grad students, postdocs, & intellectual property: a study for cags matthew.herder@dal.ca...
Post on 16-Dec-2015
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Grad Students, PostDocs, &Intellectual Property:
A Study for CAGS
Matthew.Herder@Dal.caFaculties of Medicine & Law
@cmrherder
( frame ) 1 law
/ US , Canada2 policy
/ 12 Canadian institutions3 practice
/ synthesis + questions
Intellectual Property (1)
forms of IP /patent (apps , grants)copyrighttrademarktrade secrets( other )
contracts (k) / pre-assignment
confidentiality kmaterial transfer kdata management
k( uni policies )
Intellectual Property (2)
IP in context
education
commercialization
document-based analysis
but
empirically-informed
( frame )law
/ Canadapolicy
/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice
/ synthesis + questions
academia
ideas
IP
Sources of Liability
patent infringement
copyright infringement
misappropriation of trade secrets
breach of contract
breach of confidentiality
breach of fiduciary duty
Boudreau v. Lin (1997 Ont Ct J)
Corporation de l’École polytechnique de Montréal v. Fardad (2010 Qué CA)
Plews v. Pausch (2006 AB QB)
Legal Issues
CreditControl
ContractsEmployment Status
( fiduciary obligations )
Credit and Control
( legally )
InventorshipOwnership
Authorship
Inventorship
“inventive concept”
verification
Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2002 SCC 77
Authorship
“original expression”
typing, editing
Kantel v. Grant, [1933] Ex. C.R. 84Dolmage v. Erskine, [2003] O.J. No. 161
Credit and Control
InventorshipOwnership
Authorship
Inventorship vs. Ownership (1)
historically
“If a servant, while in the employ of his master, makes an invention, that
invention belongs to the servant, not the master.”
Bloxam v. Elsee (1825), 1 C.&P. 558 (K.B.)
Inventorship vs. Ownership (2)
more recently
hired to invent?
express or implied contract?
nature of the inventor-employer relationship
Spiroll Corp. v. Putti, [1975] B.C.J. No. 992Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd., [1991] F.C.J. No. 987
Authorship vs. Ownership (1)
13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright...
Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1984, c. C-42
Authorship vs. Ownership (2)
academic/teacher exception
application to students ?
to PDFs?
UBC v UBC Faculty Assn., (2004) 125 L.A.C. (4th) 1
Dolmage v. Erskine, (2003) 120 A.C.W.S. (3d) 127
Contract and Status
contractual pre-assignmentsincreasingly common?
funder driven?legally valid?
postdoc unionizationreversing ownership presumptions?
Fiduciary Obligations (1)
“...inherent in the nature of the relationship itself is a position of
disadvantage or vulnerability on the part of one of the parties which causes
him [sic] to place reliance on the other...”
Lac minerals ltd. v. International corona resources ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574
( frame )law
/ Canadapolicy
/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice
/ synthesis + questions
Policy Comparison
CAGS members ( n=65 )
subset of 12
Policy Comparison
collective agreementsIP policies
conflict of interest policiesacademic / research integrity policiesgraduate student / postdoc policies
Institution
#Grad Stu
Med School
IP Own’p TTO
Emily Carr
30 NO Joint YES
Brandon 120 NO Institution
NO
Lethbridge
430 NO Creator YES
U Regina 830 NO Creator YES
Ryerson 2060 NO Creator YES
Memorial 2310 YES Institution
YES
Manitoba 2970 YES Joint YES
Carleton 3000 NO Creator YES
Dalhousie 3220 YES Creator YES
McGill 6940 YES Joint YES
UBC 9070 YES Institution
YES
U of T 14800 YES Joint YES
Points of Comparison (1)
policy inclusion?
Institution
IP Own’p Policy Incl ?
Emily Carr
Joint YES
Brandon Institution
NO
Lethbridge
Creator YES
U Regina Creator YES
Ryerson Creator YES
Memorial Institution
YES
Manitoba Joint YES
Carleton Creator Unclear
Dalhousie Creator NO
McGill Joint YES
UBC Institution
YES
U of T Joint YES
CA, CAGS Guide
CA only
CA only
Points of Comparison (1)
clarity ?
( common law )
Points of Comparison (2)
consent ?
ab initio
Institution
Consent Req’d?
Inst’al Resp’ty
Supervisor Resp’ty
Ongoing Oversight
?
Emily Carr NO NO NO NO
Brandon YES NO NO NO
Lethbridge NO NO NO NO
U Regina NO NO NO NO
Ryerson YES ? YES NO
Memorial YES YES YES YES
Manitoba NO NO NO NO
Carleton NO NO NO NO
Dalhousie NO NO NO NO
McGill NO NO NO NO
UBC NO NO NO NO
U of T NO NO NO NO
Points of Comparison (3a)
commercialization decision-making ?
a ) right to commercialize independently
Institution
IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF
Emily Carr
Joint Unclear Unclear
Brandon Institution
Ex Post Unclear
Lethbridge
Creator Ex Ante Ex Ante
U Regina Creator Ex Ante Unclear
Ryerson Creator Ex Ante Ex Ante
Memorial Institution
Ex Post Ex Post
Manitoba Joint Ex Ante Unclear
Carleton Creator Ex Ante Unclear
Dalhousie Creator Ex Ante Unclear
McGill Joint Ex Post Ex Post
UBC Institution
Ex Post Ex Post
U of T Joint Ex Ante Ex Ante
Points of Comparison (3b)
commercialization decision-making ?
b ) right not to commercialize
Institution
IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF
Emily Carr
Joint YES Unclear
Brandon Institution
Unclear Unclear
Lethbridge
Creator YES Unclear
U Regina Creator YES Unclear
Ryerson Creator YES Unclear
Memorial Institution
NO NO
Manitoba Joint YES Unclear
Carleton Creator YES Unclear
Dalhousie Creator YES Unclear
McGill Joint YES YES
UBC Institution
YES YES
U of T Joint NO NO
Points of Comparison (3c)
commercialization decision-making ?
c ) right to share in revenues
Institution
IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF
Emily Carr
Joint YES Unclear
Brandon Institution
YES Unclear
Lethbridge
Creator YES Unclear
U Regina Creator YES Unclear
Ryerson Creator YES YES
Memorial Institution
YES YES
Manitoba Joint YES YES
Carleton Creator YES Unclear
Dalhousie Creator YES Unclear
McGill Joint YES YES
UBC Institution
YES YES
U of T Joint YES YES
Further Points of Comparison
dispute resolution process ?
confidentiality clauses?
mission statements?
( frame )law
/ Canadapolicy
/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice
/ synthesis + questions
Law/Policy vs Practice (1)
survey of > 2000 life scientists
Authorship extends to contributions of research material / data
original expression?
reputation in the field predicts authorship
social influence
Haeussler, Carolin & Henry Sauermann. “Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship” (2013) 42:3 Research Policy
688.
Law/Policy vs Practice (2)
survey of > 2000 life scientists
Inventorship predicted by status in the lab
inventive concept?
Stronger adherence to legal standard?
risk of patent invalidity
Haeussler, Carolin & Henry Sauermann. “Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship” (2013) 42:3
Research Policy 688.
Growing Exposure
Norm Change? (1)Reasons for choosing research projects by research goal
Walsh et al. 2007
Scientific importance 97
Results patentable 7
N382
131417829
532
Master’sPhDs
Post-DocsAssist ProfsAssoc ProfsFull Profs
532
Norm Change? (2)Hong and Walsh 2009
1966 1998
Comp. Secrecy Comp. SecrecyYes% (N) Yes% (N) Yes% (N)Yes% (N)
63 (316) 55(316) 81 (80) 87 (89)
Significant increase in both competition and secrecy
Competition is major predictor of secrecy
Effects of commercial activity are mixed (patents no impact on secrecy but industry funding inc’d)
Norm Change? (3)
2013
CompetitionSecrecy
Yes% (N) Yes% (N)
83 (74) 75 (64)Full Profs
86 (87) 83 (77)Assist + Assoc Profs
87 (78) 83 (70)Post-Docs
88 (135)83 (116) PhDs
70 (116)76 (111) Master’s
Competition remains major predictor of secrecy
Commercial activity predicts secrecy for emerging researchers only
Fiduciary Obligations
confront norm change
offer more than ‘how to’ commercialization sessions
foster critical thinking capacity about IP and commercialization
Acknowledgment
CAGS
CIHR
top related