1. Intellectual Property Rights Regulations in Russia: Case of Government-Supported R&D Irina Dezhina Leading Researcher, Ph.D. Institute for the Economy in Transition Moscow, Russia degina@iet.ru

2. CONTENTS 1. Why the focus is on government- financed results of R&D? 2. Development of legislation during 1992-2005 3. Unresolved problems 4. Indicators of patenting 5. New instruments for commercialization of IP: technology transfer offices 6. Possible options

3. IPR Created Under Budgetary Expense: the Scope  90% of all IP in Russia was created under budgetary expense  The share of government financing of R&D is about 60% of the total expenditures from all sources In particular: In academic institutes – over 80% In universities –62% (data for 2003)

4. Development of Legal Basis in 1992-2003  Patent Law of the Russian Federation (1992) and six basic laws in the area of IP: Acceptance of international practice  Government Decrees of 1998-1999: Strengthening the power of the State  Government Order of 2001: An attempt to find balance of interests (government – organization- inventor)  Corrected Patent Law (2003): Clarification of terms for government contractual agreements

5. Recent Developments in Legislation Government Regulations (November, 2005):  In case of government contracts IP may belong to:  The State  Organization where IP was created  Both  IP belongs to the state if results are restricted in use or government is ready to take responsibility for commercialization.  Both state and R&D organization (university) own IP in case of defense-related results or if results are related to implementation of government functions (health protection).

6. Unresolved Problems in Recent Legislation  What are criteria for identification of R&D results that government is ready to commercialize by itself?  What are the responsibilities of organization that receives ownership?  How should the amount of payments that organization-owner of IP will pay to the federal budget be calculated?  The case of mixed financing from a number of sources is not resolved.

7. Other Problems  Contradictions between legal and sublegislative (level of ministries) documents.  Results received under government contractual agreements should be published. This may contradict to the intention of organization to patent.  Undeveloped methods to calculate the cost of IP. Usually it is calculated as expenditures on R&D.  Problems related to amortization of IP.  Mistrust towards Russian patent system among researchers. Patenting abroad is expensive. Result: low level of patenting. Preference is given to know- how.

8. Some Indicators of Patenting in Russia  Only 0.4% of R&D results are in economic turnover. For developed countries this indicator is 70%.  Patenting in Russia is often used to secure priority in R&D, and not as a step towards commercialization. From the total number of registered patents only 35% are patents in force. Usually patent maintenance lasts 4-5 years. (data from the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks)

9. Patent Applications Granted by USPTO / Million population (2003-2004)

10. Technology Transfer Offices in Russia 1. First TTO were established in 2003. Two models are developing simultaneously. 2. First model: TTO are independent legal entities aimed for economic development of the region. This model is supported from the federal budget. Total number of TTO created to the date – 68. 3. Second model: TTO are subdivisions of universities. One of their major functions is educational. This model is supported on matching basis from the federal budget and foreign (U.S.) sources. Number of TTO - 4.

11. Government Financing of TTO

12. Achievements of TTO 1. Some TTO managed to establish transparent internal structure, conducted partner search, technology audits and market assessment studies. These TTO proceed with commercialization in three directions: Patenting / licensing; Establishment of small (spin-off) companies; R&D contracts with industrial enterprises 2. TTO became places for training and retraining of innovation managers. 3. Expert estimation for the number of successful TTOs – 10% from the total.

13. TTO- Second Model: Results to Date No royalty income 29 new licenses negotiated 30 new enterprises launched 400+ company contacts made Training of other university personnel Research contracts for host universities

14. Problems (1)  Need in TTO is not widely accepted in research community. Researchers think they may commercialize their developments by their own.  In some TTO leadership sees TTO only as a patent office or as training division.  In many cases industrial enterprises prefer outsource R&D to teams of researchers without contacting TTO or organization (university).  The R&D results are usually not ready for commercialization.  Lack of information about developments in organizations other then the one that hosts the TTO.

15. Problems (2)  Government financing of TTO is guaranteed for 1 year. Support is provided only for R&D.  Legal basis for contractual agreements between organization and employee is underdeveloped. Employees do not have obligation to report about their R&D results and potential commercial value of these results to employer.  Legislation in many cases hampers innovation activity rather then encourages it. Example: regulations concerning SME.

16. Possible Actions  Improvement of government regulations, including the one concerning innovative SME, in order to create environment friendly to innovations.  Introduction of the analogous of the US Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 with detailed clarification of all terms and conditions.  Support of public-private partnerships in innovation: joint R&D projects, outsourcing of R&D.  Establishment of coordination among government agencies in order to make innovation policy more consistent.