Interview : Mattias Debroyer on China and Intellectual Property
By BirchBob

BB: Welcome Mattias Debroyer! After graduating from Law School, you decided to study Mandarin in China. What was your motivation to make this unusual decision?

MD: In the past 10 years, the Belgian press has been paying more and more attention to changes in China, and especially its fast growing economy. The European market seemed to be flooded by cheap Chinese textile, shoes, handbags, DVD’s etc. In particular IPR-related problems arose due to the import of fake goods. On the other hand, knowledge about China, e.g. its history, customs, language etc., was still limited to a small group of China experts. For this reason, I applied for an intensive Chinese language course at the Beijing Language and Culture University.

BB: China has astonished friend and foe by catching up with the rest of the world in only 25 years time, due to a cheap labour force and its currency policy. But do you think it is also able to make the leap from the world’s factory to the world’s research lab?

MD: Well, first of all, China’s political leaders are fully aware of the importance of innovation and, as a consequence, of the necessity of a solid and sound protection of the intellectual property. In the 21st century, the prosperity of a nation will depend on its scientific achievements, rather than the faith in traditional industries. Due to China’s international ambitions, President Hu Jintao, Prime-Minister Wen Jiabao and other top officials have recently launched their “National Medium and Long-Term Programme for Scientific and Technological Development (2006-2020)”. The plan targets China’s current dependency upon imported technology by increasing the budget for research and development from its current 1,23 % of GDP to 2,5% by 2020. Besides this programme, statistics show an increased activity in the field of innovation and R & D. The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is already doing overtime granting patent applications. An increasing number of these applications are filed by Chinese companies. On the other hand, there are still a couple of challenges with which the Chinese government will have to cope.

BB: The lack of intellectual property protection is a frequently uttered complaint of the international business community in China. Is this concern based upon a lack of legal provisions?

MD: To the contrary. China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 implied that China had to adopt internationally recognized standards with regard to IP as elaborated in TRIPs. As a consequence, China disposes of a highly advanced legal framework for the protection of IP. The legal arsenal, including the Trademark Law, the Patent Law and the Copyright Law, is constantly subject to amendments. This year Chinese government will draft or revise 17 laws related to trademarks, copyrights and patents.

BB: Does this imply that their concern in unjustified?

MD: The legal framework is present, but the enforcement of intellectual property rights remains nevertheless Achilles’ tendon. Only 4 % of the goods entering or leaving China can be physically checked at the borders. The rate of physical checks on exports is even lower because many of them are exempt from customs duty. In case an infringement has been settled in court, fines may be imposed. However, the imposed fines are often too small to deter infringement effectively. Moreover, entrepreneurs consider those fines as a mere consequence of doing business, rather than a punishment for a morally wrong act.

BB: In 2008 Beijing will host the Olympic Games. Worldwide China will be the centre of attention. This might be an extra motivation for China to deal with the problem.

MD: Many initiatives have already been taken, for example in the field of Trademark Law. The State Trademark Office has recently decided to give public access to the trademark database, which means a big step forward in terms of prevention of trademark infringements. Another example is the establishment by China customs of a centralized recordation system for IP. This system can be optimized by closer cooperation with IP owners. Besides, developing provinces, looking for foreign investors, can attract investors by guaranteeing a stronger enforcement of IP rights on technology. In terms of legal enforcement, there has been a very important precedent. Beijing’s famous Silk Street Market was convicted in April for selling fake products. This conviction will enhance the public awareness of the problem.

BB: Could the enhancement of public awareness be the key to solve the problem?

MD: Well, it can be at least a part of the solution. It is important to notice in this respect, that 12 Chinese pharmaceutical companies have jointly challenged in court the validity of Pfizer’s Viagra patent. This seems to fit in the idea that the IP situation will change when Chinese companies will consider IP rights as a business asset in a global business strategy.

BB: Another problem the Chinese government had to deal with is the potential of technology monopolies held by multinational companies in the course of their cooperation with Chinese businesses. Can you explain the legal issues?

MD: This issue addresses the balance between exercising rights on intellectual property on the one hand and the right of free competition on the other hand. It often occurs that a foreign party transfers technology to a Chinese counterparty in the course of a partnership or a joint venture. It is common practise in technology agreements that the transferor tries to restrict the use of the subject technology. However, if the transferor imposes excessive restrictions, the agreement risks to distort competition. For this reason agreements imposing prohibited restrictions or unreasonable restrictions, will be held void and thus unenforceable. As to the category of prohibited restrictions, the Administrative Measures on Technology Import and Export, promulgated in 2001, lists the prohibited restrictions. For the second category of unreasonable restrictions is to be referred to article 329 of the 1999 Contract Law. This article says that a contract that illegally monopolizes technology, impedes technological progress or infringes on another person’s technological achievements is void. The Supreme People’s Court specified in 2004 the notion of illegal monopoly of technology, thereby listing the unreasonable restrictions. Pursuant to article 52 of the Contract Law any technology contract including prohibited or unreasonable restrictions that violates mandatory PRC laws or regulations is void.

BB: …And thus can have serious consequences for the rights of the transferor.

MD: It is obvious that by omitting prohibited or unreasonable restrictions in the transfer agreements, the transferor can avoid facing an unenforceable contract in court. One could argue that the rules can be circumvented by applying foreign law to the agreement. However, contracts that do not comply with mandatory PRC law (such as provisions containing prohibited or unreasonable restrictions) are not enforceable against a Chinese party in China. A foreign court judgement or arbitral award is unlikely to be enforced against a Chinese party, because it is subject to public policy review by the Chinese courts.

BB: As you have mentioned before, China intends to get rid of its dependency on foreign technology imports. Do you think technology transfer will still be an option?

MD: Of course. Chinese companies that have developed R & D activities, will seek for valorisation and commercialisation of their technologies. It goes without saying that it is in their own interest to seek for licensees or transferees on a worldwide scope. On the other hand, technology transfer opens up great possibilities for innovation. Let’s suppose we have a team of young Chinese engineers that comes up with a new and promising idea. And let’s suppose that the only thing they lack is a specific kind of technology invented by a foreign research institute. In this case, transfer of technology will avoid wasting a lot of valuable time. In short, to be successful, you don’t need to be the first to invent, but the first to apply this invention in a way it can make everyday life more comfortable.

Mattias Debroyer can be reached at mattias@birchbob.com

Back to the headlines

Intellectual Property : Key to the valorization of your innovation
By Marnix Moens and Axel Plas

The term “innovation” has become an indication of the creative ability of a company.  In this article, we intend to assess how a company needs to manage the innovation process for avoiding the wrong expectations from all parties involved.  In other words, management of the innovation process is as important as the innovation itself.

Whenever a company invests resources in the innovation process, it expects to obtain a positive return over its investment.   A well-considered management of the intellectual property (IP) in the innovation process increases the likelihood that such positive return will be obtained.  This is not always obvious because IP suffers from a lack of awareness by numerous companies` managers.  In addition, the positive return of an active IP strategy may not be immediately measurable, thereby creating the feeling that an IP strategy is a long shot as well as an expensive luxury. The reality is, however, that the innovation management process cannot be disconnected from a thorough IP strategy in order to maximize the valorization of innovation.

The ultimate IP strategy depends on the company’s vision, but there are a few general guidelines worth pointing out.

An effective IP strategy needs to be fully integrated in the innovation process. At an early stage, one needs to integrate market considerations into the inventive steps of the project. The next stage will focus on developing a strategy for protecting the inventions and for bringing them safely to market. The whole process should evolve through different evaluation milestones helping the company to assess its situation and enabling it to pursue or modify its options. Contrary to an ad hoc approach, a clearly defined IP strategy can become a dynamic tool to support the company’s business strategy.

“Management of the innovation process is as important as the innovation itself.”

It is the responsibility of Management along with Research and IP specialists to develop an Innovation process that is based on vision, intelligence and tools to support and implement this vision.  In this context, IP can never be a goal on its own but, rather, must be the tool for safeguarding options towards the commercialization or exploitation of the invention into the market.

Practically speaking, a sound Innovation Process implies that the necessary verifications be done at an early stage in order to validate the project` s commercial and inventive merit.

A market study, IP literature search and technology trend analysis are necessary before proceeding further with the invention.  The results of this research will eliminate all unpleasant surprises in terms of lack of market demand, third party rights, alternative technical solutions, etc.

Once the IP landscape has been mapped out, the next steps can be taken to further develop the concept or idea. Should a collaborative R&D partner be introduced at this stage, it is important to verify that this collaboration does not interfere with -or worst--   jeopardize the company` s Innovative, IP, and Commercial strategies.

Ensuring IP awareness and IP understanding is a prerequisite for companies to determine which IP strategy will add value to their innovation process and, in turn, to their business strategy.

For more information on this topic and support in the guidance of innovation and management of intellectual property, see www.biip.com. BiiP is specialized in an integrated approach of innovation, IP protection and IP exploitation strategies for adding value to the business strategy.
©2006 - BiiP  All Rights Reserved

Back to the headlines

Preventing the Brain Drain : The Ukrainian Experience
ByRobert Lacas

Preventing the Brain Drain:  The Ukrainian Experience

Summary for e-mail and bulletin
To prevent the brain drain, a dozen of countries from the former USSR have multiplied collaboration occasions between their researchers and the rest of the world.  On one hand, this model can inspire other economical development agents.  On the other hand, it allows a mutually beneficial partnership for the researchers, the host countries and yourself.  To benefit from such opportunities, it is necessary to know the programs implemented to that effect.  This will be the scope of this article.

1. Definition of the Brain Drain (1)

«A brain drain is an emigration of trained and talented individuals for other nations or jurisdictions, due to conflict, lack of opportunity and/or health hazards where they are living. Investment in higher education is lost when the trained individual leaves, usually not to return. Also whatever social capital the individual has been a part of is reduced by their departure. » (Wilkipedia)

The brain drain is thus the sign of individual problems (for the experts emigrating) and the source of collective problems (for a country losing its investments in the education of specialists when it is not able to gain from their future realizations).

2. The Scale of the Brain Drain Throughout the World (2, 3, 4)

As discussed in the previous bulletin (“The art of innovating on a shoestring”), the brain drain affects many emerging countries.  It is however also present in many industrialized countries.  It is a global phenomenon associated to the unbalance between availability and demand for specialists.

In the total OECD area, about 4% of persons with tertiary education are immigrants from other OECD countries. Those from non-OECD countries account for about 6% of all current residents with tertiary attainment.

In 2001, out of the 67 million foreign-born residing in an OECD country, 16.8 million were educated at the tertiary level (6.7 million involved in intra-OECD skill flows, 10.1 million from non-OECD countries). Among these, 5.7 million were not citizens of the host country. 

Migration streams are primarily directed towards United States (over 7.8 million highly skilled expatriates), the European Union (4.7 M), Canada (2 M) and Australia (1.4 M), but also in Luxembourg and Switzerland.

On the other hand, countries having a large percentage of tertiary-educated former residents living in other OECD countries include Ireland and New Zealand (at close to 25%); Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic (all at more than 10%).

Quite a few countries have close to zero net movements overall, essentially because they gain as many as they lose to within-OECD migration (Austria, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand) or they do not show many movements in general (Japan and Korea).

To consult available statistics about a hundred or so countries, see:
Database on immigrants and expatriates (4)

3. The Special Case of ex USSR Countries (5, 6, 7, 8)

The end of the cold war almost resulted in a massif exodus of Russian scientists.  For one, military research budgets were at once drastically cut resulting in massive lay-offs.  Further more, a galloping inflation rapidly reduced the living standards of scientists still working (soon, the average salary of scientific workers ranked 10th among 11 branches of the Russian economy).  Finally, the opening of borders greatly facilitated emigration of all convinced that their talents would only take form abroad.  In fact, close to 50% of Russian scientists working in the « closed cities » (dedicated to military production) were considering emigration according to a survey of the early 90’s.  It seems that certain research centers would post on bulletin boards “the last one to go closes the lights” as a sarcastic reference to the mass exodus and the risk to end up with empty buildings!

There was the possibility of a catastrophic brain drain from the concerned countries (that would have lost resources important for the revival of their economy) generating preoccupations in other countries about scientists ousted from military programs that could turn to rogue states, terrorist groups or criminal organizations.  To avoid the apocalyptic scenario, many programs were put together by the concerned countries with close collaboration of the international community (notably, see reference 5: Preventing the Brain Drain: Russia and Beyond).

Among projects centering on prevention of the brain drain, we will focus on two Science and Technology Centers:

• International Science and Technology Centers (ISTC), in Moscow, Russia
• Science and Technology Center in Ukraine (STCU), in Kiev, Ukraine
• Hereafter called the «Science Centers»

A brain drain reflects the local unbalanced availability and demand for R&D.  To avoid reduction in availability by emigration, it is necessary to increase local or international demand.  To keep their former Soviet experts, the STCU and ISTC chose to export know-how instead of people!

The ISTC in Moscow and the STCU in Kiev are international organizations made up of member states with the primary objective of ‘providing weapons scientists in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities’.  In addition, the science centers aim to contribute to the solution of national and international science and technical problems; reinforce the transition to a market economy; support basic and applied research and technology development; and promote the integration of CIS scientists into the global scientific community.

Since 1993, the ISTC and STCU have funded over 75 000 scientists and engineers. Annually, the two science centers provide grants for over 4000 research and technology projects. They also assist in various aspects of business development such as patent and commercialization support, by sponsoring workshops and visits by industry experts. The objective of these efforts is for scientists to form the necessary relationships to create a self-sustaining civilian science community. This is because the science centers have recognized that moving from short-term grants to sustainable employment is the most effective way of strengthening their non-proliferation goals.

Ten years after the 1990 survey, only 10% of the Russian scientists would still consider emigrating to work abroad.

Activities of the ISTC cover: The Russian Federation, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, and Tadzhikistan. The countries benefiting from STCU are: Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

The science centers were created when the rapid break-up of the Soviet Union raised very serious concerns about the risk of an exodus of senior scientists to work for ‘rogue states’ that wished to develop their own weapons of mass destruction. Now, such concerns have tapered off, and it is widely recognized that the balance between the objectives of the centers and the manner in which they conduct their activities need to be re-evaluated in light of the changing nature of the scientific community in the former Soviet Union - in particular, Russia.

President Poutine estimates at 100 000 the number of Russian scientists now living abroad (including those who never worked in the weaponry area). The Commissioner of Education of the University of Moscow assesses that Russia has given away 1 trillion dollars to the rest of the world (mainly Israel, Germany and the United States) (reference 8: Stay-at-Home Science) Even though both evaluations are generally deemed exaggerated, they show the Russian perception of their problem. 

It does not appear that the science centers were barriers to the emigration of scientists, but they significantly contributed to reduce its magnitude, even though they could not completely prevent it.  Moreover, the STCU and ISTC model could be used in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and other countries or regions where a brain drain is feared.  Reference 9 («Improving the ISTC/STCU science centers’ programs to support worldwide non-proliferation objectives») shows the remaining problems and proposes other possible solutions or approaches.

The last part of the article discusses specifically the STCU. 

5. The Science and Technology Center in Ukraine (STCU) (10, 11, 12,  13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

The Science & Technology Center in Ukraine (STCU):

• offers Research Partnerships, Research Support, Technology Matching and Partnering Events;
• provides Western companies with the services of highly skilled scientists from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan as well as tax-free privileges, duty-free import of equipment and Western-style project monitoring. 

The projects – which are mostly of medium size ($0.25 million USD) - cover broad areas.  The 2005 Annual Report (reference 16) gives a good idea of realizations, ongoing projects, allocated funds and available expertise in the following areas:

• aerospace and aeronautics
• biotechnologies, agricultural science and medicine
• materials science
• chemistry
• environmental research
• sensors
• industrial technologies
• nuclear energy and safety
• physics

Expertise in nanotechnologies, another topical issue, is well resumed in the three following documents:

• Nanotechnology 2005 (18)
• STCU brochure for Nanotrends 2005 (19)
• Nanoparticle technology: production and application development – a mission to Russia and Ukraine (20)

 
From start, most STCU funds were public. Today, one forth of the research projects are directly sustained by European or American private companies. Enterprises like Michelin, Airbus, Atofina, Biocad, Dupont, Dow, Intell, Sigor Corporation, General Electric, Veeco Instruments, and many more, have, at one time or another financed this way a research project they found interesting.

Figures vary with references (because of different definitions when compiling projects and of time span covered), but it can be estimated that since 1993, the STCU has generated more than 900 projects representing research funds of about $140 million of dollars for more than 12,500 searchers (of which 7,000 former armament specialists).   About 190 of these projects have been financed by private partners.

The STCU estimates that «since the establishment of the Partnership Program in 1997, STCU Partners have contributed over US $34 million and received a total R&D return valued at approximately 10 times their initial investments. » (21)

Here are 10 examples of realizations among all the projects that have gone through the STCU (for details, click on the following links):

• Europium Technology for Sanitizing Medical Products and Improving Food Safety / "GAMMATECH Ltd." (Kharkiv)
• New Technologies for Improved Train Wheels / Institute of Technical Mechanics (Dnipropetrovsk)
• New Grain Storage Technologies / "Pivdenne" (Dnipropetrovsk)
• Bacteriophages against Antibiotic Resistant Infections / Institute of Bacteriophage, microbiology and virology (Tbilisi)
• Big Prospects for Small-Scale Windmills / "Pivdenne" (Dnipropetrovsk)
• Dilatant Technology for Oil & Gas Well Stimulation / "Geotechnology" (Kiev)
• New Uses for High-Strength Titanium Alloys / Institute for Metal Physics (Kiev)
• Grinding of Biomass Materials Down to Micron Levels /"Texmet" (Dnipropetrovsk)
• New Technologies for the Heart / Institute for Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry (Kiev)
• Advancements in Super Tough Coatings / Electric Welding Institute (Kiev)

It must be noted that 60% of the STCU projects keep the searchers occupied less than one third of their time.  Very few searchers work full time on foreign projects.  So, the host country keeps benefiting from its searchers’ expertise for its own needs as well as profit from new expertise developed and from international collaboration networks developed with other countries.

Is it too good to keep on going?  After more than 10 years of continuous increase, the STCU budgets have declined since 2004.  In the five years to come, the fund providers have to decide what will become of the «Science Centre».  They might believe that the initial mission has been fulfilled and close the STCU. They might also decide to convert it into a more classical scientific cooperation organization. In any case, the historical circumstances that brought the fear of a brain drain will have lasted only some time (which is a good thing!)   However, it is still time to take advantage of the structures in place to have access to the expertise acquired by the searchers in countries covered by the STCU. 

6. Taking Advantage of the STCU (12, 22)

It is appropriate to mention the efforts deployed by Canada to promote the STCU towards small and medium size enterprises.  Canadian enterprises benefit from the support of Manitoba University to identify innovative technologies that can be jointly exploited. As a consequence, Canada has 33 partners, mostly small and medium size enterprises that have invested approximately one million dollars.  Other countries or regions can, in similar fashion, become intermediaries for their local enterprises and multiply collaboration opportunities with experts associated to the STCU.

The above references allow you to know everything about the STCU and ways to benefit from it.  After becoming acquainted with them, you might wish to verify with one's own eyes what is the interest of a potential collaboration with specialists the STCU gives you access to.   You will have that opportunity at the conference organized by together the STCU and NATO: From Science to Business, October 11-12, 2006 • Kiev, Ukraine (22)

The conference will introduce technology partnership opportunities to Western companies, investors, and collaborators in the fields of:

• Medical Instrumentation and Biomedical Technologies,
• New Materials and Nanotechnologies,
• Aerospace,
• Renewable Energy and Conservation, and
• Nuclear Energy and Safety.

More than a dozen leading institutes from Ukraine and other Eurasian countries will make short technical presentations.  On the margins of the conference, technology posters will be displayed, and researchers will be available continuously for matchmaking meetings and informal discussions. U.S. and other western participants will be able to set up and conduct matchmaking discussions with leading scientists and institutes. Institute visits can also be arranged.

You are not certain this is the best approach to find specialists corresponding to your expectations?  Our best suggestion is that you talk to M. Michel Zayet, Deputy Executive Director (European Union), STCU, T: +380 44 490 7150, F: +380 44 490 7145, michel.zayet@stcu.int.  He will be able to guide you efficiently through the STCU services as he has done with many others in the past.

7. Other Alternatives to Benefit from Searchers from the Former USSR (23)

A June 2005 study by the RAND Corporation estimated that 200 000–220 000 people worked on the nuclear weapons program, 60 000–70 000 worked on the biological weapons program, and between 5000–8000 worked on the chemical weapons program.  According to another account, there were between 30 000 and 70 000 senior-level weapons scientists working at WMD-related institutes. However, these figures do not include the thousands of less experienced junior scientists and technicians who either worked on these programs or supported their efforts through pure science and engineering activities (physics, chemistry, biology, electrical engineering, etc.) or through administrative and support staff. 

As mentioned in chapter 4, about 75,000 searchers have worked with STCU and ISTC.  This article deals specifically with the STCU but people looking for experts can also contact the ISTC which is approximately 4 times larger than the STCU since it managed 635 million dollars for 2,100 projects realized by 60,000 scientists.  For an excellent description of the ISTC, see Stabilizing Employment for Nuclear Personnel - International Science and Technology Centers (23).  

More than the STCU and ISTC that are involved with former specialist in armament, it is also possible to negotiate with other searchers from the former USSR.  BirchBob database allows, for example, to identify a few hundreds technologies offered by Russian specialists.  The availability of Ukrainian technologies should shortly be exhaustively inventoried in collaboration with the Ukrainian authorities.  You should also take note that BirchBob has an office in Kiev and can, with such, put you in contact with “the right people” and take care of the coordination (liaison and follow up) for your projects.   For a « custom made » service, contact Dirk Avau dirk.avau@skynet.be or Jean-François Plucker plucker@birchbob.com.

It is rare that countries will give such access to military expertise for the development of civil applications abroad.  Further more, the expertise (that would have been considered “top secret” some 15 years ago) has been enriched with various experiences through work for foreign customers.  Finally, many of these experts are real passionate since they maintained their heading on research regardless of the difficulties that followed the 90’s.

Because of international collaboration, the avoided brain drain in those countries has become a brain gain, a nice example of mutually profitable collaboration for these countries and their collaborators.  It is up to you to benefit from the same by contacting the ISTC, STCU or BirchBob.

Back to the headlines

Innovation commercialization : a literature review
By Sébastien Lévesque

Evaluating the market potential of innovations: A structured survey of diffusion models

This paper by Alexander Frenzel Baudisch and Hariolf Grupp provides a systematic methodology to identify general innovation diffusion patterns in a given case study: First, an analytical framework is introduced which structures a review of innovation diffusion research. This framework may be used to structure the analysis of a case study. Second, a classification of innovation diffusion models is developed by focusing on the analytical hypotheses and stylized facts, which they assume. This categorization allows selecting appropriate models for a given case study based on the matching of the model’s hypotheses and case study’s characteristics. This provides an structured approach to allow innovators to evaluate ex-ante the market potential and the diffusion process, i.e. commercial success of their new product or practice. The paper concludes with critical recommendations on the use of innovation diffusion models.
Germany / Alexander Frenzel Baudisch (Max Planck Institute of Economics) and Hariolf Grupp (Institute for Economic Policy Research) / 2006 / 27p.

An Analysis of Financing Innovation and Commercialization in Canada's Functional Food and Nutraceutical Sector

The findings in this working paper by Statistics Canada highlight the importance of public support in addressing the capital requirements of functional food and nutraceutical firms and underscore the considerable burden in this respect borne by smaller sized firms.
Canada / John Cranfield, Deepananda Herath, Spencer Henson and Dave Sparling - University of Guelph  -Statistics Canada / June 2006 / 27p.

Practical Strategies to Develop an IP Portfolio and Avoid Mistakes Pertaining to IP for High-Tech Startup and Small Technology Companies

This paper will focus on the importance of protecting intellectual property (IP), several forms of IP protection available for startup and small technology companies, and practical IP strategies to develop an IP portfolio that can be aligned strategically with the business model and to avoid mistakes pertaining to IP that can be costly or fatal for a start-up and small technology company.
USA / Hung H. Bui - Stein, McEwen & Bui / June 2005 / 29p.

Towards Patent Pools in Biotechnology?

This paper analyzes the extent to which patent pools (agreements where patent holders agree to license their intellectual property as a package) could be used as an institution to facilitate technology transactions in biotechnology. Patent pools have been used with success in the consumer electronics and other sectors but they are untested in biotechnology despite their transaction cost reducing potential. The author suggests two explanations for the fact that patent pools have not been used in this industry. The first is that the current antitrust requirements are difficult to meet in biotechnology. The second is the availability of simpler alternatives that will often be more profitable to patent holders: aggregation of rights by one party and cross-licensing.
Switzerland / Patrick Gaulé – College of Management of Technology, École Polytechnique de Lausanne / April 2006 / 19p.

How do public laboratories collaborate with industry? New survey evidence from France

This paper uses a survey of 130 public laboratories in France to investigate collaborative activities of laboratories with industry. The statistical analysis shows that knowledge and technology development and transfer occurs most frequently through collaborative and contract research, informal exchanges, conferences, and consortia. The main benefits from the perspective of laboratories are the tangible and intangible inputs received –funds, materials, research suggestions and data. The outputs of collaboration are most often theses and publications along with technological artefacts (new products & processes, software) while patents, licenses and copyrights are less frequent. Collaboration with industry leads laboratories to conduct research in a more timely and reliable way, as well as focused in more applied areas.
France / John Gabriel Goddard (IMRI, Paris Dauphine University) and Marc Isabelle CEA / 2006 / 22p.

Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas. A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation

This paper attempts to gain a deeper understanding of the firm’s ability to integrate stakeholder insights into the process of organizational innovation from a sustainable development viewpoint. Given the early stage of empirical research on the topic, the authors used an exploratory case study of two Spanish companies that have successfully learned from stakeholder dialogue and have generated innovations that are beneficial both for the company and for sustainable development in general.
Spain / Sylvia Ayuso, Miguel Angel Rodriguez, Joan Enric Ricart – IESE Business School, University of Navarra / May 2006 / 21p.

An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer
This paper presents empirical evidence on the determinants of three types of informal technology transfer by faculty members: knowledge transfer, joint publications with industry scientists, and consulting. The authors find that male and tenured faculty members are more likely to engage in all three forms of informal technology transfer. They also find that academics who allocate a relatively higher percentage of their time to grants-related research are more likely to engage in informal commercial knowledge transfer.
USA / Albert N. Link (University of North Carolina at Greensboro), Donald S. Siegel (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Barry Bozeman (University of Georgia) / May 2006 / 26p.

Final Report: The 2006 ASTP Survey

Almost every Government in the European Union (EU), plus the European Commission, recognises the vital importance of supporting the commercialisation of publicly funded research.
In the spring of 2006, MERIT conducted a survey on behalf of the Association of Science and Technology Professionals (ASTP) on the technology transfer activities of ASTP members representing public sector institutions such as universities, academic hospitals, government or non-profit research institutes, or research parks or incubators affiliated with these public institutions. The main purpose of the survey is to collect information on the types of technology
transfer services provided by each Technology Transfer Office (TTO) and data for seven performance measures in 2004 and 2005: invention disclosures, patent applications, patent grants, new start-ups, license agreements, license income, and research agreements.
Europe / Anthony Arundel & Catalina Bordoy - Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology / June 2006 / 41p.

Valuation and Exploitation of Intellectual Property

This paper by the OECD reviews recent evidence and analyses about the current status of valuation and exploitation of patents, with the aim of informing development of related policy. First, it examines the broadening set of channels through which firms aim to exploit their IP. It complements this firm-level perspective with a review of macroeconomic statistics related to the development of technology markets in major geographic regions. Second, the paper reviews various approaches to the valuation of patents. Finally, the paper examines the range of policy initiatives that have been undertaken by governments of OECD countries to foster and improve the valuation and the exploitation of patents.
International / Shigeki Kamiyama, Jerry Sheehan, Catalina Martinez  - OECD / June 2006 / 48p.