness/training regarding intellectual property and
technology transfer.
Action D: Support EU-wide coordinated IPR/ technology transfer awareness and training
activities targeting in particular the European research community.
B. SCOPE OF THE GROUP’S MANDATE: -
The need for this group came following the Commission’s communication “Investing in research: an action
plan for Europe” (COM(2003)226). The Council invited member states, acceding states and the
Commission to apply the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) to support the implementation of the
Action Plan and the achievement of the 3% objective, and to use CREST as an operational interface.
Five expert groups were established to support CREST in that task and help participating countries in
achieving concrete progress in different fields of action.
The opportunity presented to the European Research Area is to promote the coherence and effectiveness
of the legal IPR regimes applicable in publicly funded research. Such regimes govern, in particular, the
ownership and licensing of university inventions. The example of the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA has
shown that these regimes can have a strong impact on the exploitation of publicly funded research results
and on the associated socio-economic impact. Substantial work was recently conducted or launched,
both by the Commission (various studies from Research DG, the “ITTE” study and expert group currently
managed by the Enterprise DG) and by the OECD
7
. In addition, changes were recently introduced at a
national level, for instance in 2002 in Germany (abolition of the “professor’s privilege”). The OMC group
reviewed the findings and have conclusions from these various activities (see Appendices).
In order to understand the overall framework in which IPR operates at a European level, the group
considered the technology transfer function to be a key aspect of their work. The group considered this
especially relevant in terms of the implementation of any recommendations.
7
Seehttp://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/EN/product/922003021P1
12
The group considered especially the following issues: -
i) The management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations (PROs) from an operational
perspective, taking account of the existing national contexts. In addition to the stakeholders concerned
(Public Research Organisations (which generally include universities and research institutes)), many
bodies
8
called for the development of “charters” or “guidelines” which could facilitate the management and
exploitation of the R&D results and associated IP generated by Public Research Organisations, including
university-industry relationships.
ii) A number of on-going trans-national initiatives specifically related to this OMC group’s work were
identified and considered supportive, including the following:
– an expert group convened by DG Research (report currently being prepared for publication)
9
– the PROTON network funded by DG Enterprise
10
– a “private” initiative jointly prepared by the EIRMA
11
, the EARTO
12
, the EUA
13
and the PROTON
network (with a conference which took place in February 2004).
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS, PHASES OF WORK AND ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED:-
Through the Open Method of Co-Ordination, and from December 2003 until March 2004, the group
agreed its objectives and priorities, developed a common view on its objectives and completed data
collection. From April to June 2004, the group has focused on synthesis, analysis and drafting its
recommendations.
The chairperson steered and organised the work of the group, in accordance with the roadmap and the
work plan agreed by the group and with the Commission. The chairperson also ensured interface with
CREST, to which she regularly reported.
The chairperson identified and appointed a facilitator, Ms Tara MacMahon to assist in the development of
the workplan and the drafting of this report.
The other members of the group, Appendix A participated in the meetings and contributed to all stages of
the group work, liaising as appropriate with other experts in their country. They provided information on
policies and measures in their country according to agreed templates, and other specific contributions as
agreed with the chairperson.
The recommendations and suggested implementation of these recommendations were compiled from
three sources: -
1. Presentations made to the group (see Appendix B).
2. Replies to Questionnaires (see Appendix C and Appendix D).
3. Group discussions in-group meetings, with some sub-group activity between the formal sessions.
8
For instance, the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) proposed “that the Commission establish a Working Party from
Industry and Academia, along with legal and patents expertise, charged with the creation of pragmatic models for Intellectual
Property Rights for industry-university relations in Europe”
(seehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/pdf/recommendations2.pdf)
9
draft report available on the Internet:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/iprmanagementguidelines-report.pdf
10
seehttp://www.gate2growth.com//ProTon.asp
11
http://www.eirma.asso.fr/index.html
12
http://www.earto.org
13
http://www.unige.ch/eua
13
1. Presentations made to the Group
The group attended and discussed a number of presentations (made by both group members and
external invitees), outlining national and other (e.g. OECD; EPO) experiences and initiatives. Details of
these presentations are listed in Appendix B.
2. Replies to Questionnaires:-
The group developed Questionnaires in order to collect the information necessary to properly examine the
four Actions. The aim of the Questionnaires was to produce an overview of the national situations
regarding different aspects of the issues to be addressed, in order to provide a means of comparing the
situation of the different countries and their evolution over time. The replies to these Questionnaires were
then analysed in the context of the above four Actions.
The Questionnaires were completed by the following member states: -
Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Lavtia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Synoptic tables summarising the replies to these Questionnaires are
provided at Appendix C and Appendix D.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the questionnaires,
as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to clarify various replies.
However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result, whilst every effort was made to
ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and D, and the tables included in
Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of finalising this report.
3. Group Discussions
The group discussed various issues arising from the four Actions, from both their personal and national
experiences. The group analysed relevant national initiatives, and identified good practices and possible
obstacles.
While recognising that there were four Action items, the group divided the data generation and analysis
into two key tasks. The group then divided into two sub-groups, with one sub-group considering issues
relevant to Actions A and B, and the other sub-group considering issues relevant to Actions C and D.
Table 3 below outlines the key subgroups selected to drive each theme and draft initial recommendations.
Table 3: Details of the key sub-groups:-
Sub-Group A/B Sub-Group C/D
Focus:
IPR Regimes – National & EU
Level
IPR Training & Awareness
Leader: Jeffry Matakupan Gerardo Penas
Participants:
Catharina Sojde
Georg Buchtela
Patrick Chatlin
Lucia Lalikova
Sidsel Arbo
Daniela Carosi
The sub-groups agreed draft recommendations based on the various discussions between, and
presentations to, the group, and also suggested ways in which these recommendations could be
implemented, with primary focus on:-
- Possible joint or concerted actions to be launched by several member states.
- The development of European guidelines on certain issues.
- The identification of needs to be addressed by new initiatives at national or EU level (legislative or
standardisation proposals, studies, expert groups, etc.)
- Possible implementation steps for the next cycle (should it exist).
14
Copies of each version of the report were circulated to all members of the group for comment, and
minutes of each meeting were also circulated. Each member of the group was given the opportunity to
comment on the issues being discussed and the draft report, at each stage of the OMC process.
A draft report was prepared and discussed in detail at a two-day meeting of the group in Brussels on 3rd
and 4
th
May 2004. A revised draft was then prepared in May, with additional communication between
expert members, with the final draft having been agreed at the expert meeting on 1 June 2004.
Finally, the group briefly considered possible issues to be addressed by the new group, in the next cycle
of work (should CREST agree) (see Appendix E).
The group has found all information gathered from this process to be very useful, and believes that it will
be of substantial benefit to individual member states in the course of developing their IPR and research
systems. Individual group members intend to use the information collated in the course of this CREST
work at a national level, following completion of the report.
D. DIFFICULTIES/BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED AND HOW THEY WERE OVERCOME:-
There were three main difficulties and barriers encountered during the first cycle of the OMC process.
1. Timing:
Issue: The tight deadlines which were imposed upon the group and the relatively “heavy” procedural
burden put upon it meant that the group was under constant pressure and was rarely able to consider
issues in the depth which it would have liked, having to focus upon the next deliverable. Also, the short
time span between meetings meant that progress between each meeting was often little, and
representatives did not have time to interact with colleagues. Furthermore, the lack of time most
participants had in which to actively engage in the process meant that the chairperson was unable to call
upon sufficient additional resources from within the group to meet the requirements being made by
CREST.
Solution found: Having expressed concerns about this state of play to the Commission secretariat, an
appropriate facilitator was identified and hired in April to assist the group in the drafting of the final report.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree):
a) to either extend the length of the next cycle, or to diminish the work-programme.
b) to extend the time between meetings to between 1.5 months and 2 months.
c) to ensure that individuals who participate at the meeting are given sufficient time in which to assist the
process and to consult with colleagues, both within their administrations and externally with
representative associations.
d) representatives should be expected to serve for a minimum of 1 to 2 years (preferably) on the CREST
expert group and, if changes in staffing occur, a handover meeting should take place where both
participants are present. This would enable members to build closer ties between themselves and
create a more cohesive group. Furthermore, it would avoid, or at least minimise, the extent to which
elements which have been previously discussed or agreed during meetings, need to be revisited, and
would ensure continuity of the discussions. It would also give each group a better opportunity to develop
greater interaction and inter-connection between each of the other OMC groups.
e) to provide a full-time / permanent facilitator (with expertise in the fields under discussion) on which the
Chairperson and/or Rapporteur could call to conduct research and to draft initial reports for further
discussion with the entire group.
f) the group recommends that the next cycle commence with a two-day session, which would include an
informal dinner. This would enable each group member to get to know the other members more quickly,
as well as enabling the group to get to grips with the work programme more speedily.
g) introduction of a procedure whereby members who do not attend any particular meeting are named in
the Minutes of the Meeting. This will emphasise the importance of attendance of the meetings.
15
h) if a further expert group is convened by CREST, some members of the current group should remain, for
continuity and to avoid duplication.
2. Scope of the work:
Issue: The scope of the work programme was overly broad.
Solution found: Two sub-groups were created, who led on half of the workload each. The results of the
sub-groups’ work were then presented to the entire group in the May meetings and the group as a whole
endorsed the recommendations put forward.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree): A narrower work programme
should be adopted. This would ensure that more substantive discussion and procedure. In addition, the
expertise and composition of the next group should be considered carefully. If the members do not
possess adequate expertise in all areas relevant to the proposed Actions for the next cycle, then the work
for which the new group does not have adequate expertise should be re-allocated to another more
appropriate group.
3. Identification of best/worst practices:
Issue: The group found it difficult to agree on any best practices in respect of any particular aspect of the
Actions, from the questionnaire results. The group did not consider it appropriate to try to identify any
worst practices.
Solution found: The group did not identify any worst practices, and only one best practice – namely, the
UK’s publication of national statistics in respect of technology transfer activities. Also, for those countries
considering national guidelines, the recently published Irish guidelines, and the process for developing
guidelines, was generally welcomed.
Procedural recommendation for the next cycle (should CREST agree): The group should be instructed to
only identify best and worst practices if doing so would be beneficial to the group/the report.
16
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1 – ACTIONS A AND B:
MANAGEMENT OF IPR AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY PUBLIC
RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS
Action A: Develop recommendations to help member states review – and, where appropriate,
adapt – their national regimes governing the ownership, licensing and exploitation of IPR resulting
from publicly-funded research, with the aim of promoting technology transfer to industry and spin-
off creation.
Action B: Support the development and implementation of European guidelines for the
management and exploitation of IPR in Public Research Organisations and public-private
partnerships. These guidelines will help public research institutions to develop and enforce, on a
voluntary basis, charters setting out the main principles to be applied regarding e.g. the ownership
and licensing of research results, the sharing of revenues, etc.
4.1.A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF RECENT AND PLANNED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS/MEASURES IN
MEMBER STATES:-
Both legislation and key policies in the field of IP are dynamic in many CREST member states – they are
ever-changing and rarely static. As a result, it is extremely difficult to carry out a clear analysis of what
does or does not work in this controversial field. This is especially true when one seeks to contrast a
national or European system with the North American model, especially given that the innovation cycle is
generally 5-10 years and that retrospective analysis is difficult in this area. This will also impact the
collection of metrics on European innovation systems, as the changes in national regimes may take
several years to impact on innovation data.
From the responses received to the Questionnaires, at least nine of the member states are intending to
make some major changes to their national regimes in this field, and eleven others have recently
undertaken them.
Table 4: European IPR: A highly dynamic environment (source : replies to Questionnaires 14, 15 and 16,
from: QUESTIONS 14 – PROPOSED CHANGES)
Currently considering
implementing change
Significant change
in last 5 years
Guidelines / code
of practice
Considering
National guidelines
DK
FI
DE
IL
IT
LV
ES
SE
AT (’03)
CY (’02)
DK (’99)
DE (’02)
IE (’99)
IT (’01)
LV (90’s)
NO (’03)
RO (’03)
ES (’02)
UK (’01)
IE
UK
BE (W)
BE (F)
FR
DE
IL
LV
NL
PT
IT
DK
EL
NO
PT
ES
17
These national initiatives do not take into account the “macro” issues which need to be considered and
which are currently being debated in the EU. These issues include:
• the Community patent,
• the grace period,
• software patenting,
• State Aid and the valuation of IPR transfer within national systems.
The group referred to these issues throughout the first cycle and acknowledged that all of these key
issues have a direct effect on the environment in which users of the system operate. However, they were
considered to be outside the scope of the OMC expert group on IPR and the Actions discussed in this
report.
The group recommends that countries embracing or considering new policies in IPR consult those
member states that have already made the change, or those that are considering change, and learn from
the experiences of the other systems. A number of examples are set forth in this report.
In order to heighten awareness, the group has identified several key elements of IP national systems at
trans-national level where groupings of countries have similar systems. As indicated in other sections of
this report, the group considers that these informal groupings are a valuable tool in cross learning, to
achieve best practice.
Such groupings exist in the following areas:
• Classifications of ownerships systems
• Countries which are considering change and the reasons behind this change
• Countries which have National Guidelines and Codes of Practice
• Countries with national policies on the incentivisation of researchers.
The clear identification of informal groupings or clusters of countries having similar (or at least
comparable) legal regimes, support structures, etc. by CREST can be used to promote focused exchange
of experience and good practices, and further convergence of the national regulatory/administrative
environments and is a clear success for the OMC methodology.
Furthermore, across Europe, in respect of those countries who support guidelines rather than legislation,
the agreed best practice for the development of guidelines is for Governments to develop them in
collaboration with industry, university and other public sector research establishments. Such guidelines
have been introduced by a cluster of countries including IE, UK, BE (W), BE (F), FR, DE, IL, LV, NL, PT in
recent years and could be used by others who are contemplating the generation of guidelines.
4.1.B GENERAL TRENDS: -
(a) Ownership systems
There are three broad groups of ownership systems in our classification (see Table 5 below). The results
of the Questionnaire clearly show that there is a growing trend across Europe towards Public Research
Organisation (institutional) ownership of IPR, as opposed to professor privilege (which still exists or
partially exists in five countries). Germany has adopted such an approach. Finland is considering
changing to institutional ownership in certain circumstances.
18
Table 5: Classification of general ownership systems for publicly funded research (source: replies to
QUESTION 2 – OWNERSHIP OF IPR)
A
Institutional Ownership
B
Professor’s Privilege
C
Alternative systems
IE
UK
BE (F)
DK
FR
DE
SE* (research institute only)
E*L + joint with inventor
IL
L* (for patents)
LV (joint with inventor)
LU
NL
NO
PT (joint with inventor)
ES
SK
FI
RO
SE* (only University
professors)
EL */ joint with Public
Research Organisation
IT
L* (for copyright)
BE (W)
CY
AT
* means ownership can fall
into more than one of the
above three groups of
ownership, depending on
circumstances
The group agrees that the existence of three broad groups of ownership systems is not a barrier in itself
(and therefore no recommendations were made on this subject). While the group acknowledges that the
existence of several systems can be a source of some confusion, the discussions led to the agreed
opinion that all relevant IPR guidelines should highlight the fact that these three broad groups of
ownership systems exist, when developing IPR guidelines for working with other countries. It should be
noted that there was a concern expressed by some countries regarding this subject and whether it could
infringe State Aid rules. The group agrees that this is a key question which might be looked into in greater
depth by the next cycle (should it exist) and be considered a “cross cutting” issue with other OMC groups
(pubic policy).
(b) Lack of Clarity in Rules
From the responses received to the Questionnaires, it is clear to the group that the national rules
governing (a) ownership of, (b) disclosure of and (c) compensation/sharing of profits in respect of, R&D
results (and the corresponding IPR) generated by universities and Public Research Organisations may
appear unclear in some countries, and have no consistency between countries. Without communication
and awareness programmes, the complexity and lack of clarity at national level may hamper and/or delay
the exploitation of university/ Public Research Organisation R&D results, and university-industry relations.
Indeed, unless this awareness is heightened, such discrepencies may result in an uneven playing field,
hampering cross-border collaborations and technology transfer activities.
(c) Technology Transfer, People and Professionalisation
In many countries, technology transfer and Technology Transfer Organisations are not seen as central to
the mission of the Public Research Organisations, and therefore no funding is specifically earmarked for
technology transfer activities. Indeed, it is clear from our survey that no member state has an appropriate
19
system which effectively and equitably incentivises and rewards all individuals who play a part in any of
the four phases of the technology transfer process (i.e. the IP creation phase, the IP identification phase,
the IP protection phase, and the IP exploitation phase).
The questionnaire replies indicate that most countries allow all routes of commercialisation, including spin-
outs, licenses, etc. Several countries (e.g. FI, EL, NO) allow the transfer of rights by assignment. Many of
these mechanisms require specific expertise and industry knowledge to work in practice.
4.1.C RECOMMENDATIONS:-
4.1.C.1) National IPR systems: Recommendations to achieve transparency and co-operation in
Europe and to maximise global competitiveness.
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and operational rules regarding: ownership,
disclosure, compensation, and the sharing of profits to be created for all stakeholders at a
national level. Specific reference to the requirement and benefit of (mandatory) disclosure to
the Public Research Organisation of all IP is a key gap in some systems and the group
supports the inclusion of clear disclosure obligations in national systems.
2. The group recommends the development of European guidelines, with respect to the
management and exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based
professional associations (EIRMA, EARTO, ProTon and EUA). Such guidelines can only be
expected to succeed with the participation and backing of national stakeholders. The
availability of data regarding the disclosure of inventions, spinouts, licenses and IPR is
considered to be a vital element to understand and benchmark systems at a European level.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Systems and rules to maximise the generation and disclosure of new IP
The group strongly recommends that, irrespective of whether a country has an institutional ownership or a
professor privilege regime, all countries should emphasise and develop systems to maximise the
generation and disclosure of new IP at an institutional level in order to maximise commercialisation
possibilities and to enable the auditing, measuring and monitoring of same.
When making any revisions to rules on these issues, the concerns of all parties involved in technology
transfer, including Public Research Organisations, SMEs and large multinationals, should be taken into
account.
Clarification/consideration should be given to whether or not the same rules in respect of ownership,
compensation and sharing of profits should apply to universities and to other Public Research
Organisations (differences are observed in many countries).
The group recommends that the first owner of the IP should consider the best route for
commercialisation, taking particular account of the number of potential fields of exploitation which are
possible for the IP in question, and implications for State Aid rules.
20
(b) Disclosure requirement
Ideally all member states (especially professor privilege member states) should introduce national
systems to maximise the obligation on researchers to disclose details of current research to the
appropriate Technology Transfer Organisation on a regular basis. This will enable universities/ Public
Research Organisations to have knowledge of the current research being carried out at any particular
time. The feasibility for imposing such a requirement may be low in various countries, and these might
consider other mechanisms such as incentivisation / metrics / contract conditions which may reach the
same result.
(c) Possible guidelines re co-ownership
Consideration should also be given to the possibility of introducing clear guidelines on the issue of co-
ownership of IPR. Again, the group reviewed the various EU systems and showed that a wide variety of
systems exist at national level (see replies to Questionnaire 3, Appendix C).
(d) Implementation of Recommendation 1 - national guidelines or legislation
To implement the above recommendation, national guidelines or legislation are considered a good
practice at EU level.
The group has identified those countries that have published national guidelines (see Table 4 above) and
recommends that, where any other country is considering the development of national guidelines, that it
refer to those countries. The key to introducing new rules and the clear lessons from the US, is that
incentivisation is necessary.
The implementation of this recommendation should involve each member state reviewing the summaries
of the replies to the Questionnaire in more detail to identify relevant informal groupings with which they
may wish to achieve cross-learning and achieve best practice.
(e) Implementation of Recommendation 2 - European guidelines in respect of the management
and exploitation of IPR,
Clear and co-ordinated guidelines in respect of the management and exploitation of IPR are the backbone
to effective IPR commercialisation. “Guidelines” in this case were interpreted by the group as a series of
broad principles which would work with national systems.
In relation to Action B, the group supports the development of guidelines in respect of the management
and exploitation of IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based professional associations
(EIRMA
14
, EARTO
15
, ProTon
16
and EUA
17
). However, the success of such guidelines is dependent upon
the validation and support of stakeholders.
CREST should note that the group has not seen the draft guidelines currently being developed by EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA and therefore is unable to comment until these are available to the group.
EIRMA and ProTon presented their initial work regarding these guidelines and the group would like to
endorse their general ambitions. That said, the group raised concerns about the scope of the guidelines
14
European Industrial Research Management Association, www.eirma.asso.fr
15
European Association of Research and Technology Organisations, www.earto.org
16
www.proton-europe.org
17
European University Association, www.eua.be/eua
21
under development, as it was not clear to them that the rather unique needs of SMEs (in particular) were
being considered in their development, at the time of presentation to the expert group.
It is also recommended to EIRMA etc. that, once the guidelines have been drafted, that they are brought
to the next cycle of the OMC (should it exist) or CREST, and for members of that group to conduct a
validation and review process. This step would result in the guidelines being recognised by national
administrations and as such they could be held as being the agreed European guidelines in this field for
all Public Research Organisations. This implementation aid should increase the effectiveness and speed
of adoption of IPR best practice.
The group notes that guidelines could be developed by different groups in isolation, and would encourage
the groups to continue to come together to develop one clear set of guidelines. One way of improving this
exploitation is for Public Research Organisations and industry to agree on European guidelines setting
forth basic principles regarding in particular the management and exploitation of knowledge and IPR. The
“users” would develop the guidelines, but public authorities may play an important role in their
implementation. The guidelines should deal with issues that would be of concern/relevance to SMEs as
well as large multinationals.
If it is decided to develop European guidelines, it may be of particular value to consult with those member
states that have already introduced national guidelines, in order to identify (a) issues that may need to be
dealt with in the European guidelines, and (b) issues that may arise from the introduction of European
guidelines.
Proposals should be made at this consultation phase for national or cluster-group measures to encourage
and facilitate the take-up and the effective use of these new European guidelines, to ensure compatibility
with any pre-existing national guidelines, and to deal with any conflict between the European guidelines
and any pre-existing national guidelines. A single individual/contact point should be identified in each
member state to achieve this.
The group believes that these guidelines will be particularly important for countries where no national
guidelines exist. However, the group did not reach general agreement on whether such guidelines should
be binding.
4.1.C.2) Technology Transfer, people and professionalisation: Recommendations towards filling a
European expertise & information gap: -
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states endeavour to ensure that
professional technology transfer systems are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national
and EU levels. Issues to be tackled include:
a. The need for professional and skilled people
b. The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to be well organised with critical
mass
c. The need for incentives throughout the technology transfer chain (incl. career
structure and rewards for professionalism)
d. The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding at national level
e. Incentivise links and collaboration between sectoral, national, European, and
international networks (without creating additional pan-European associations)
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of Technology Transfer Organisations
should be improved through IP/ technology transfer training and international benchmarks
should be established.
22
5. Recognising that there are multiple and fragmented awareness initiatives, the group
recommends that they be focussed more effectively to ensure a higher impact across
Europe and develop an “awareness multiplier” across our innovation systems.
6. Recognising that North America has a competitive advantage in technology transfer due in
part to a single world-class Technology Transfer Association, the group recommends that
Europe should have a single world-class professional association/network for technology
transfer. All member states and the Commission should promote cooperation between
existing Technology Transfer Associations and networks, without creating additional pan-
European associations.
7. The group recommends the development of IPR performance indicators in order to balance
academic and commercial priorities in Public Research Organisations and strongly
encourages the adoption of the North American model through the implementation of
recommendation 6.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Sufficiently resourced professional technology transfer systems
CREST member states should ensure that there are sufficiently resourced professional technology
transfer systems to facilitate and stimulate the innovation system at a national level. This must be
achieved through the provision of dedicated (earmarked) funding at Public Research Organisation level
and by ensuring there are sufficient professional and skilled people recruited and trained to staff these
offices.
It is essential that these offices are well organised with critical mass locally or achieved through
networking with subject matter experts.
At Public Research Organisation level, it is advised that the US system of incentives throughout the
technology transfer chain (incl. career structure and rewards) is best international practise.
Smaller Public Research Organisations should be incentivised to join forces in order to create a critical
mass and justify the investment in specialist expertise.
High levels of skills and resources are required for IP exploitation to be successful. Member states should
be reminded that the funding of technology transfer activities is a national investment, and is not simply
funding for which it will receive no return. This funding is part of the whole ecosystem of research and
development and this is generally a lengthy return on investment.
Similarly, the group recognises that technology transfer activities are not income generating in the short-
term. The group therefore recommends that each member state should consider developing a financial
scheme to initiate and fund a good technology transfer scheme. This could be the subject of periodic
review.
Consideration needs to be given to, and guidelines created in respect of, the funding of Technology
Transfer Organisations in general and who pays for same (e.g. the Department of Enterprise or Research,
etc.). Proper benchmarks/guidelines need to be set as to how much money should be given.
Self-sufficiency of the Technology Transfer Organisations is possibly the long-term goal, but it may not
happen – the current priority should be to provide adequate funding to ensure the Technology Transfer
Organisations can properly carry out their activities.
23
(b) Implementation of Recommendation Three
The implementation of this recommendation requires further work by the next cycle (should it exist).
Specific examination of current funding and technology transfer systems needs to be made (nationally,
regionally and trans-nationally) to identify how to create critical mass to achieve professionalisation and
expertise. The group has identified that this is not a straightforward matter. The group therefore
recommends that the next cycle consider the possible criteria for allocation of funding to Technology
Transfer Organisations and Offices. The group recognises that a key factor of the US system is the
incentivisation of Public Research Organisations in respect of technology transfer.
Each national administration should look at the various technology transfer systems which exist in other
member states, and evaluate which system best fits their needs. Particular consideration should be given
to whether best practice supports the location of Technology Transfer Organisations being within the
university campus (enabling technology transfer officers to develop a good relationship and trust with the
researchers) or outside the university campus (with private sector incubation, or inter-institutional groups),
or combinations of the above. In some countries, this may be better implemented at Public Research
Organisation level. The outcome and recommendations made in the ITTE Project
18
could be considered
by the next cycle (should it exist).
(c) Publication of revenue details and other metrics; career structure for technology transfer
officers
The group recommends that, where possible (not possible in, e.g., UK; AT; HU), and given the limitations
in this regard due to different national regimes, details of the revenues from IPRs are published at
institution level.
In addition to professionalisation, such transparent metrics will improve the mobility of technology transfer
professionals (between industry and Public Research Organisations) and the natural transfer of best
practices throughout Europe.
A clear career structure for technology transfer officers should also be developed. Lack of career
advancement acts as a substantial disincentive to individuals to join Technology Transfer Offices and
Public Research Organisations to carry out technology transfer activities. Possible criteria for career
advancement could be, e.g.: number of patents filed per annum; number of knowledge transfer events per
annum; number of licenses executed per annum; size of research group.
To understand the relationship between academia, Technology Transfer Organisations and industry, it is
necessary to explore the motivation and incentives that exist at research level. The questionnaire replies
indicate that 7 countries have specific commercialisation/incentive policies in this regard but several of
these countries noted that this is not generally enforced.
The group acknowledges the imbalance of publication over commercialisation of technology transfer in the
promotion and funding of institutions at a national level. This should be addressed as a policy question
(cross cutting issue with policy mix group and university industry group).
18
Seehttp://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/EN/product/922003021P1
24
Table 6: Analysis of member states where innovation metrics inform academic career development
(source: replies to QUESTION 13 – PATENTS /LICENSES AS ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS)
Patents included Not included
Varies at Public Research
Organisation
ES
DK (in principle)
FI
DE
SK
LV
SE
AT
NO
FR (inclusion being
considered)
RO
CY
IL
NL
UK (inclusion being
considered)
PT
BE (F)
IE
In order to benefit both researchers and Technology Transfer Offices alike, the group believes that the EU
should fund the activity, development and collection of metrics through ProTon or ASTP or other unified
associations or networks. Also, to “kick-start” this process, the EU could offer a public prize for the most
successful Public Research Organisation of the EU/ European Research Area in technology transfer.
(d) Incentivisation/rewarding of all members of the technology transfer value chain
Structures/guidelines should be put in place to ensure that all members of the technology transfer value
chain are adequately incentivised and rewarded (both financially and otherwise), in order to
acknowledge/endorse the view that they are all valued professions and critical players in the technology
transfer value chain.
Figure 2: Innovation Value Chain
25
With respect to the IP creation phase, the inventor is the most incentivised. The group recognises that
this is a good principle, but agrees that appropriate incentivisation should also be given to the Public
Research Organisation and to the technicians and researchers who are not the ultimate inventors, and to
the technology transfer personnel. In particular, individuals involved in the IP identification and IP
protection phases are not adequately rewarded. In some countries (e.g. Sweden; Ireland), professors are
incentivised, but public sector Public Research Organisations are not. With respect to the IP identification,
protection and exploitation phases, the development of professionalism in these areas is paramount.
Once professionalism has been achieved, appropriate rewards should be given.
Failure to properly incentivise and reward the individuals involved in the technology transfer process could
result in IP creation, protection and exploitation activities not being fully maximised to their potential.
Consideration should be given to the following: (a) who should be rewarded/incentivised, (b) what financial
rewards/incentives should be given to them, and (c) what other rewards/incentives should be given to
them.
While recognising that incentivisation is good, several experts suggested that a cap should be placed on
the amount of financial rewards that should be given to inventors and researchers. All members did not
accept this.
This recommendation could be implemented through the development of national guidelines in respect of
rewards and incentives, which are reflected at institutional level.
• The group noted that the analysis of the questionnaire replies from the member states revealed
that incentivisation and compensation and sharing profits are generally agreed at institutional
level.
• It is clear that DK, FR, DE, NO, PT, ES and BE(F) have specific systems in legislation or with
Government and approval to support the incentivisation of the technology including allocations of
profits between researchers, their departments and the institution. This cluster of countries could
be used to assess the impact of this measure for towards the generation of European guidelines.
• Skilled professionals are critical to each of the four phases of technology transfer activities, in
order to develop competency and critical mass.
• Inadequate incentives and mis-allocation of rewards has created inequitable elitism within the
profession, with the result that it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain good researchers and
technology transfer officers in the system.
• AUTM was recognised by all of the representatives as an example of best practice – it represents
technology transfer officers, but also provides training for new and existing members as well as
collates data that benchmarks institutions from across the US, Canada and more recently,
Mexico. The summary of the understanding of the North American system gained by the
publication of metrics prepared by AUTM is shown in Figure 1 (see Chapter Three {Introduction}).
The UK has also taken a national approach and has published national statistics
19
, many of which
are directly comparable to the AUTM data.
(e) EU-wide certification and training programme for technology transfer professionals
To implement this recommendation, the group strongly endorses an EU-wide certification and training
programme for technology transfer professionals. The group recognises that many technology transfer
personnel come from different areas of expertise (e.g. science, law, business), and agree that this is good,
19
Further details may be found at the following link:http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_07/04_07.pdf
26
as there is a need for varying expertise in this role. In developing and implementing this recommendation,
the group recommends that the next cycle look to the professionalisation of other careers where
professionals are sourced from a number of different disciplines, for guidance. Examples of these career
structures include marketing, institutes, controllers and administration. The group pointed out that the
transfer of these trained individuals into industry is the norm in the US and that this adds significantly to
the absorption capacity of new start-ups and high technology sectors to adopt new technology through the
networks and expertise of licensing professionals throughout the innovation system.
(f) Development of a single European world-class professional association/network for
technology transfer
The group recommends that national administrations promote collaboration with an appropriate
association, to ensure that it gains critical mass and can become an effective European alternative to
AUTM. The group did not reach agreement that ProTon is the association with which they should
collaborate. Such collaboration may be done through granting contracts for joint work – for example in the
realms of creating a recognised certification of the profession, standardisation, training (courses,
workshops, etc European IP Academy (EIPA).
Recommendations should be made which are aimed at promoting synergies and uniformity in the
collection of data on the patenting/licensing/spin-off creation activities of universities and Public Research
Organisations. Consideration should be given as to the type of data that should be collected.
The group also noted that EU funding could be divisive when one association is funded over another, and
suggests that, in its funding strategies, the Commission adopt strategies that encourage inclusiveness and
consolidation of pan-European Technology Transfer Associations.
27
4.2 – ACTIONS C AND D:
IPR, INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AWARENESS ISSUES
Action C: Ensure that before graduating, every student – especially from science, engineering
and business schools – receives basic awareness/training regarding intellectual property and
technology transfer.
Action D: Support EU-wide coordinated IPR/ technology transfer awareness and training
activities targeting in particular the European research community.
4.2.A. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF RECENT AND PLANNED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS/MEASURES IN
MEMBER STATES AND THE GENERAL TRENDS:-
In European society there is a low degree of awareness about IPR/ technology transfer. This issue has
been recognised by national administrations and it is clear from the consultation that most countries are
implementing IPR awareness initiatives. All but three countries have general awareness-raising initiatives
and members of the group would be keen to see Higher Education Institute courses to begin to include
modules on IPR / technology transfer.
A common approach does not exist in the different countries. The general feeling is that the existing
courses are insufficient. Indeed, they are usually non-compulsory for undergraduates (even for
science/engineering/ business schools students) and their provision could be described as being
inconsistent. Where there exists undergraduate courses, these are primarily for legal undergraduate
degrees. The situation for postgraduates is slightly better, with many courses now offering IP modules as
part of the training. Again, the composition of the group was more biased towards IPR profession and the
group struggled to get complete information from the education experts nationally as this is a new
process.
Table 7: Compulsory undergraduate IP COURSES at national level (source: replies to Questionnaires 3
and 4 of survey re Actions C and D)
YES NO
Considering introducing
broad course
FI
RO
All other member
states who
replied
FI
FR
EL
PT
ES
IE
A key difficulty is that of changing Higher Education Institute curricula throughout Europe. This is partly
due to the variety of the responsible bodies (national or regional public authorities, autonomy of the
universities in some countries, …) and the fact that, although IP awareness is a recognised problem, it
has not been identified as a priority action for European Administrations.
While there are no specific undergraduate courses available, several countries which have Higher
Education Institutes which offer specific Masters of Postgraduate courses in IP include: BE (F), FR, DE,
IT, NL, ES, SE, UK.
28
Table 8: Analysis of proposed course content in those countries considering introducing IPR training in
Higher Education Institutes undergraduate courses (source: replies to QUESTION 4; IP IN
UNDERGRADUATE COURSES of survey re Actions C and D):
Innovation FR, LV, LU, NL, RO, ES, SE
Technology
Transfer
EL, IE, LV, LU, RO, SL, SE
Entrepreneurship EL, IE, LV, LU, NL, RO, SE
IPRs FR, EL, IE, LV, LU, NL, RO, ES, SE
Exploitation
strategies
IE, LV, LT
Most member states are in consensus that awareness and training are crucial, both at EU and national
level. This is not possible without a clear initiative of awareness. The exploitation of academic R&D
results cannot be effectively maximised if public-sector researchers are not aware of the relevance and
importance of such activities (patenting; licensing; creation of spin-offs) and do not have at least a basic
knowledge of the issues which arise in aspects of IP identification, protection and commercialisation.
Such awareness and basic skills are even more important for the graduates to be hired by private
companies. The graduates of the 21st century are no longer expected to focus solely on the production of
new knowledge, but also require awareness of its management, protection and exploitation.
As a general rule, graduates lack experience in IP.
Isolated examples of awareness initiatives (few of them relating to undergraduate science/engineering
training) are:
• UK and IT: IP awareness campaign in secondary schools
• France: regional delivery awareness scheme
• In several countries: post-graduate courses on IP (mainly for IP specialists).
Table 9: Analysis of the key bodies responsible for IPR awareness training in Higher Education Institutes
at a national level (source: replies to Questionnaire 1 of Survey re Actions C and D).IP COURSES
Higher Education
Institute
Patent / trademark
office
Tech TO Education Ministry
AT, BE (F)*, DK*, FI,
DE, IL, IT, IE*, LV,
NL, NO, RO*, SK*,
SE, UK*
DK*, FR, RO*, SK*,
ES*, UK*
BE (F)*, ES*, UK*,
IE*
PT, RO*
While 19 countries indicated that IP courses are provided in Higher Education Institutes as
either undergraduate or post graduate courses, there is considerable variability in the content
and detail at Higher Education Institute level.
A full analysis of the content of key courses was prepared in Q2 (b) of the questionnaire and
is available on request.
“*” signifies more than one body.
In their deliberations, the group also noted that the lack of systematic monitoring of such initiatives and
their impact (many recent activities) leads to an inability to really understand the impact of awareness
29
training. The group considers this a very important aspect of awareness training and concludes that the
next cycle (should it exist) should specifically address the impact assessment and the issues surrounding
course development.
4.2.B. RECOMMENDATIONS: -
Innovation awareness: Recommendations to improve understanding of research, entrepreneurial
activity and innovation across Europe:-.
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of programmes for general IP/
technology transfer training and awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated IP/ technology transfer awareness
initiatives for undergraduate students at a national level.
Factors for Consideration Relating to these Recommendations:-
(a) Development of programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and awareness at
EU level
The group agrees it is desirable and feasible to deal with some of the issues raised above, at European
level. The valuable sources of training and awareness which currently exist should be fully utilised. These
national and international organisations could coordinate to develop an awareness and training
programme which could be implemented at EU and national level, and could work together to promote
convergence and synergies regarding awareness and training (development of common curricula and
material, etc.).
The possibility of developing joint initiatives (setting up networks of universities offering focused training
regarding IP, technology transfer, innovation, entrepreneurship) should be investigated.
The European Patent Office is currently preparing a large-scale initiative aiming to set up a European-
scale IP training institution, the European IP Academy (“EIPA”), also involving national Patent Offices. The
Commission could support this project. The group recommends political support to the EIPA.
(b) Interfacing with national and regional organisations
In parallel with this process at EU level, it will be necessary to ensure interfacing with, and commitment
from, the appropriate national organisations which will be responsible for implementing the IP/ technology
transfer awareness/training programmes at national and regional level (e.g. Higher Education Authorities;
national Patent Offices; DG Enterprise).
National co-ordination is needed to ensure that the awareness and training programme(s) is/are extended
regionally to every Public Research Organisation.
Financial support should be provided at a national level to develop databases of training/awareness
initiatives and implement awareness programmes.
In order to further the development of IP/ technology transfer awareness, the group proposes pilot
programmes (communication and training) to be set up by a voluntary group of EU Higher Education
Institutes and national Patent Offices aimed at researchers and Technology Transfer Organisation staff of
Public Research Organisations. For instance, the French campaign on IP could be extended to other
30
countries. Also, the Portuguese experience (UIPP/GAPI Network/PATLIB Centres) could be used as a
good example.
The development of a European masters on IP/ technology transfer, possibly based on distance learning,
should be considered.
Each member state will need to identify the organisations responsible for implementing the IP/ technology
transfer awareness/training programmes, and ensure that they take local needs into account (local IP/
technology transfer support infrastructure, etc.).
The relevant body(ies) in charge of these issues in each country (national or regional public authorities,
universities, NPOs, …) should be clearly identified and take responsibility to launch or participate in
actions.
(c) Content of awareness and training programmes
Awareness and training need to deal with all aspects of IP as outlined in Table 8: identification, protection
and commercialisation. Emphasis should be placed on:-
- IPR commercialisation;
- the role played by IPR in innovation and entrepreneurship activities;
- issues related to national and trans-national joint ownership (between different Public Research
Organisations and between Public Research Organisations and Industry); and
- training programmes should cover enforcement.
Comprehensive training needs to be provided to all Public Research Organisations throughout all member
states of the EU, in order to develop and promote professionalism within Public Research Organisations.
The training should cover all phases of the technology transfer process (i.e. the IP creation phase, the IP
identification phase, the IPR protection phase, and the IPR exploitation phase – licensing, enforcement,
…), with particular emphasis on technology transfer, patentability, effectiveness of trade secrets, and the
importance of comprehensive lab notebooks, and properly drafted patent specifications and technology
transfer contracts.
(d) Evaluation of “intangibles” in Public Research Organisation’s annual financial statements
Some member states were of the view that each Public Research Organisation should be encouraged
and possibly obliged to evaluate “intangibles” in its annual financial statements (balance sheet and profit &
loss statements), and to provide details of its equity in spin-off companies. As well as serving certain
purposes under Actions A and B (see above), this would also help to raise awareness. This
recommendation was not agreed by all group members, and was contrary to confidentiality provision in
some national regions
(e) Implementation
To implement these two recommendations, the group recognises that awareness and training needs to
extend beyond science, engineering, business schools and the research community in terms of innovation
(e.g. marketing/public relations schools (trade marks and goodwill; design rights); law schools).
It is important that appropriate national contact points (including representatives from the academic
community) are nominated for the next cycle (should it exist).
The group recommends that the IPR Helpdesk could also provide (or act as a portal to) general
information on the IPR system at national level, possibly based on the grouping recommended in this
report (e.g. countries having a professor’s privilege).
The group supports the extension of the researchers curricula and linkage of career progression to the
exploitation of the results of research activity.
31
(f) Suggested implementation steps for next cycle
Some implementation steps for the next cycle could include: -
1. Propose the main features of the pilot plan to be launched.
2. Develop a business plan for European masters course on IP.
3. Create a database of national contacts.
4. Identify best practices when there is more experience.
5. Define other possible roles of IPR Helpdesk in cooperation with DG-Enterprise.
6. Encourage that the skills of a technology transfer professional are defined.
7. Define a possible framework to use IPR and technology transfer data to reward Public Research
Organisation and researchers.
8. Launching the Award.
9. Define metrics.
32
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
A. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE:-
As the first cycle of this OMC methodology, the group supports the methodology as outlined in this report,
and recommends its continuation, subject to several changes.
The group’s key recommendations are comprehensively outlined in CHAPTER TWO: EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, with further comments on these recommendations in CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS and in
Appendix F.
While this report contains summarised statements, significant effort and learning emerged from the data
collection phase and the comparison and understanding of the different national regimes.
The group recommends that the identification of cluster of countries with similar systems, policies and
barriers should be encouraged as a smart method to improve learning and the adoption of best practise in
Europe. The group has identified several areas in this report where it believes that national policy makers
may learn from the experience of others in the following areas:
• Classifications of ownership systems
• Countries which are considering changes (in a specific or in a general way) and the
reasons behind these changes
• Countries which have national guidelines and codes of practice
• Countries with national policies on the incentivisation of researchers
• Countries with postgraduate courses in awareness and IPR management
• Countries with published national metrics on IPR.
In addition, the group also considered the target audience for its recommendations and has aimed to
assist CREST by assessing the feasibility or the anticipated difficulty associated with the implementation
of each of its recommendations.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT CYCLE:-
The group suggests some possible issues to be addressed in the next cycle (should it exist) at Appendix
E. The group had insufficient time to consider each of these points, but recommends that they are the
issues which CREST should take into account when considering the scope of the work plan for the next
cycle (should it exist). It should be noted that these issues are not listed in any order of priority.
In addition, the group refers the reader to Chapter 3 (Introduction), where some suggestions are made as
to how to run the next cycle (see heading entitled “DIFFICULTIES/BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED AND HOW THEY
WERE OVERCOME”)
33
CHAPTER SIX: APPENDICES
Appendix A
Composition of the Group
Country Name Organisation
Chair
Ena Prosser Enterprise Ireland Biotechnology Directorate
Consultant/facilitator
Tara Mac Mahon Independent Consultant, Ireland
Austria Georg Buchtela Austria Wirtschaftsservice
Belgium
Patrick Chaltin KU Leuven Research & Development
Belgium Nathalie Van Den Bossche
H. Bracquene
Ministere de la Communaute Francaise
Cyprus Elena Zacharuadou Law Office of the Republic
Denmark
Kaare Jarl Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Finland
Tuomas Aho Ministry of Trade and Industry
France Alain Gallochat Ministère de la Recherche, Direction de la
Technologie
Germany
Klaus Weber Federal Ministry for Education and Research
Greece
Emmanuel Samuelides Industrial Property Organisation
Ireland
Martin Shanagher Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Israel Hadas Ferber Israel Europe R&D Directorate
Italy Daniela Carosi Ministry of Productive Activities – Italian Trade
Mark and Patent Office (UIBM)
Latvia
Uldis Viesturs Institute of Microbiology and Biotechnology
Luxemburg
Serge Juchem Ministère de l’Economie
Netherlands Jeffry Matakupan Ministry of Economic Affairs
Norway
Sidsel Arbo Ministry of Trade and Industry Adviser
Portugal
Leonor Trindade Instituto Nacional para a Propriedede Industrial
Romania
Narcisa Tanase Ministry of Education, Research and Youth
Directorate for Technology Transfer and
Innovation
34
Slovak Republic
Lucia Lalikova Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Andrej Piano Slovenian Intellectual Property Office
Spain Gerardo Pinas Ministry of Science and Technology, Spanish
Office of Patents and Marks
Sweden Catharina Sojde Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems,
United Kingdom
Janette McNeill,
Richard Mulcahy,
Barbara Squires,
Mark Bryant
UK Patent Office:
35
Appendix B
Presentations
Part One: Presentations made to the Group: -
The group attended and discussed a number of presentations (made by both group members and
external invitees), outlining national and other (e.g. OECD; EPO) experiences and initiatives. Details of
these presentations are:-
Presentation Title Organisation Presentation Speaker
Academic Patenting in OECD
countries.
OECD M. Cervantes
National Code of Practice for
Managing IP from Publicly
Funded Research
ICSTI E. Prosser
European IP Academy
EPO D. Sant
From Science to Business
Techtrans DK J. Damsgaard
French Policy on the
Valorisation of the Results
from Public Research
Organisations.
French Ministry of Research A. Gallochat
The Challenge of Effective
Knowledge Transfer in Europe
ProTon G. Capart
Outsourcing R&D is Not New
at All
EIRMA A. Dearing
Technology Transfer
Institutions in Europe
EC (DG ENTR) C. Lettmayr
Presentation of the Finnish
situation
Ministry of Trade and Industry,
FIN
T. Aho
Presentation on the IRC and
IPRhelpdesk
EC (DG ENTR) A. Escardino
36
Part Two: Recommendations made based on Presentations made to the Group
Recommendations based on the presentation Capart (ProTon)
• The support of the governments and EU for the creation and professional management of intellectual
property within Public Research Organisations ;
• The clarification of IP ownership regimes for public research at a national level (professor’s privilege
vs. ip-ownership of Public Research Organisations.
Recommendations based on the presentation Aho
• The need for clear and widely accepted legal principles (who owns the IP, who and how do you create
a fair compensation for the researcher/ Public Research Organisation, who enforces the IP)
Recommendations based on the presentation Cervantes (OECD)
• Governments and the European Commission should subsidise patenting and licensing costs at Public
Research Organisations;
• Governments and the European Commission should support TTO-networking initiatives (national and
international) to raise the professional level of TTOs;
• Governments and the European Commission should promote IP-training & awareness within Public
Research Organisations.
Recommendations based on the presentation Dearing (EIRMA)
• Public Research Organisations should be provided with the expertise to support the science-business
transfer.
Recommendations based on the presentation Gallochat
• There should be a clear legal-framework concerning the ownership of IP;
• The culture within Public Research Organisations should be changed to a more technology transfer-
friendly surrounding where patents and collaboration with industry are being recognised as part of
their core-business.
Recommendations based on the presentation Lettmayer (DG Enterprise)
• There is a gap between the EU-countries concerning the amount of money spent on TTOs compared
to the Public Research Organisations expenditure on R&D as % of GDP. There seems a need for
several countries to spend more resources on TTOs.
Recommendations based on the presentation Damsgaard
• There should be a clear understanding what the expectations and obligations of Public Research
Organisations are on the subject of technology transfer;
• Public Research Organisations should be able to take an equity-stake in companies.
Recommendations based on the presentation Prosser
• Take sufficient time for the process for making national guidelines;
• Guidelines should be a living document that can flexibly respond and support the wide variety of
contexts that occur with regard to IP.
37
Appendix C
Synoptic Tables Summarising Replies to
Questionnaire in respect of Actions A and B
The synoptic tables attempt to provide a “user-friendly” summary of the replies to the Questionnaires.
In compiling the tables, we have not attempted to interpret any particular reply in any way, but have done
our best to merely record the reply in the table, as it was given in the Questionnaire reply.
When reviewing the tables, you should note the following:-
- A filled in dot signifies a “yes”.
- An empty dot signifies a “no”.
- A dash signifies that a reply should have been given, but was not.
- An empty box signifies that no reply was given, and no reply should have been given.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the questionnaires,
as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to clarify various replies.
However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result, whilst every effort was made to
ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and D, and the tables included in
Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of finalising this report.
39
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
QUESTION 1 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
AT BE
W
BE F CY DK FI
N
FR DE EL IE IL IT LV LT L NL NO PT RO SK SL ES SE UK
1. What governs
ownership of IP
resulting from
publicly-funded R&D
carried out in PROs?
_
_
_
_
- Patent/other IP law
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Employment law
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Contract law
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Business code/ civil
code
?
- PRO/institution
policy/ rules/statutes
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Collective
bargaining agreement
?
- Other
legislation/rules
?
?
?
?
?
40
QUESTION 2 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(a) In general, in
PROs, does the
researcher have
ownership rights in
the IPR?
?
20
?
?
21
?
?
?
22
?
?
Note
1
?
?
23
?
24
_
_
?
&
?
25
?
?
?
26
?
?
_
?
27
Note
2
?
If no, who owns the
rights?
Note
1
_
_
_
Note
2
- PRO
?
?
?
28
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
29
?
?
?
30
- PRO/funding body
?
?
- PRO/funding body/
university/private
sector
?
- PRO/author
?
20
Austria: No for non-academic research (usually due to individual contracts); No for academic research since January 2004 (due to law).
21
Belgium, Flanders: No, but most PROs give the researcher part of the revenues or financial bonus.
22
Finland: Government bill on university inventions is being finalised and expected to be passed to Parliament rather soon. It would expand ownership rights of PROs in case
of contract research
23
Israel: No - but most PROs give the researcher part of the revenues of financial bonus.
24
Italy: Yes, but according to Article 12bis of the Italian Copyright Law, software developed by inventors belongs to the employer, including PROs.
25
Luxemburg: Yes for copyright, no for patents.
26
Portugal: Yes, partially (and partially owned by PRO).
27
Spain: No. The PRO owns the IP, but the researcher has rights to participate in the benefits of the exploitation.
28
France: PRO (i.e. employer)
29
Portugal: PRO, partially (and partially owned by researcher).
30
UK: PRO, but occasionally the funding body.
Note 1: Greece: Depends on PROs, usually joint ownership.
Note 2: Sweden: Researchers at HEI: Yes, owned by researcher; Researchers at research institutions (partly state-owned companies not part of the education system): No,
owned by research institute.
41
QUESTION 2 –
OWNERSHIP OF
IPR
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(b) Does funding play
a role in determining
ownership?
?
?
?
?
?
?
31
?
32
?
?
?
33
?
?
34
?
35
_
_
?
?
?
?
_
?
36
?
?
2(c) What other
factors may determine
ownership?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Not
e 1
- Institution
policy/internal
regulation of PRO
?
?
?
- Value/impact of
invention
?
?
- Decision of PRO
?
- Agreement between
the parties
?
?
- Involvement of
industry/private
sector/external
partners
?
?
?
?
- Partial funding from
private sector
?
?
- No other factors
?
31
Finland: see footnote above
32
France: Yes, if funding from industry & contract.
33
Ireland: Some funders have veto on exploitation, but no ownership or joint ownership.
34
Italy: in case of a research contract between research and industry
35
Latvia: If industry, yes.
36
Spain: Yes, in case there has been a contract with third parties.
Note 1: UK: Contractual arrangements may apply.
42
QUESTION 2(D) -
PAYMENT OF IP
PROTECTION
COSTS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2(d) In general, who
pays for the IP
protection costs?
_
_
_
Note
2
Note
3
_
_
_
Note
4
_
Note
5
- The owner
?
37
?
38
?
39
?
?
40
?
41
?
42
?
?
- The institution
?
43
?
?
44
?
?
45
37
Austria: The owner i.e. the institution; due to the new legal situation there exists a new programme for the universities (uni: invent) disposing of a certain budget dedicated to
finance patents.
38
Belgium Flanders: the owner, except as otherwise stipulated in license agreements/assignments.
39
Cyprus: The owner of the rights, which is usually a PRO or a funding body.
40
France: The owner (otherwise stipulated in the licence agreement).
41
Ireland: The owner i.e. the institution; due to the new legal situation there exists a new programme for the universities (uni: invent) disposing of a certain budget dedicated to
finance patents from government agencies. PRO passes on costs to licensee as soon as possible.
42
Italy: According to the current law, it is the researcher; however most PRO’s finance IP protection costs of their researchers on the basis of a contract. According to article 65
of the draft industrial property code, which Italian government should vote by this year, since IPR belongs to the performing organisation, PRO’s will pay such costs.
43
Denmark: The institution – but often co-financed by licensee or government appropriation.
44
Norway: The institution, if it wants to use its right to commercialise. Otherwise, the researcher.
45
Spain: Universities do not pay fees at all. PRO other than university must pay fees.
Note 2: Israel: In HEI: the HEI or subsidiary; in other PRO: the PRO or the researcher of its research institute.
Note 3: Latvia: The institution and/or the researcher (author(s)/owner(s)).
Note 4: Romania: Where the patent is obtained within PROs, the costs for protection shall be borne by the respective institution, in case this aspect is foreseen in the labour
contract. In case the person who patents is a natural person, the protection costs shall be born by that person.
Note 5: Sweden: If not the researcher himself, the company who buys the patentable invention, government agencies like VINNOVA, NUTEK, Almi, different state-governed
foundations like the Technology Bridge Foundations, or state-owned companies handling the researcher’s patents. For the moment it is very hard to find public money for
patent costs.
43
QUESTION 3 –
JOINT OWNERSHIP
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
3. Describe the
conditions in which
joint ownership
occurs (legally or in
practice).
_
Note
1
_
Note
1
_
- Joint research (e.g. 2
PROs; PRO and
private
partner/company)
?
?
?
?
46
?
47
?
?
- Joint creation
/inventorship
?
?
48
?
?
49
?
- Contract
condition/agreement
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Decision of PRO
?
50
?
?
- Public R&D
employment law
?
46
France: In case of joint research. Joint ownership regulated by legal provisions or contractual agreement.
47
Germany: Occurs only in co-operations between PRO and private companies. Regulation is by private contract.
48
Cyprus: If there are two or more creators and the contribution of each one cannot be separated from the other’s (Law 59/76).
49
Italy: if several persons have developed an industrial invention, the provisions of the Civil Code on joint ownership shall unless otherwise agreed upon, regulate the rights
deriving from the patent.
Note 1: Netherlands and Greece to provide more detail of circumstances where joint ownership arises, if possible.
50
Belgium Flanders: Depending on the contract/agreement
44
QUESTIONS 4-6:
REQUIREMENTS
TO EXPLOIT
PUBLICLY-FUNDED
RESEARCH
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
4. Any requirements
to exploit IP from
publicly funded
research?
?
?
?
51
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
52
?
N 3
- Yes, in law
?
?
53
?
?
?
- Yes, in institutional
policies
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Yes, in funding
provider terms
?
54
?
?
?
?
?
5. Is there a sanction
attached to this
requirement?
?
_
?
55
?
?
56
?
?
?
57
?
58
?
?
59
?
_
_
?
?
?
_
?
60
?
6. If yes, are they
enforced?
_
?
Note
2
?
?
?
61
?
?
?
62
_
_
_
?
63
-
51
Belgium (Flanders): Not in general, but for some, “best efforts” and national/regional exploitation is required,
52
Spain: Not specifically, but it is applicable to all inventions. However, seldom applied.
53
Denmark: Required by law, where PROs have required ownership.
54
Austria: Some funds require it, but quite seldom.
55
Belgium (Flanders): Sanction is re-payment of funding.
56
Denmark: Only sanction: full ownership reverts to inventors if PROs do not evaluate inventions within specified time.
57
Germany: Yes, theoretically, (violation of service regulations)/ No, if an invention has not been recognised as such.
58
Ireland: Theoretically, as the funding contract is breached, damages could be sought. Has never happened.
59
Italy: Where the inventor fails to initiate economical exploitation of the patent within five years after the patent being granted, all the exploitation rights are automatically but
not exclusively transferred for free to the PROs.
60
Spain: Yes – granting compulsory licenses.
61
Germany: To be decided in the individual case. Probably compensation for damages. Up to now, no case has occurred.
62
Italy: This norm is too recent to assess its effects in practice.
63
Spain: Seldom applied.
Note 2: Cyprus to clarify if sanction is enforced.
Note 3: UK: Voluntary guidelines
45
QUESTION 7:
REQUIREMENT TO
EXPLOIT
PUBLICLY-FUNDED
IP
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
7. Do funding body
Terms & Conditions
generally require
commercialisation
strategies to be in
place before funding
made available?
_
_
_
Yes/no
?
?
64
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Depends on type of
funding/type of
project
?
?
?
65
?
64
Belgium (Flanders): No, not in general, but there are exceptions.
65
Greece: Depends on framework, but usually there are such requirements.
46
QUESTION 8 –
RESPONSIBILITY
TO ENFORCE IPRS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
8. Who is primarily
responsible for the
enforcement of
(specific) IPRs?
_
_
_
_
- PROs
?
?
66
?
67
?
?
?
?
- Owner
?
?
68
?
?
69
?
?
?
?
?
- PRO/licensee/other
?
?
?
- Depends on licence
contracts
70
?
?
?
- Other
?
66
Germany: PRO. In case of regulation by contract: licensee
67
Netherlands: In principal, the PRO. In most cases, the PRO would license the IP to a licensee with the requirement to enforce the IP.
68
Denmark: Owner of the IPR. However, in practice, PROs do not actively pursue infringements.
69
France: The owner, or the licensee when stipulated in the licence agreement.
70
For both Austria and Ireland there is no general rule, but usually the research institutions avoid being responsible, as they do not want to take risk.
47
QUESTION 9:
MOST COMMON
EXPLOITATION
ROUTES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
9. What is the most
common route for
exploitation?
_
_
- No specific way –
all possibilities open
?
?
?
?
- Spin-outs
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
71
?
?
?
72
- Licenses
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Transfer of
knowledge
?
- Transfer of Rights
?
?
?
?
- Other
?
?
?
?
?
- Not known
?
71
Norway: Spin-outs have been dominant, licenses of less importance
72
UK: Currently spin-outs, but licensing becoming more common.
48
QUESTION 10;
LIMITATIONS IN
PROS TO
LICENCE/ASSIGN/
TRANSFER
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
10. In PROs, are there
limitations on
licensing/assignment
transfer possibilities?
?
?
?
?
?
73
?
?
?
?
?/?
74
?
?
?
75
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes, please specify-
_
- Joint ownership
_
?
- Certain restrictions
on field/scope and
term of licenses
granted
_
?
?
- Preference for non-
exclusive licence
_
?
?
- Limitation on
transfer possibilities
_
?
73
Denmark: Most PROs have developed institutional strategies on commercialisation.
74
Ireland: Not generally. The National Code of Practice has a preference for licensing rather than assigning.
75
Latvia: No, except the conditions in agreements.
49
QUESTION 11:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
11. Are there
laws/regulations/other
stat provisions
governing: -
(a) Compensation
?
76
?
?
?
?
77
?
?
?
?
78
?
79
?
?
?
_
?
?
80
?
?
81
?
82
?
83
_
?
?
84
?
85
(b) the sharing of
profits/revenues
?
?
?
?
86
?
87
_
?
?
?
88
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
?
?
89
?
76
Austria: Yes, a fair compensation must be paid.
77
Denmark: If PRO claims ownership, the inventing researcher should be compensated. When ownership is offered to the researcher, he should compensate the institution.
78
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, but yes for inventions of employees.
79
Ireland: Yes for universities only, not for other PROs. At universities, fair compensation must be paid. Need to be stated at institutional level. Generally changes with
amount of monies.
80
Netherlands: Inventor must be reasonably compensated for his invention.
81
Portugal: Yes, for public R&D employees only (general rule).
82
Romania: Yes – the income to the owner from exploitation is tax-free for the first 5 yrs since the first implementation taken into consideration since the data of
implementation and included in the period of validity of the patent. The natural persons exploiting the invention, respective owner of the implemented patent shall take
advantage of the above mentioned provisions
83
Slovak Republic: Yes, patent law.
84
Sweden: Yes for research institutions, but no for HEIs.
85
UK: Yes- Patents Law gives some rights to an inventor of a particularly successful invention
86
Cyprus: If agreed between the parties. Law 59/1976 includes provisions concerning the sharing of profits/revenues.
87
Denmark: Yes, sharing of net profits.
88
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, but yes for inventions of employees.
89
Sweden: No, for both HEIs and research institutions.
50
QUESTION 12:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
12. If so, does your
legislation specify the
share between the
parties?
?
?
?
90
?
?
91
?
?
?
?
92
?
93
?
94
?
95
?
_
?
?
?
?
96
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes, please specify
the share (%) for:-
_
Note
1
_
_
_
_
- Researchers
33
97
_
50
98
30
30-
70
= and
not
less
than
50
_
_
33
50
_
33
_
- Department
33
_
25
99
_
0-
30
_
_
_
33
_
_
_
_
- Institution
33
_
25
100
70
0-
40
= and
not
less
than
30
_
_
33
50
_
33
_
- Other
_
_
_
_
_
_
Note
2
_
_
33
_
90
Belgium Flanders: No, but internal PRO regulations do.
91
Denmark: Rules on profit sharing to be developed by individual PRO and approved by the Government.
92
Greece: Not explicitly for PFR, otherwise yes.
93
Ireland: No, but there are norms for over €500k. These norms are provided in the table.
94
Israel: No, but the internal regulations of the PRO may regulate the sharing of profit.
95 Italy: According to article 65 of the draft industrial property code which the Italian government should vote in by this year, the inventor will receive no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the
economical exploitation of the patent.
96
Portugal: Yes, for public R&D employs (general rule)
97
Denmark: The percentage shares outlined above for researchers, department and institution are the typical percentage shares, if IP is accorded to the PRO.
98
France: 50% of net revenues (until a limit of €65k per year and per inventor and 25 % beyond this limit).
99
France: Generally 25%, but up to the institution.
100
France: Generally 25%, but up to the institution.
Note 1: Greece: For invention of employees using the means of employers, 60% for employee and 40% for employer, for service inventions (resulting from contractual obligation) compensation for employee.
Note 2: Norway: Upon Agreement.
51
QUESTION 12:
COMPENSATION/
SHARING OF
PROFITS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Are there sanctions
for non-compliance?
_
?
?
?
101
?
102
_
?
103
?
104
?
105
?
?
?
?
106
_
?
?
107
?
?
?
108
?
109
_
?
110
_
?
111
101
Cyprus: Yes, the sanctions for non-compliance are identical to those referring to breach of contracts.
102
Denmark: No, the inventor can bring his case to court
103
France: Yes (non-compliance with law).
104
Germany: Yes. To be decided on an individual case basis, probably compensation for damages.
105
Greece: Any provision in a contract limiting the rights of employees is invalid.
106
Latvia: Yes, in compliance with the agreement.
107
Netherlands: No, the inventor can bring his case to court.
108
Romania: In case of non-fulfilment of the contract the contractual civil liability shall come into force.
109
Slovak Republic: Yes, general (civil code; business code).
110
Spain: No sanctions on the said specific legislation, but subject to general sanctions on non-compliance regime either on administrative or civil basis.
111
UK: civil law
52
QUESTION 13 –
PATENTS
/LICENSES AS
ACADEMIC
CREDENTIALS
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
13. In your system,
are patents (and/or
licenses) recognised as
academic credentials?
?
_
?/?
112
?
?
113
?
?
114
?
_
?
115
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
116
?/?
117
If yes, to what extent?
_
- For getting a certain
academic status
?
_
- Patent is part of a
science – pedagogical
evaluation to obtain
academic credentials
?
?
_
- Patents considered
like a good publication
?
?
_
- Licensing very
highly recognised
?
112
Belgian/Flanders: Depends on the PRO
113
Denmark: Possible according to provisions on employment of public researchers, but less common in practice. Some research councils recognise patents equally to
scientific publications.
114
France: Not yet, but under consideration
115
Ireland: Noted on national expertise website.
116
Sweden: Some HEIs recognise patents as an academic credential. According to national legislation there is a possibility – but not an obligation to do that.
117
UK: No, however the next Research Evaluation Exercise in 2008 will take into account all aspects of excellence in research including such things as practical application
and enterprise activities.
53
QUESTIONS 14 –
PROPOSED
CHANGES:
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
14. Are any major
changes in the
national regimes being
contemplated in the
near future?
?
?
?
?
?
118
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
119
?
120
If yes, what are the
key points?
- adaptation of patent
law to new
environment
?
?
- changes to patent
laws. Key point
cannot be given until
2005
?
- to investigate the
possibilities re joint
ownership between
HEIs and the
researchers at HEIs,
to enhance the
incentives for the
HEIs to engage in
commercialisation
?
?
118
Denmark: Evaluation of the 1999 act on IP ownership at PRO’s is to be completed early summer 2004. Additional Act on Technology Transfer at PRO’s is expected to be
passed by Parliament in 2004.
119
Sweden: Yes, maybe.
120
UK: No ( Minor changes to practice)
54
QUESTION 14 –
PROPOSED
CHANGES:
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
- adjusting old patent
and copyright
legislation to the needs
of the 21
st
century
?
?
- Draft industrial
property code being
voted on in 2004.
Main terms deal with
authorship,
ownership and profit
share re patents
?
?
121
- regulation of the
researcher’s
share/constitutionality
of current regulation
?
?
121
Italy: According to Article 65 of the draft of industrial property code which Italian Parliament should vote by this year, in PROs IPR belongs to the performing organisation;
the authorship of the patent is acknowledged to the inventor; the inventor will receive no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the economical exploitation of
the patent. If there is more than one inventor, inventorship is shared among inventors; in this case, the share of no less than 30% of any financial return deriving from the
economical exploitation of the patent will be equally distributed among the inventors, unless they had defined a profit sharing criterion proportional to the contribution of
each inventor. The main reason for the change is due to a strong negative reaction of PROs to the 2001 legislation and a pause in patent filing on the part of researchers
linked to PROs.
55
QUESTION 15 –
RECENT CHANGES
TO NATIONAL
REGIMES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
15. Were there
recently any changes
in your national
regime (ownership
provisions etc.)?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If so, when?
‘03
‘02
‘99
‘02
‘99
‘01
90s
‘03
‘03
‘02
‘01
What was their
impact?
- Not identified/too
early to tell
?
?
?
- Abolition of
professor privilege
?
122
?
- Professionalisation
of TT
?
- Build-up of an
infrastructure at
universities to ensure
and support granting
and commercialisation
of patents
?
?
?
- Increase in the
number of patents
?
?
122
Denmark: This can be “impact”, or rather the contents of the new legal regime. If considered impact, more countries should have markings here
56
QUESTION 15 –
RECENT CHANGES
TO NATIONAL
REGIMES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
- Considerable
?
- Universities got right
to take ownership of
patents from
employees
?
?
123
- Re-introduced fiscal
facilities for owners of
patents or for the
licensees
?
123
Ireland: And from funding agencies
57
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
16. Are there national non-
statutory guidelines?
?
?
?
?
?
124
?
125
?
126
?
?
127
?
?
128
?
?
129
_
_
?
130
?
?
131
?
?
_
?
?
?
If no, being considered?
?
?
?
132
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
If yes:
Were they developed/updated
in last five years?
_
?
133
1998
?
?
?
134
?
?
?
?
?
?
Were industry & other
stakeholders involved in their
initial development?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
135
Do they cover govt-funded
research?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Do they cover industry-funded
research at PROs?
?
?
?
?
136
?
?
?
?
?
?
Do they cover co-funded
projects in industry & PROs?
?
?
?
?
137
?
?
?
?
?
?
124
Denmark: Guidelines on public announcements of private funding of public research only.
125
Finland: No official guidelines being considered but at least one private initiative to harmonise practices
126
France: Yes (recommendations for adopting an IP charter).
127
Greece: No, but there are mechanisms supported by the state such as Liaison Offices. There is also legislation which describes in detail the procedure for establishment of spin-off companies to exploit IP.
128
Israel: Yes. Government-funded programmes to encourage transfer of knowledge and know-how from the PROs (esp. HEIs) to industry.
129
Latvia: Yes. However, not only IP, but the full scale from creation to exploitation. It is called National Innovation Programme.
130
Netherlands: National non-statutory guidelines currently being drafted. Will be introduced before end 2004. This table provides details of proposed guidelines.
131
Portugal: Yes, but only in some PROs (IP Regulation on Universities).
132
Denmark: Joint "Code of conduct" on public-private R&D-cooperation is being developed by national industry organisation and national university organisation.
133
Belgian Flanders: Broad guidelines not going into detail about ownership and compensation
134
Greece: Late 1990s
135
UK; as part of the consultation process and on the steering board of MIP guidelines
136
Greece: Yes, under conditions.
137
Greece: Yes, under conditions.
58
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Are they compulsory?
_
?
?
?
/
?
138
_
?
?
?
139
?
_
?
Where they are
compulsory:-
_
_
- Are there sanctions
for not following the
guidelines?
_
?
140
_
_
- Is their application
monitored?
_
?
?
?
_
Where they are not
compulsory:
_
_
- Are they widely
used?
_
?
?
?
?
141
?
_
_
_
N/
K
- Is their application
being monitored?
_
?
142
?
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
- How do you promote
their implementation?
_
_
_
- special gov funding
for PRO/industry who
use guidelines
?
- informing
researchers; publicity;
info; workshops;
?
?
?
?
?
?
- public endorsement
by PROs, unis &
industry
?
?
138
Germany: Some aspects of the guidelines are compulsory whilst others are not (Germany to confirm).
139
Latvia: I wouldn't use the terms: compulsory, sanctions, etc. The goals are: successful entrepreneurship, development, GDP, prosperity, recycling of money invested in RTD, etc.
140
Germany: Yes – payback of development funds.
141
Ireland: Too early to tell.
142
France: Not yet.
59
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Do the guidelines
cover; -
_
Note
1
Ownership issues?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Licensing conditions?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Sharing of revenues?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Negotiation?
_
?
?
?
_
?
143
?
_
_
_
?
Monitoring &
evaluation?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Conflicts of interest?
_
?
?
?
_
_
?
_
_
_
?
Gov funding for PRO
and/or private entities
using the programmes
_
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
?
Support for
exploitation (financial
and administrative)
?
?
143
Ireland: At PRO, not nationally.
Note 1: Latvia to clarify what the guidelines cover
60
QUESTION 16:
NATIONAL NON-
STATUTORY
GUIDELINES
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
Where there are
national guidelines,
what is their key
point/reason for
introduction?
- Regulation of IPR
?
?
- Payback of
development funds
?
- Efficient use of tax
revenues
?
- To speed up &
clarify ownership of
IPR
?
?
- Better use of
university knowledge
?
?
?
?
- Skilled personnel/ to
encourage optimum
use of human
resources at PRO
?
?
- Motivation for
exploitation/stimulate
long-term
partnerships
?
?
?
?
61
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
QUESTION 17:-
NATIONAL KEY
STRUCTURES/
INITIATIVES:-
AT BE
W
BE F CY DK FI FR DE EL IE IL IT LV LT L NL NO PT RO SK SL ES SE UK
17. Are there national
structures and/or
initiatives (other than
guidelines) to support
the management &
exploitation of IPR?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
If yes:-
Are there any
available statistical
records?
?
?
?
?
?
144
?
?
?
_
?
?
_
_
_
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
145
?
On attached page:-
(a) Details and impact of these key structures/initiatives;
(b) Details of barriers faced in the operation of these structures/initiatives;
(c) Details of annual budget available for this support; and
(d) Extent to which the implementation of these support measures is completed.
144
Denmark: Yes, but only limited.
145
Sweden: Yes. There are statistics over patents owned by the holding companies and companies who handle the researcher’s patents. But due to professor privilege it is not
possible to know the total number of patents from research within the HEIs.
62
QUESTION 17 (B): NATIONAL STRUCTURES/INITIATIVES – DESCRIPTION AND IMPACT
Describe the key national structures/national initiatives
If available, what has been the impact of these
structures/initiatives?
Germany (Fraunhofer Company, Max Planck Company, INSTI-Project (INSTI = stimulation of innovations),
funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research since 1995).
Key structures/initiatives: financial aid / training schemes / Installation of networks for different target-
groups all over Germany.
Creating a positive climate for inventors and inventions, increasing
number of patent applications, increasing number of
commercialisation of patents
Portugal Units of support (UIPP) / Financial aid.
Not yet available.
Spain Transfer Technology Network at universities and PRO.
Greater TT indicators at PRO.
Sweden 1) The establishment of holding companies for the HEI. The HEI (with some exceptions) are public
authorities without the right to commercialise. Therefore where these holding companies established. 2)
The establishment of Technology Bridge Foundations with a mission to support commercialisation of
research results from HEI and to enhance the HEI´s cooperation with industry. 3) There is also a work
going on which aims at finding public financing for pre-seed (for example financing to cover cost of
patent).
The creation of new structures for commercialisation within and
around the HEIs (for example companies to handle the researchers
patents), spin-offs, licence agreements and change of attitude towards
commercialisation within the HEIs.
Romania Yes, Governmental Decision on the setting up, functioning, evaluation and assessment of the entities
within the innovation and technological transfer infrastructure, and also the means for supporting it.
Key structures/initiatives: The National Program regarding the setting up the technological transfer
centres, liaison offices with industry, technological and business incubators.
Increase the number of the technological transfer centres, liaison
offices with industry, technological and business incubators.
Latvia Financial aid / tax reductions / training schemes / other.
Not yet estimated.
Austria Uni:invent and tecma, 2 programs giving financial (paying for patents) and non financial support
(marketing of patents) and training,
uni:invent is a new program started recently (1/2003).
Cyprus Financial aid: eligible cost in RTD projects.
N/A
Denmark A - STRUCTURES DIRECTED TOWARDS PRO's - A1: Cross institutional networks for training of
tech trans officers. A2: Financial support for PRO patenting. A3: Cross institutional web-site
www.techtrans.dk. A4: New Act on Technology Transfer to be presented for Parliament in 2004 entitling
PRO's to establish institutional companies for technology transfer. B - STRUCTURES DIRECTED
TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL ENTREPRENEURS - B1: Science Parks. B2: Technology Incubators.
1) Professionalisation of technology transfer.
2) Creation of PRO IPR portfolio.
Ireland There are other groups such as the Programmes in Advanced Technology (PAT’s), Enterprise Ireland,
that work with the Universities with people and services to support university ownership. programs
giving financial (paying for patents) and non financial support (marketing of patents) and training. New
patent support scheme and other project management and expertise supplied to develop business plans
and commercial strategies.
Patent fund is a new program started recently (1/2004). PATs model
has changed, under review.
63
Describe the key national structures/national initiatives
If available, what has been the impact of these
structures/initiatives?
Netherlands There are two policy-initiatives that are being implemented to support the management and exploitation
of IP. The first one is the Knowledge Transfer subsidy-scheme (SKE). This scheme is aimed to subsidy
among other things TTO-offices and the filing of patent applications. The SKE is part of a bigger plan to
stimulate high-tech start-up's. The second initiative is aimed at supporting the creation of a national
network of TTO-officers. The aim is to raise the level of professionalism within the trade of technology
transfer. Both are being in the process of being implemented.
France Contract model project (formally private initiative).
Greece
Bonus to researchers.
Italy In November 2002 Italian universities created a network of TTOs linked to universities themselves with
the following aims:
1. having homogeneous principles and criteria for patent, spin-off and technology transfer;
2. providing available information to support and encourage collaboration among researchers on patents
and the exploitation and commercialisation of inventions through licensing, spin-off and enterprise
incubators.
Main services provided by the TTOs operating in the network are:
• Preparing the disclosure form to evaluate the idea/invention
• Preparing the secrecy agreement form
• Providing fast (< 45 d) evaluation for national patent application
• Supporting and financing the patent procedures (national and international)
• Evaluating the potential market
• Carrying the business negotiation
• Providing technical support for feasibility studies and prototypes
• Managing the administrative activities related to patent exploitation
• Evaluating spin-off projects
• Supporting the business planning
• Providing training on technology transfer.
Norway Financial aid, training schemes (entrepreneurship), research parks and incubators.
We have just recently started to monitor the impact of these
structures/initiatives.
Belgium
Flanders
Monetary subsidies for TTO’s
QUESTION 17 (C): NATIONAL STRUCTURES/INITIATIVES – BARRIERS, SUPPORT AND STAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION
64
What barriers have been faced in
the operation of the national
structures/initiatives?
Which (annual) budget is available for
this support ?
To what extent is the
implementation of these support
measures completed ?
Germany None Cannot be specified Referring to the companies and the project
named under 17., implementation is
complete.
Portugal Lack of information / knowledge.
Spain Certain reluctance in the academic world;
differences in the approaches of TTO and
Professors.
517 Meuros all the universities and research centres
Sweden
The main barriers have been lack of funding
and lack of experience due to a few years of
operation
1) For the first imitative: Each holding company got
about 600K euro when established. 2) For the second
initiative the seven Technology Bridge Foundations
got all together 100 M euro worth of shares in state
owned companies. It was calculated that the income
from capital would be about 550K euro a year
for all seven foundations - which of course was
dependent on the development of the stock exchange.
3) For the ongoing imitative: At the time of the
establishment of the first and the second imitative
there was public financing for pre-seed (for example
financing for cost of patent) available. Now there is
hardly any such financing available. The ongoing
work is aiming at finding pre-seed financing
amounting to 27M euro per year.
1) Not all the HEIs has holding
companies. The research institutes are
companies (partly state owned)
themselves so they don’t need holding
companies. 2) The help from the
technology bridge foundations should be
available for all HEIs (no direct aid to
research institutes) but due to the
foundations financial situation they can’t
help all HEIs and have to prioritise.
Romania
This is a multi annual programme and the budget is
established for each year. 60 mld lei, approximate 1.5
mil euros are available for 2004
Support is available for 100% of the
universities and 75% for the PROs.
Latvia Long explanation, but the bottle-necks are not
only the IPR items.
100 k€ E.g. : Support is available for 75 % of the
universities and all PROs.
Austria 3 mio € Support is available for all universities
and all PROs.
65
What barriers have been faced in the
operation of the national
structures/initiatives?
Which (annual) budget is available for this support ?
To what extent is the
implementation of
these support
measures completed ?
Cyprus Have not been identified. 18.360.000 euros (approx) for the period 2003-2005.
Support is available for all
PROs.
Denmark A: Limited market for public research IPR's. Contrasting
expectations from PRO's and industry. B: Hesitant
venture capital market in recent years. Limited growth
rate in ITC and Biotech industry.
A: Approx. € 2 million annually B: Approx. € 15 million annually. A: Support is available for all
PRO's.
Ireland Confusion on who does what. €1m for patent; €10m for people, databases and commercial space for
incubation.
External review by agencies,
targets set of licenses, start-up
etc..
Netherlands 10 million. € annually. All PRO's are allowed to
submit proposals. Based on
their proposal the government
can grant a subsidy for this
process of technology transfer.
Norway
€10.1m, €9.6m is available for PROs in general. €0.6m is reserved for 5
universities.
Finland
Some hesitation and reluctance among academic circles,
however, depending on faculties in question
not available
Support is available for all
universities and all PROs.
United Kingdom
Academic freedom vs commercialisation, understanding
of the system
Depends on the initiative; eg over £77m was paid out in total through
HEIF on promoting knowledge transfer in general (not just IP
exploitation).
Second HEIF fund underway
66
QUESTION 18 –
MEASURING OF
MANAGEMENT
AND
EXPLOITATION
(PAGE 1 OF 2):-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
18. Are management
and exploitation of
IPRs in PROs and
public-private
partnerships being
regularly monitored
at national level?
?
?
?
146
?
?/?
147
?
?
?
?
?
148
?
?
?
149
_
_
?
150
?
?
?
151
?
152
?
?
?
153
If yes, do the measures
include:-
- Universities?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
?
_
?
?
- Other PROs?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
_
_
?
_
?
?
What % of all
universities are
covered by the
monitoring?
_
All
_
_
100
_
All
All
_
_
All
All
All
What % of all PROs
are covered by the
monitoring?
_
All
All
_
80
_
_
All
_
_
_
All
_
146
Belgium (Flanders): Yes (just started).
147
Denmark: Occasionally only. Evaluation of 1999 Act and supportive schemes to be completed in 2004.
148
Ireland: Not regularly, but 2-3 years by Forfas and funders.
149
Latvia: More precisely, there have been attempts to measure. The Central Statistics Bureau published the Innovation Survey Results in 2003. The publication presents information on publications in the field of
innovations, on co-operation in introducing innovations and factors hampering it. Some IPR information is also available. Other statistics are published yearly.
150
Netherlands: No. There are some figures concerning this issue, but there are not general figures covering the whole subject. This issue is being looked at. Especially in combination with the earlier mentioned policy
initiatives, there are some possibilities to measure this on a national scale.
151
Romania: Not at national level. Measured at each PRO level.
152
Slovak Republic: Not at the national level. Measured at each PRO level.
153 UK: Yes, as part of the annual Higher Education-Business Interaction survey (HEBI)
67
QUESTION 18 –
MEASURING OF
MANAGEMENT
AND
EXPLOITATION
(PAGE 2 OF 2):-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
What indicators are
being used?
_
_
- No of patent
applications
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- No of granted
patents
_
_
?
?
?
154
?
?
?
- No of licenses
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
155
?
?
?
- Revenue from
licenses
_
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
- No of invention
reports
_
_
?
?
- Disclosures
_
_
?
?
- Employment by TT
_
_
?
?
- Spin-outs
_
_
?
- Other
?
?
156
154
Ireland: Some.
155
Ireland; Some.
156
UK: See full report at See full report athttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2004/04_07/04_07.pdf
68
Appendix D
Synoptic Tables Summarising Replies to
Questionnaire in respect of Actions C and D
The synoptic tables attempt to provide a “user-friendly” summary of the replies to the Questionnaires.
In compiling the tables, we have not attempted to interpret any particular reply in any way, but have
done our best to merely record the reply in the table, as it was given in the Questionnaire reply.
When reviewing the tables, you should note the following:-
- A filled in dot signifies a “yes”.
- An empty dot signifies a “no”.
- A dash signifies that a reply should have been given, but was not.
- An empty box signifies that no reply was given, and no reply should have been given.
Numerous requests were made of each member states to confirm that their replies to the
questionnaires, as reflected in this report, were correct. Also, some member states were asked to
clarify various replies. However, some member states did not reply to such requests. As a result,
whilst every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of both the synoptic tables at Appendices C and
D, and the tables included in Chapter 4 (Results), some discrepancies still existed as at the time of
finalising this report.
69
QUESTION 1:
TEACHING OF IP
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1. Which body would
be responsible for
teaching (providing
materials) IP courses
in a HEI’s
curriculum?
_
_
_
_
- HEI
?
?
157
?
?
158
?
159
?
?
?
160
?
161
?
?
162
?
?
?
- Patent Office
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Trade Mark Office
?
?
?
- TTOs
?
?
?
- Education Ministry
?
?
- No designated body
?
?
163
?
164
?
157
Belgium (Flanders): The Faculty of Law (Centre for IP).
158 Finland: HEI organise themselves courses sometimes with the assistance of outside professionals
159
Germany: HEI give teaching assignments to temporary lecturers.
160
Latvia: Universities are autonomous. In general, curricula must be accredited, but usually accreditation commissions/authorities do not correct separate study courses. It is the responsibility
of a particular Professor/Chair/Faculty.
161
Netherlands: The Manager Education at each faculty has responsibility to decide which courses are due. At the faculty of law, IPR is one of the courses at BA or MA level. A professor has
some room to manoeuvre and allow the national Patent Office to provide guest lectures.
162
Romania: The Ministry of Education and Research has an agreement signed with WIPO. State Office for Inventions and Trademarks and Romanian Office for Copyright, and Law Faculty.
163
Greece: Not defined. The organiser selects the competent persons.
164
Ireland: Not defined. The organiser selects the competent persons, often a patent agent, the TT executive or an industrial scientist.
70
QUESTION 2:
PROVISION OF IP
COURSES BY HEIs:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
2. Are IP courses
provided in HEIs
(either postgraduate
or undergraduate)?
?
_
?
165
?
?
?
?
?
166
?
167
?
168
?
?
Not
e 1
_
?
?
?
?
169
?
170
?
171
_
?
172
?
?
Where yes, details of courses are provided on attached page
165
Belgium (Flanders): Yes, but differences between HEIs.
166
Germany: Yes, in part of HEI.
167
Greece: In law school and post-graduate courses/seminars. The NPO also organises seminars for undergraduates.
168
Ireland: Yes, but there is no uniformity.
169
Portugal: No (in a regular base).
170
Romania: Yes, undergraduate.
171
Slovak Rep.: Yes, undergraduate.
172
Spain: Yes, just for post-graduate.
Note 1: Latvia: It depends on the corresponding curricula/HEIs.
71
QUESTION 2(B): DETAILS OF IP COURSES PROVIDED IN HEIs
(EITHER POSTGRADUATE OR UNDERGRADUATE)
Country Details of IP courses provided by HEI (either postgraduate or undergraduate)
Luxemburg Courses given to all students in 5th of 6th semester of Institut Supérieur de Technologie (recently integrated into the University of
Luxembourg) = technical engineering school. 24 hours module deals with Intellectual Property (12 hours) and technology watch
and competitive intelligence (12 hours). Technology Watch includes a part "Use of Patent Information". The program introduces
patents, trademarks, design, copyright, trade secrets. Technology watch introduces the several patent information sources,
exploitation of information in patent documents and in bibliographic references, exercises: search on espacenet. An examination
takes place at the end of the module. Background of teachers: IP consultant - patent and trademark attorney and patent information
specialist with scientific background.
Netherlands At approx. 20 faculties IP courses have been incorporated in the curriculum. Ten faculties belong to the Technical Universities in
The Netherlands, the others to the General Universities. In all less than 25 % of the faculties where IP courses could be relevant.
Denmark A: Practical courses are provided in technical and life sciences - primarily directed at post graduate students. Duration from 1-13
weeks. B: Theoretical courses are provided by law- and business schools - primarily directed at graduate and undergraduate
students. Duration one semester. Courses are voluntary.
Spain Just for postgraduate. They are stand alone seminars specially addressed to Law specialists, not technicians. The seminars are co
funded by student tuition and external sponsorship.
Romania Undergraduate. 1. IP is taught in Faculties of law as stand - alone programmes. 2. The minimum duration of the IP
teaching is one academic semester. 3 On average, 56
hours (28 hours per lecture + 28 hours per practical lecture) are dedicated to IP teaching per year. 4. The IP courses taught in the
faculties of law are dealing mainly with: patents, know-how, design, integrated circuits, new varieties of plants, trademarks,
geographical indications, licensing, copyright, neighbouring rights, etc. 5. The IP courses at the faculties of law are supported by
the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks and Romanian Office for Copyright. 6. The IP courses at the faculties of law are
funded entirely from HEIs own budget.
Germany In part of HEI. 1), 2) IP can be taught as stand-alone programmes and as one-off seminars. 3) In technical courses: practically
oriented, in non-technical courses: focus on economic aspects (commercialisation). 4) Introduction usually in higher (5th or 6th)
semester, but basically open to all faculties without any restriction. 5) Ca. 28. 6) Different IPR, Internationalisation of IPR, IPC, use
of IP-databases etc. 7) Scripts by lecturers, free materials e.g. by PO, brochures developed within the INSTI-project (funded by the
Federal Ministry of Education an Research) and brochures, developed by institutions and initiatives who concern themselves
professionally with IPR. 8) The state of Germany, the federal states, third party funds and HEI themselves. 9) Ca. 6.000. 10) Yes. If
IP is taught as compulsory subject choice, they even get a mark. 11) Patent attorneys, patent junior judges, Professors of
jurisprudence and other experts who concern themselves professionally with IPR.
France Seminars and workshops within wider programmes of education- In most cases IP courses are provided In postgraduates
programmes.
72
Country Details of IP courses provided by HEI (either postgraduate or undergraduate)
Israel There are very few courses in IP in the HEI. Most of the courses are given in law faculties and includes all aspects of IP. Some IP
training is given in other faculties ( life science, exact science, business administration, economy) but usually not as a stand alone
issue but as part of courses teaching about economical aspects of R&D. Most of the courses are short (about 40 semester hours).
When the courses are not given in the faculty of law or economy, it is usually intended for advanced students.
The courses are funded by the HEI; in the faculty of law, the IP teachers are lawyers of professors specialising in the subject.
There isn't any organised list of courses or IP training, and the list of courses changes from one year to another.
Slovak Republic 1. Stand - alone subject (IP) - Law Universities 2. Seminar within a wider programme - Technical, Business, Philosophical (Faculty
of Journalism), Art Universities 3. IP is taught in the 3rd. - 4th. year of study, between 1-33 hours 6. Main aspects - Law
Universities (IP Law), Technical Uni. (Patent, Design), Business Uni. (Technology Transfer, Trade Mark), Art Uni. (Copyright),
Journalism (Copyright) 7. IP courses funds HEI 10. There is no certificate 11. teachers, lawyers, experts from Patent Office.
Austria They are stand-alone seminars specially addressed to law specialists and to some technicians. There are only very few general
seminars.
Norway Mostly at postgraduate level. Some study programmes in law schools contain optional courses in IP. A few programmes in law
schools have obligatory courses in IP. In business schools marketing programmes contain IP.
Ireland Under-graduate legal studies only( 8 universities) and post graduate courses/seminars for legal, MBA, business, MSc. Technology
Management and research SET degrees ( MSc & PhD), in larger universities only ( TCD, UCD). Excellent programmes at UCD (
Journey of an Entrepreneur serie and the NITM IPR module).
Italy
Most of the courses are given in law and economics faculties (as industrial law courses) usually in the second or third year and
cover all items of IP but from a legal point of view.
Belgium (Flanders)
The specifics of the IP course vary with the specific HEI. The IP course covers most kinds of IP, including copyright, trademarks,
design right and patent right and they are taught by members of the Faculty of Law at undergraduate level. They are taught at the
Faculty of Law and also in some other Faculties (i.e. Medical Sciences, Engineering, etc.). At postgraduate level, there is a Master
course in IP and several stand alone courses/programs exist, as for example organised by the TTO.
Finland In case of undergraduate studies: general courses in IPR are given at least at faculties of law and faculties of technology. In case of
postgraduate studies: more and more training and typically with tailor-made” content with regard to specific needs of the audience.
UK Courses for IP lawyers are available at many institutions - IP law often being a module in a law degree and many other degrees now
include IP awareness modules (esp. in science/ engineering subjects)
73
QUESTION 3: IP
COURSES AT
UNDERGRADUATE
LEVEL:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
3. Is there a general
obligation on HEIs, at
national level, to
include IP courses in
their undergraduate
programmes?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
173
?
174
_
?
?
?
In science/engineering
courses?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
In business schools?
?
_
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
In courses for
lawyers?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
?
_
?
?
175
?
In other fields?
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
?
_
_
_
_
_
?
?
173
Romania: Yes (only faculties of law).
174
Slovak Rep.: No, at a national level, part of HEI’s own study programme.
175
Sweden: There is an obligation to include civil law but IP law is not specified.
74
QUESTION 4; IP IN
UNDERGRADUATE
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
4. If IP is not normally
provided in HEI
undergraduate
courses, is there an
intention on the part
of national authorities
to introduce such
training activities in
the near future?
Note
1
_
?
?
?
?
176
?
177
_
?
178
?
179
?
?
Note
2
_
?
180
?
?
?
181
_
?
_
?
182
?
?
Which subjects are
considered most
relevant?
_
_
_
_
Note
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
?
_
- Innovation
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Technology transfer
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Entrepreneurship
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IP tools (patents;
trade marks; designs;
copyright; etc.)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IPR identification,
protection and
exploitation strategies
?
?
?
?
176 Finland: Yes, there is intention more and more to introduce (TT, entrepreneurship, IP tools) especially in the technical universities. But curriculum is decides by HEIs
177
France: Yes – “Plan for innovation Fontaine/Haignere” objectives.
178
Greece: There are discussions initiated by NPO.
179
Ireland: No. Will be considered by the Implementation Group of the National Code of Practice on IPR.
180
Luxemburg: In Luxemburg, university programmes are being set up – not yet defined. If IP courses will be introduced, question has to be reconsidered in one year.
181
Portugal: Yes, in the near future.
182
Spain: Yes, in technical school as a private project.
Note 1: Austria: The design of the courses is done by the academic senate, not by national authorities.
Note 2: Latvia: The Ministry of Education and Sciences does not control in the administrative way the content of curricula and study courses.
Note 3: Denmark: Curriculum decided by HEIs.
75
QUESTION 5: IP IN
POSTGRADUATE
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
5. If IP is not normally
provided in HEI
postgraduate (incl.
Master, PhD), courses,
is there an intention
on the part of the
national authorities to
introduce such
training activities in
the near future?
Note
1
_
?
?
?
?
?
183
_
?
184
?
185
?
?
186
?
_
?
187
_
?
?
188
?
189
?
190
_
_
?
?
Which subjects are
considered most
relevant?
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
- Innovation
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Technology transfer
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- Entrepreneurship
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
- IP tools (patents;
trade marks; designs;
copyright; etc.)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
183
France: Yes: “Plan for innovation Fontaine/Haignere” objectives (2005: IP courses for 50% students in engineering courses and business schools).
184
Greece: There are discussions initiated by NPO.
185
Ireland: Is being considered by funders of research. Three-hour IPR seminar will be mandatory for some commercialisation funded researchers in 2004.
186
Italy: NPO is in contact with some HEI’s to set up masters in IP
187
Luxembourg: In Luxembourg, university programmes are being set up. Not yet defined. If IP courses will be introduced, question has to be reconsidered in one year.
188
Portugal: No, in the near future.
189
Romania: Starting with 2005, the programme of the Law University shall include a course in the field of IP.
190
Slovak Republic: At the HEI, no, but only Patent Office provides two year’s accredited postgraduate course on IP and after completion of this course is given a certificate.
Note 1: Austria: The design of the courses is done by the academic senate, not by national authorities. There are some studies where IP is on the curriculum.
76
QUESTIONS 6 AND
7: OTHER IP
COURSES:-
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
W
a
l
l
o
o
n
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
F
l
a
n
d
e
r
s
C
y
p
r
u
s
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
s
r
a
e
l
I
t
a
l
y
L
a
t
v
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
S
l
o
v
a
k
R
e
p
.
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
S
p
a
i
n
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
6. Do any HEIs offer a
Masters in IP for
postgraduate students
(and if yes give
details)?
?
_
?
191
?
?
?
?
192
?
193
?
194
?
195
?
?
196
?
?
?
197
?
198
?
?
?
_
?
199
?
200
?
201
7. Are such activities
being conducted (or
considered) in
secondary education?
?
_
?
?
?
?
?
202
?
203
?
204
?
205
?
?
?
_
?
?
?
1?
?
?
_
?
?
?
206
191
Belgium (Flanders): Yes. Mostly available for people with background of law – 10 hrs per week for 1 year – all kinds of IP are covered.
192
France: Yes. CEIPI (patent 560 hrs or trade mark 240 hrs); 250 students. Also, CFEPI (opening 2005). Also, about 10 university degrees awarded after five-year course of
study (IP rights).
193
Germany: Yes, e.g. FH Amberg-Weiden, Bavaria: Engineer in patent system.. In basic course: 75 hrs per week; in main course: 79 hrs per week plus 6 hrs of practice.
Currently 100 students. Subjects: Basics in many fields of technics (e.g. electronics, mechanics), construction/CAD, IPR, patent investigation, patent law, patent system,
patent management, market analysis, marketing etc..
194
Greece: Not exclusively.
195
Ireland: Not exclusively, as a core subject.
196
Italy: Yes, usually together with patent consulting offices. 15/20 students, 10/12 months; copyrights, patents, trade marks, TT, designs, international and national laws.
197
Netherlands: Yes, at the Technical University in Eindhoven. 20 students, 3 months M Sc course in IPR.
198
Norway: No (not complete Masters courses, but some Masters include substantial elements of IP).
199
Spain: Yes. Approx. 20 students, over 400 hrs, dealing with patents, trade marks, TT, designs, international and national laws.
200
Sweden: Yes, but in Sweden a Master is part of undergraduate studies.
201
UK: no standard requirements beyond the usual format of a masters degree.
202
France: Yes. About 1000 IP lectures per annum in secondary schools.
203
Germany: Such activities have been conducted since 1995 within the scope of the project “INSTI-Inventors Clubs”. About 80 of the Inventors Clubs are located at schools,
where pupils get familiar with the basics of the patent system.
204
Greece: In broad sense, yes.
205
Ireland: In broad sense, yes, to encourage science uptake, entrepreneurship and innovation. Not specifically IPR.
206
UK: Yes. The Patent Office has produced a highly popular teaching package called the "THINKkit"
77
QUESTION 8: TRANS-NATIONAL INITIATIVES
Country Are you aware of any trans-national initiatives? Which bodies partake/what do thy cover in such an initiative?
Luxembourg Leonardo/DIPS project: New e-learning course on IP: IP-rights, valorisation,
use of IP-information. LIIP-project (5th framework program) development
of IP awareness creation material, diffusion actions.
LIIP: National IP-offices of 5 countries, partner institutions. DIPS:
IP-consultant, universities, public research centres, private
companies, e-learning experts
Netherlands EU DG- Innovation, World Intellectual Property Organisation- Division
SMEs and universities, European Patent Office, Academy.
IP law and rationale, procedures on granting, costs, patent
literature, patent strategy
Denmark "ScanBalt IP-Region" is under development as an educational network for
the Scandinavian and Baltic Countries for training of IP-professionals.
The initiative is sponsored by The Nordic Innovation Centre and
intended to involve a variety of regional, national and international
actors
Spain There is a consortium between CEIPI (Université Robert Schumann), Queen
Mary and Universidad de Alicante.
Latvia The National Innovation Programme, mentioned in the first batch of answers
Germany
In Japan IPR are compulsory at HEI and in secondary education. There are
currently considerations, to introduce IPR in primary schools.
The state of Japan, HEI, secondary and primary schools.
France
Project : European IP Academy
European Patent Office, National Patent Office and IP teaching
institutes - Training for new and current professionals, IP judges,
managers in business.
Slovak Republic 1. WIPO Academy (2002), 2. WIPO Distance Learning, 3. EPO Academy
1. WIPO+Faculty of Law+Patent Office 2. IP professionals 3.
IPO SR personnel
Austria Training for researchers as part of the programme called uni:invent
HEIs itself Patent attorneys (as part of their self marketing), tecma
(a part of aws)
Ireland
Membership of ProTon, AURIL and ASTP gives technology materials but
this is not aimed at graduates or undergraduates
Country Are you aware of any trans-national initiatives? Which bodies partake/what do thy cover in such
an initiative?
78
Romania 1. There is an ongoing regional cooperation program concluded with
the European Office for Patents, which involves the organisation of
seminars and other assistance means related to IP.
2. Cooperation agreement with OHIM based on which a cooperation
program between OSIM and OHIM is developed in order to prepare
the getting over to the European mark and design.
3. The cooperation program with WIPO based on which WIPO grants
assistance to the Law University.
4. The National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation –
INVENT Program
5. WIPO Distance Learning
Romanian State Office for Inventions and
Trademarks, Ministry of Education and Research,
Law Faculty, other administrative organisations,
WIPO.
Italy
1. In the framework WIPO/Italy cooperation: a Law Master in IP and a
specialisation course (9 months) for professionals and academics who
already have a grounding in IP at the Internationalisation Training
Centre of ILO (Turin, Italy); the curriculum is intended to provide an in
depth examination of the classical topics of IP law as well as a
specialised analysis of the latest developments in the field, protection of
IP both at national and internationals levels, infringements and
remedies, antitrust.
2. LIIP-project (Linking Innovation Intellectual Property) in the
framework of 5th program: development of IP awareness creation
material, diffusion actions.
3. Always in the framework of 5th program there is the project: “Co-
operation Platform for National Patent Offices and Innovation
supporting Organisations by developing and using an IPR-Guide for
SMEs (IPR-Guide) contract n° IPS-2001-40010”.
1. WIPO World Wide Academy, University
of Turin, International Labour Organisation
(ILO)
2. LIIP: National IP-offices of 5 countries
(Luxemburg, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain).
3. IPS-2001-40010: IP-consultant,
universities, public research centres, private
companies, e-learning experts. Anyway,
these initiatives are aimed at SMEs and
PROs.
Finland
There are occasionally international initiatives with the Finnish participation
especially under the aegis of WIPO
National Patent Office organises on an occasional
basis trans-national courses
Portugal 1. WIPO – Distance Learning
2. Project ‘Valorisation of IP system’ part of a programme at the
Economie Ministry support by EU.
Training in IP for people that work in the
universities, private business associations and
technological centres – the training is given by the
National IP office. The National Office gives classes
and organises seminars to disseminate IP from
different universities
UK
Notable is the European IP Academy which has academics as one of its
target audiences
Patent offices in Europe; EPO
79
Appendix E
Possible Issues to be Addressed in the Next Cycle (should it exist)
The group suggests that the following areas be considered by the next cycle, if one is established. The
group had insufficient time to consider each of these points, but recommends that they are the issues
which CREST should take into account when considering the scope of the work plan for the next cycle
(should it exist). It should be noted that these issues are not listed in any particular order of priority.
Some of these issues may require expertise in areas which the next group do not have, and we would
therefore recommend that each issue below be considered by the group with the most appropriate
expertise.
1. Implementation of Recommendation 1: IPR ownership systems :
While the group acknowledges that the existence of three broad groups of ownership systems can be
a source of some confusion, the discussions led to the agreed opinion that all relevant IPR guidelines
should highlight the fact that these three broad groups of ownership systems exist, when developing
IPR guidelines for working with other countries. It should be noted that there was a concern expressed
by some countries regarding this subject and whether it could infringe State Aid rules. The group
agrees that this is a key question which might be looked into in greater depth by the next cycle (should
it exist) and be considered a “cross cutting” issue with other OMC groups (public policy).
2. Implementation of Recommendation 1: Draft guidelines currently being developed by EIRMA,
EARTO, ProTon and EUA (see: EIRMA etc)
The group supports the development of guidelines in respect of the management and exploitation of
IPR, such as those being prepared by EIRMA, EARTO, Proton and EUA. However, the success of
such guidelines is dependent upon the validation and support of stakeholders. The group would like
to recommend to EIRMA etc. that, once the guidelines have been drafted, that they are brought to the
next cycle of the OMC and for members of the group to conduct a validation and review process.
3. Implementation of Recommendation Three: Sufficiently resourced professional technology
transfer systems
The implementation of this recommendation requires further work by the next cycle (should it exist).
Specific examination of current funding and technology transfer systems needs to be made (nationally,
regionally and trans-nationally) to identify how to create critical mass to achieve professionalisation
and expertise. The group has identified that this is not a straightforward matter. The group therefore
recommends that the next cycle (should it exist) consider the possible criteria for allocation of funding
to Technology Transfer Organisations and Offices. The group recognises that a key factor of the US
system is the incentivisation of Public Research Organisations in respect of technology transfer.
4. Implementation of Recommendation 3: ITTE Project
The outcome and recommendations made in the ITTE Project could be considered by the next cycle.
5. Implementation of Recommendations 3 and 4: Possibility of EU-wide certification and
training programme for technology transfer professionals (see page 25 of report)
The group recognises that many technology transfer personnel come from different areas of expertise
(e.g. science, law, business), and agree that this is good, as there is a need for varying expertise in
this role. In developing and implementing recommendations 3 and 4, the group recommends that the
next cycle look to the professionalisation of other careers where professionals are sourced from a
number of different disciplines, for guidance. Examples of these career structures include marketing,
institutes, controllers and administration.
80
6. Implementation of Recommendations 8 and 9: Technology transfer training and awareness
(see awareness training)
In their deliberations, the group noted that the lack of systematic monitoring of technology transfer
training and awareness initiatives and their impact (many recent activities), leads to an inability to
really understand the impact of awareness training. The group considers this a very important aspect
of awareness training and concludes that the next cycle should specifically address the impact
assessment and the issues surrounding course development.
81
Appendix F
Recommendations: Target audience Scope Impact Support Feasibility
1. The group recommends the creation of clear and operational
rules regarding: ownership, disclosure, compensation, and the
sharing of profits to be created for all stakeholders at a national
level.
Policy makers,
European inno
community in
general
Broad
clarification / understanding of
guidelines on National environment;
aim to set minimum elements of
frameworks to ensure best practices
etc taken up
Long term Average High
2. The group recommends the development of European
guidelines, with respect to the management and exploitation of
IPR, such as those being prepared by several EU-based
professional associations (EIRMA, EARTO, ProTon and EUA).
Policy makers in
countries with no
guidelines,
technology transfer
staff in both ind and
academia
Average
Simplify interaction between Higher
Education Institute and industry
Average –
up to two
yrs
Average Very high, subject to non-
gov/EC-funded orgs listening
to proposed way fwd
3. The group recommends that the EC and member states
endeavour to ensure that professional technology transfer systems
are sufficiently resourced at institutional, national and EU levels.
Issues to be tackled include:
- The need for professional and skilled people
- The need for Technology Transfer Organisations to be well
organised with critical mass
- The need for incentives throughout the technology transfer chain
(incl career structure and rewards for professionalism)
- The need for dedicated (earmarked) funding
- Incentivised links and collaboration between sectoral, national,
European, and international networks (without creating additional
pan-European associations)
Policy makers Nat
and EC level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
v. Broad - To promote National or
European guidelines,
professionalisation is necessary in the
first instance.
Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
4. The group recommends that professionalisation of Technology
Transfer Organisations should be improved through IP/ technology
transfer training.
Technology transfer
community
v. Broad -
professionalisation of technology
transfer.
Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
5. The group recommends that awareness initiatives be focussed
more effectively to ensure a higher impact across Europe and
develop an “awareness multiplier” across our innovation system
Nat and EC level v. Broad Mixed
short and
long term
impact
High High, subject to political
support and finance
6. The group recommends that Europe should have a single world-
class professional association/network for technology transfer. All
member states and the Commission should promote cooperation
between Technology Transfer Associations and networks, without
creating additional pan-European associations.
Policy makers Nat
and EC level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
Narrow
Creation of a single body to inform
policy makers and collate data
Requires
several
years to
show
effectivene
ss
High High, if incentivised.
Requires several years to
show effectiveness
82
7. The group recommends the development of IPR performance
indicators in order to balance academic and commercial priorities
in Public Research Organisations.
policy makers Nat
and Ec level with
scope to make
technology transfer
system effective
Narrow
to permit policy makers to identify
best practices etc
Medium
term (to
get quality
data)
High Medium. Requires several
years to establish benchmarks
8. The group recommends the development, at EU level, of
programmes for general IP/ technology transfer training and
awareness which can then be tailored at national level.
European inno
community in
general
v. broad
increase training + general
awareness – macro issue
Long term Average Average / high
Dependent on sustained
investment (results will be
indirect)
9. The group recommends that the EU promote co-ordinated IP/
technology transfer awareness initiatives for undergraduate
students at a national level
all undergrad
students
v. Broad
awareness of IPR/ technology
transfer for all undergraduate student
Short term Average Average/high
Hard to monitor
83
Appendix G
Glossary of Terms
ASTP: Association of European Science & Technology Transfer Professionals
AURIL: Association for University Research & Industry Links
AUTM: Association of University Technology Managers
COREP: Consorzio Per La Ricerca el’Educazione Permanente
CREST: Committee for Scientific and Technical Research
EARMA: European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
EARTO: European Association of Research and Technology Organisations
EIRMA: European Industrial Research Management Association
EUA: European University Association
Higher Education Institutes: This generally includes universities and higher education providers.
IP: Intellectual Property.
IPR: Intellectual property rights. Includes patents; copyright; database rights; registered designs and
trademarks.
OMC: Open Method of Coordination
Public Research Organisations: Generally, this is considered to include both (a) universities which
undertake research and (b) dedicated research institutes. Note: In several countries, policies relating to IPR
may differ between university and other PRO state research organisations.
Technology Transfer: The four phases of the technology transfer process, namely, the IP creation phase,
the IP identification phase, the IP protection phase, and the IP exploitation phase.
Technology Transfer Association: This includes networks and professional organisations that link
together in respect of various technology transfer activities (e.g. AUTM; ASTP; AURIL; PROTON).
Technology Transfer Office: Generally, this is the department within university/ Public Research
Organisation which is responsible for technology transfer. In some countries, Technology Transfer Offices
may be responsible for activities of several universities or Public Research Organisations.
Technology Transfer Organisations: Centralised groups, which employ personnel to undertake
technology transfer (e.g. national technology transfer organisations (e.g. Innovation Relay Network).
84
Appendix H
Comments received from Latvia 3 June 2004
As usual, I am summarising my reflections on the last WG meeting. After 3-4 May, I would like to
draw your attention to the following.
About the TT: there are different types of TT (Attachment 1), at least two
– transfer of tested technology/products/equipment from one place/company to another;
– transfer from laboratory/demonstration line to the company, producing, marketing, etc.
The second (TT II) type of TT could/must be boosted by IPR, but it isn’t a simple trade IP
procedure. The TT comprises several specific steps, for example, seen in Attachment 2 and 3. It is
impossible to finance TT II by public funds (PF). So, I still don’t agree with the WG that TT must be
funded mainly from public sources. Countries have plenty of possibilities to support TT II, PF
included, but only partially to support/promote.
Of course, there is a practice that TT offices at universities (HEI) are financed by PF, but, in such a
way, we will not catch up with USA. TT II requires a lot of money. And in the “3% initiative”, 2% is
envisaged from industry, but only 1% from PF.
Regarding IRC: Jeffry’s objection that IRC’ main goal is not TT. I am sending by post some
brochures about IRC to all addresses. The TT goal is recommended there. My suggestion is to
continue utilising the existing IRC system for TT. Of course, the WG could recommend to improve
the practice, but it is still acting and has been successfully utilised. And the trend is to self-
financing of IRC.
Regarding professionalism. I don’t think that TT should be taught as a profession. It isn’t just the
same, whether TT is performed in pharmacy or in machine building. For example, students should
have a basic speciality, studying also at specific TT courses.
I have read the Irish “National Code of Practice for Managing Intellectual Property from Publicly
Funded Research”. There are a lot of useful suggestions. A part of them should be applied in our
recommendations. It is especially that Ireland is progressing rapidly.
And I still remind that the USA experience isn’t analysed by the WG. We still don’t analyse, how
our main competitor works.
The WG recommends to develop only guidelines (EU, national). Probably, on the basis of these
guidelines, further elaboration of action plans and their enforcement should be recommended.
It would be desirable to add a glossary to the final report. For example, the key word TT is treated
very differently, especially when reading “The Journal of Technology Transfer”. In a similar way –
other terms, which will be used in the final report.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Uldis Viesturs
85
Attachment 1
3 main ways of development
1. Transfer of new technologies (the goal of IRC, for example); TT.
2. Multiplication of the well-known approved technologies; TM.
3. Innovations: creation and marketing of new/improved technologies, equipment, products, services.
Development of really new technologies, products. Real innovations demanding the activation of the full
scale ERTDI complex. Problems of intellectual property protection/trade arise simultaneously. Grants,
subsidiaries, donations, venture capital are required. Special instruments, science parks, technological
centers/incubators, specific SMEs should be created and supported by special legislation and financing
(NIP, etc.) IPO must arise via NASDAQ, for example.
86
Attachment 2
Conventional stages of R and D and
implementation of results (IP)
Faults,
Losses, Disappointments, Bankruptcy
Possible shortening of performance’s stages speeds up the
development, but increases the risk.
?
Eureka
Licensing
(LCA etc.)
RTDI perfomance
Demonstration
Pilot scale
Evaluation of impacts
on environment,
perception of locality
Country
Design
Feasibility
Capacity
Construction
Start up
Choice of site
Repeated
evaluation
87
Flow diagram of RTDI (+I)P realization and the main financing stages for this purpose
Demonstration projects (EU terminology)
PRINCIPAL EXPENDITURES STAGES FOR RTDI REALISATION
(3 to 7, even 10 years
and more on the average)
using modern INOVATION instruments,
this time can be reduced dramatically, preserving
the products’/services’ quality
Attachment 3
doc_619640114.pdf