SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
289 Pages
English
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
289 Pages
English

Description

http://www.research.cornell.edu/vpr/ResExp/ResExp2006.pdf (last visited ...... employees or postdoctoral appointees in the course of their employment or appointment ...... http://www.unl.edu/research/td/IP%20Policy.doc (last visited Apr. 20, 2007). ...... The University of Virginia was founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson. 724 ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 27
Language English
Document size 2 MB

Exrait

RESEARCH PROJECT FOR: NYSTAR STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICIES Draft Report: April 27, 2007 NEW YORK STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW CENTER AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Research Associates Timothy Dene Paul Dimoh Rahol Ravi David Ray Tyler Salvesen Allison Wheeler Senior Research Associates Matthew French Thomas Hoehner Andrew Snook Associate Directors Professor Richard Newman Professor Jeong Oh Director Professor Ted Hagelin THE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW CENTER OF ALBANY LAW SCHOOL Research Associates Evan Cantor Justin Kelton Aleksander Nikolic Ryan Ottavio Erica Young Director Annette Kahler, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1 Introduction ___________________________ 2 1 Federal Intellectual Property Policies ___________________________________ 3 1.1 Bayh-Dole Act _______________________ 3 1.1.1 Private Causes of Action Under Bayh-Dole Act __ 4 1.2 IRS Revenue Procedure 97-14 __________ 8 2 Intellectual Property Commercialization Environment ____________________ 10 2.1 Industry Push-Back on University Research and Development ______________ 10 2.1.1 Reasons for Participating in Sponsored Research ________________________________ 10 2.1.2 Reasons for Not Participating in Sponsored Research _____________________________ 11 2.2 Off Shore Research and Development __ 13 2.3 University Research and Local Economic Development ____________________ 14 2.3.1 Background Information on University Technology Transfer Activities ______________ 14 2.3.2 Factors Within the University Affecting Local Economic Development 17 2.3.3 Factors Outside the University Affecting Economic Development ___________________ 23 2.4 AUTM Data and Analysis ____________________________________________ 26 2.4.1 Total Sponsored Research Expenditures/Inventions Disclosures ____________________ 28 2.4.2 Total Sponsored Research Expenditure/Patent Applications Filed 30 2.4.3 Total Sponsored Research Expenditure/Issued Patents ____________________________ 34 2.4.4 Total Sponsored Research Expenditure/Start-Up Formations _______________________ 37 2.4.5 Total Sponsored Research Expenditure/License Income ___________________________ 40 2.4.6 Total Sponsored Research Expenditure/Licenses and Options Executed ______________ 43 2.4.7 Summary of AUTM Data __________________ 46 2.5 Intellectual Property Ownership Initiatives ______________________________ 47 2.5.1 Introduction to Open Source ________________________________________________ 47 2.5.2 Creative Commons _______________________ 48 2.5.3 Science Commons ________________________ 51 2.5.4 IBM Open Source Initiative _________________ 53 3 California Intellectual Property Report 56 3.1 Background ________________________________ 56 3.2 Findings ___________________________ 56 3.3 Intellectual Property Objectives _______________________________________ 58 3.4 Recommendations ___________________ 59 4 New York State Intellectual Property Policies 61 4.1 University IP Policies ________________ 62 4.1.1 SUNY and the Research Foundation __________ 62 4.1.2 NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (CALS) 68 4.1.3 City University of New York (CUNY) and the CUNY Research Foundation 71 i 4.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _________________________________ 73 4.2.1 NYSTAR _______________________________________________________________ 73 4.2.2 NYSERDA _____________________________ 77 4.3 Technology Transfer Offices Affiliated with New York State Agencies _______ 79 4.3.1 NYS Department of Health/HRI _____________ 79 4.4 NYS Assembly - IP Policy Activities ____ 80 4.4.1 Assembly Bill 3017 _______________________________________________________ 80 4.4.2 Assembly IP Policy Roundtable Meetings _____________________________________ 82 5 Overview of State Intellectual Property Policies __________________________ 83 5.1 University IP Policies ________________ 83 5.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _ 85 6 Summary of State Intellectual Property Policies _________________________ 85 6.1 Alabama ___________________________________________________________ 85 6.1.1 University IP Policies _____________________ 85 6.1.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______________________________________ 86 6.2 Alaska _____________________________ 87 6.2.1 University IP Policies 87 6.2.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______ 88 6.3 Arizona ____________________________ 88 6.3.1 University IP Policies _____________________________________________________ 88 6.3.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______ 90 6.4 Arkansas __________________________ 90 6.4.1 University IP Policies 90 6.4.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______________________________________ 92 6.5 California ________________________________ 92 6.5.1 University IP Policies _____________________ 92 6.5.2 Specialized Funding IP Policies _____________ 93 6.6 Colorado ___________________________ 95 6.6.1 University IP Policies 95 6.6.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______________________________________ 96 6.7 Connecticut ________________________ 96 6.7.1 University IP Policies _____________________ 96 6.7.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______ 98 6.8 Delaware __________________________________________________________ 98 6.8.1 University IP Policies 98 6.8.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies _______________________________________ 98 6.9 Florida ____________________________ 99 6.9.1 University IP Policies _____________________ 99 6.9.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ______ 100 6.10 Georgia ___________________________ 100 6.10.1 University IP Polices___________________________________________________ 100 6.10.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 102 6.11 Hawaii 102 6.11.1 University IP Policies __________________ 102 6.11.2 Specialized Funding Agencies‘ IP Policies __ 104 ii 6.12 Idaho _____________________________________________________________ 104 6.12.1 University IP Policies __________________ 104 6.12.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 106 6.13 Illinois ____________________________ 106 6.13.1 University IP Policies ________________________________ 106 6.13.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 108 6.14 Indiana ___________________________ 108 6.14.1 University IP Policies __________________ 108 6.14.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 109 6.15 Iowa _____________________________________________________________ 109 6.15.1 University IP Policies 109 6.15.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 110 6.16 Kansas ___________________________ 110 6.16.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 110 6.16.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 111 6.17 Kentucky _________________________ 111 6.17.1 University IP Policies 111 6.17.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 112 6.18 Louisiana ________________________________ 112 6.18.1 University IP Policies __________________ 112 6.18.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 114 6.19 Maine ____________________________ 114 6.19.1 University IP Policies 114 6.19.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 116 6.20 Maryland _________________________ 117 6.20.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 117 6.20.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 118 6.21 Massachusetts _____________________ 118 6.21.1 University IP Policies 118 6.21.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 118 6.22 Michigan _________________________________________________________ 120 6.22.1 University IP Policies __________________ 120 6.22.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 122 6.23 Minnesota 124 6.23.1 University IP Policies 124 6.23.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 125 6.24 Mississippi ________________________ 126 6.24.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 126 6.24.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 129 6.25 Missouri __________________________ 130 6.25.1 University IP Policies 130 6.25.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 131 6.26 Montana ________________________________ 132 6.26.1 University IP Policies __________________ 132 6.26.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 133 6.27 Nebraska _________________________ 133 iii 6.27.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 133 6.27.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 134 6.28 Nevada ___________________________________________________________ 134 6.28.1 University IP Policies 134 6.28.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 135 6.29 New Hampshire ____________________ 135 6.29.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 135 6.29.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 135 6.30 New Jersey ________________________ 136 6.30.1 University IP Policies 136 6.30.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 136 6.31 New Mexico _______________________________________________________ 136 6.31.1 University IP Policies __________________ 136 6.31.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 137 6.32 New York _________________________ 137 6.33 North Carolina ____________________ 138 6.33.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 138 6.33.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 138 6.34 North Dakota ______________________ 138 6.34.1 University IP Policies 138 6.34.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 139 6.35 Ohio _____________________________________________________________ 139 6.35.1 University IP Policies __________________ 139 6.35.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 140 6.36 Oklahoma _________________________ 141 6.36.1 University IP Policies ________________________________ 141 6.36.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 142 6.37 Oregon ___________________________ 142 6.37.1 University IP Policies __________________ 142 6.37.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 143 6.38 Pennsylvania ______________________________________________________ 143 6.38.1 University IP Policies 143 6.38.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 144 6.39 Rhode Island 144 6.39.1 University IP Policies __________________ 144 6.39.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 145 6.40 South Carolina ____________________ 145 6.40.1 University IP Policies ________________________________ 145 6.40.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 147 6.41 South Dakota ______________________ 147 6.41.1 University IP Policies __________________ 147 6.41.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 147 6.42 Tennessee _________________________________________________________ 148 6.42.1 University IP Policies 148 6.42.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 148 6.43 Texas _____________________________ 149 iv 6.43.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 149 6.43.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 151 6.44 Utah _____________________________________________________________ 151 6.44.1 University IP Policies 151 6.44.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 153 6.45 Vermont __________________________ 154 6.45.1 University IP Policies __________________________________________________ 154 6.45.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 154 6.46 Virginia 155 6.46.1 University IP Policies 155 6.46.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 156 6.47 Washington _______________________________________________________ 157 6.47.1 University IP Policies __________________ 157 6.47.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 158 6.48 West Virginia ______________________ 159 6.48.1 University IP Policies 159 6.48.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 160 6.49 Wisconsin _________________________________________________________ 160 6.49.1 University IP Policies __________________ 160 6.49.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___ 161 6.50 Wyoming 162 6.50.1 University IP Policies 162 6.50.2 Specialized Funding Agency IP Policies ___________________________________ 162 7 New York State Intellectual Property Policy Alternatives _________________ 163 8 Conclusion ______________________________________________________ 163 Appendices __________________________ 164 Appendix A—Private Causes of Action Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Case Briefs ______ 164 A.1 Service Engineering Corporation v. United States Department of Agriculture _________ 164 A.2 Platzer, et. al. v. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research ____________________ 165 Appendix B—AUTM Data _________________________________________________ 168 B.1 AUTM Survey by State ______________________ 168 B.2 AUTM Survey of Universities by States _________ 171 Appendix C—Detailed State IP Policies ______ 182 C.1 Alabama __________________________________ 182 C.2 Alaska ____________________________________ 184 C.3 Arizona ___ 187 C.4 Arkansas __ 191 C.5 California _ 193 C.6 Colorado __ 197 C.7 Connecticut 198 C.8 Delaware _ 200 C.9 Florida ___________________________________________________________________ 201 C.10 Georgia __ 202 C.11 Hawaii __ 203 C.12 Idaho ____ 206 C.13 Illinois __ 207 C.14 Indiana __ 209 v C.15 Iowa ____________________________________________________________________ 210 C.16 Kansas __ 211 C.17 Kentucky 212 C.18 Louisiana 213 C.19 Maine ___ 215 C.20 Maryland 217 C.21 Massachusetts _____________________________ 219 C.22 Michigan ________________________________________________________________ 221 C.23 Minnesota 225 C.24 Mississippi _______________________________ 228 C.25 Missouri _ 231 C.26 Montana _ 234 C.27 Nebraska _ 236 C.28 Nevada __ 239 C.29 New Hampshire ___________________________________________________________ 240 C.30 New Jersey 242 C.31 New Mexico ______________________________ 243 C.32 New York ________________________________ 245 C.33 North Carolina ____________________________ 246 C.34 North Dakota _____________________________ 247 C.35 Ohio ____________________________________ 249 C.36 Oklahoma 251 C.37 Oregon __ 254 C.38 Pennsylvania______________________________ 256 C.39 Rhode Island 258 C.40 South Carolina ____________________________ 259 C.41 South Dakota _____________________________ 261 C.42 Tennessee ________________________________________________________________ 263 C.43 Texas ___ 263 C.44 Utah ____ 269 C.45 Vermont _ 271 C.47 Washington_______________________________ 275 C.48 West Virginia 277 C.49 Wisconsin 279 C.50 Wyoming ________________________________________________________________ 281 vi Executive Summary Industry sponsored academic research is a fundamental component of Research and Development (―R&D‖) throughout the US and the state of New York. Academic research leads to scientific advancement and improves society‘s quality of life by generating innovations in areas such as healthcare, agriculture, consumer electronics, and by strengthening the economy through industry and job creation. The role of state government in creating an atmosphere where University R&D can flourish and where the state benefits from the investment is the very question this report discusses. Research has been compiled to provide a potential resource for policy makers when considering a comprehensive state wide intellectual property (―IP‖) policy. The first section of this report discusses the current environment of University IP commercialization. A view of Federal IP policies and industry push-back on University R&D begins this section. Thereafter, information is provided concerning University technology transfer activities and factors from within and outside the University that affect economic development. Data is provided showing total University IP expenditures, invention disclosures, filed patent applications, issued patents, start-up formations, license income, and finally, licenses and options executed. Next, this report summarizes the findings, guiding principles, objectives and recommendations from a recent California report written for policy makers considering a comprehensive state IP policy. A view of current New York agencies‘ IP policies follows, including SUNY, the Research Foundation, NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, CUNY and the CUNY Research Foundation, NYSTAR, and NYSERDA. Finally, the report discusses current New York Assembly activity with regard to a comprehensive state IP policy. The concluding sections of this report canvass the IP policies of all fifty states in the US, presenting their respective state policies, summaries of their University system IP policies, and other relevant specialized funding agencies. Differences and commonalities are discussed. A comprehensive conclusion reviewing all the aforementioned research with findings and recommendations is not completed, but will be added to the final report. 1 Introduction Many factors can be taken into consideration when developing a comprehensive state intellectual property (―IP‖) policy for University research. This report canvasses information and issues relevant to consider when planning a comprehensive state IP policy. Section 1 identifies federal laws that directly impact state IP policies, including the Bayh-Dole Act and IRS Revenue Procedure 97-14. Section two considers the IP commercialization environment. This section examines reasons why industry is willing or not willing to engage in University sponsored research, and a current industry trend of off-shoring research and development. A literature survey considers the effectiveness of technology transfer, and its economic impact. This section also data mines technology transfer activities in New York State using the Association of University Technology Manager‘s 2003, 2004, and 2005 reports. Finally, this section provides an introduction to open source, considering creative commons, science commons, and the IBM open source initiative. Section three reviews a recent California report which was issued to policy makers as background for consideration of a comprehensive state IP policy. The findings of the report with guiding principles, and recommendations from the report are summarized. Section four contains information concerning SUNY and the Research Foundation, NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, and City University of New York (CUNY) and the Research Foundation. It also provides information concerning NYSTAR and NYSERDA, and technology transfer/sponsored administration offices and affiliated New York state agencies. Section 5 provides an overview of state IP policies. This information was gathered from research conducted on each of the 50 states, analyzing their respective IP policies. Finally, Section 6 is a summary of the findings from each of the 50 states. 2 1 Federal Intellectual Property Policies 1.1 Bayh-Dole Act The Bayh-Dole Act was enacted in 1980 to create a uniform patent policy among the government institutions that fund research. The Act allowed small businesses and non-profit organizations, such as universities, to elect to take title to inventions developed with federal funds. However, the Act imposes numerous conditions in exchange for the university‘s right to elect to take title in an invention. First, the Bayh-Dole Act provides that the federal government shall have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention, or to have the invention practiced on behalf of 1 the United States, anywhere in the world. Second, the federal agency that provided the research funding which lead to the invention has ―march-in rights‖ to reclaim title to the invention if: (1) The action is necessary because the contractor or assignee has not taken effective steps to achieve practical application of the invention; (2) The action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs that are not being met by the contractor or assignee; (3) The action is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified in federal regulations; or (4) The action is necessary because an exclusive licensee of the invention has breached its agreement to have the invention manufactured substantially in the .2 United States Third, the university must disclose each invention to the federal agency that funded the research within a reasonable time after the inventor discloses the invention to the 3 university. If the university fails to disclose the invention to the federal funding agency 4within that period of time, the federal government can take title to the invention. Fourth, 1 35 U.S.C. §202(c)(4) (2004). 2 35 U.S.C. §203 (2004). 3 35 U.S.C. §202(c)(1) (2004). 4 Id. 3