Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Grad Students, PostDocs, & Intellectual Property: A Study for CAGS Faculties of Medicine &

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Grad Students, PostDocs, & Intellectual Property: A Study for CAGS Faculties of Medicine &"— Presentation transcript:

1 Grad Students, PostDocs, & Intellectual Property: A Study for CAGS Faculties of Medicine &

2 ( frame ) 1 law / US, Canada 2 policy / 12 Canadian institutions 3 practice / synthesis + questions

3 Intellectual Property (1) forms of IP / patent (apps, grants) copyright trademark trade secrets ( other ) contracts (k) / pre-assignment confidentiality k material transfer k data management k ( uni policies )

4 Intellectual Property (2) IP in context education commercialization

5 document-based analysis but empirically-informed

6 ( frame ) law / Canada policy / 12 Canadian institutions practice / synthesis + questions

7 academia ideas IP

8 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)

9 Legal Issues Credit Control Contracts Employment Status ( fiduciary obligations )

10 Credit and Control ( legally ) Inventorship Ownership Authorship

11 Inventorship “inventive concept” verification Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2002 SCC 77

12 Authorship “original expression” typing, editing Kantel v. Grant, [1933] Ex. C.R. 84 Dolmage v. Erskine, [2003] O.J. No. 161

13 Credit and Control Inventorship Ownership Authorship

14 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.)

15 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. 992 Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd., [1991] F.C.J. No. 987

16 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

17 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

18 Contract and Status contractual pre-assignments increasingly common? funder driven? legally valid? postdoc unionization reversing ownership presumptions?

19 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

20 ( frame ) law / Canada policy / 12 Canadian institutions practice / synthesis + questions

21 Policy Comparison CAGS members ( n=65 ) subset of 12

22 Policy Comparison collective agreements IP policies conflict of interest policies academic / research integrity policies graduate student / postdoc policies

23 Institution#Grad StuMed SchoolIP Own’pTTO Emily Carr30NOJointYES Brandon120NOInstitutionNO Lethbridge430NOCreatorYES U Regina830NOCreatorYES Ryerson2060NOCreatorYES Memorial2310YESInstitutionYES Manitoba2970YESJointYES Carleton3000NOCreatorYES Dalhousie3220YESCreatorYES McGill6940YESJointYES UBC9070YESInstitutionYES U of T14800YESJointYES

24 Points of Comparison (1) policy inclusion?

25 InstitutionIP Own’pPolicy Incl ? Emily CarrJointYES BrandonInstitutionNO LethbridgeCreatorYES U ReginaCreatorYES RyersonCreatorYES MemorialInstitutionYES ManitobaJointYES CarletonCreatorUnclear DalhousieCreatorNO McGillJointYES UBCInstitutionYES U of TJointYES CA, CAGS Guide CA only

26 Points of Comparison (1) clarity ? ( common law )

27 Points of Comparison (2) consent ? ab initio

28 InstitutionConsent Req’d? Inst’al Resp’ty Supervisor Resp’ty Ongoing Oversight? Emily CarrNO BrandonYESNO LethbridgeNO U ReginaNO RyersonYES? NO MemorialYES ManitobaNO CarletonNO DalhousieNO McGillNO UBCNO U of TNO

29 Points of Comparison (3a) commercialization decision-making ? a ) right to commercialize independently

30 InstitutionIP Own’pFacultyStu / PDF Emily CarrJointUnclear BrandonInstitutionEx PostUnclear LethbridgeCreatorEx Ante U ReginaCreatorEx AnteUnclear RyersonCreatorEx Ante MemorialInstitutionEx Post ManitobaJointEx AnteUnclear CarletonCreatorEx AnteUnclear DalhousieCreatorEx AnteUnclear McGillJointEx Post UBCInstitutionEx Post U of TJointEx Ante

31 Points of Comparison (3b) commercialization decision-making ? b ) right not to commercialize

32 InstitutionIP Own’pFacultyStu / PDF Emily CarrJointYESUnclear BrandonInstitutionUnclear LethbridgeCreatorYESUnclear U ReginaCreatorYESUnclear RyersonCreatorYESUnclear MemorialInstitutionNO ManitobaJointYESUnclear CarletonCreatorYESUnclear DalhousieCreatorYESUnclear McGillJointYES UBCInstitutionYES U of TJointNO

33 Points of Comparison (3c) commercialization decision-making ? c ) right to share in revenues

34 InstitutionIP Own’pFacultyStu / PDF Emily CarrJointYESUnclear BrandonInstitutionYESUnclear LethbridgeCreatorYESUnclear U ReginaCreatorYESUnclear RyersonCreatorYES MemorialInstitutionYES ManitobaJointYES CarletonCreatorYESUnclear DalhousieCreatorYESUnclear McGillJointYES UBCInstitutionYES U of TJointYES

35 Further Points of Comparison dispute resolution process ? confidentiality clauses? mission statements?

36 ( frame ) law / Canada policy / 12 Canadian institutions practice / synthesis + questions

37 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.

38 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.

39 Growing Exposure

40 Norm Change? (1) Reasons for choosing research projects by research goal Walsh et al Scientific importance 97 Results patentable7 N Master’s PhDs Post-Docs Assist Profs Assoc Profs Full Profs 532

41 Norm Change? (2) Hong and Walsh Comp.SecrecyComp. Secrecy Yes% (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)

42 Norm Change? (3) 2013 CompetitionSecrecyYes% (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 o nly

43 Fiduciary Obligations confront norm change offer more than ‘how to’ commercialization sessions foster critical thinking capacity about IP and commercialization

44 Acknowledgment CAGS CIHR


Download ppt "Grad Students, PostDocs, & Intellectual Property: A Study for CAGS Faculties of Medicine &"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google