̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - patent

Opinion: How an open approach to patents could help build a sustainable future

Anonymous — Tue, 16 May 2017 08:18:33 +0000

To sustain a population of 9.7 billion people by 2050 the world is going to need innovations that make careful use of the available resources, human and environmental. Key industry sectors such as energy, water, agriculture and transport are already under pressure to move to more sustainable methods of production and consumption. However, there are barriers in the way.

One of these lies in how the world manages the creation and ownership of inventions and ideas. A protectionist approach to intellectual property is designed to protect and prolong the lifecycle of existing technologies, and allow innovators to capture the profits from their creations. In a paper published with colleagues from universities in Germany and India, we examined how this also makes it harder for new and more sustainable technologies to be developed and adopted. That explains why there are now other approaches being used to move key sectors to more sustainable systems and end this status quo.

Electric car manufacturer Tesla, has been doing just that. Tesla CEO Elon Musk “shocked” the world in 2014 when he announced that his company was joining the open source movement and giving away its patents for free.

It is important to understand the rationale here. Why would a company that had worked so hard to develop and protect its technology from its global car manufacturer competitors suddenly give its technology away for free?

Switching track

Tesla initially developed a patent portfolio to protect its technology. However, Tesla’s concern that it would be overwhelmed once established car makers ramped up their production of electric cars never came to pass.

Instead, it saw the electric car market stagnate at less than 1% of total vehicle sales. So Tesla changed its strategy from trying to prevent others from building electric cars to trying to encourage them into the market.

Part of the reasoning here is that if more electric cars are built, then more battery recharging stations will be built too. This would make electric cars become more visible, and a more conventional choice. Tesla believes that an open intellectual property strategy can strengthen rather than diminish its position by building the size of the electric car market, and as a result, build its own share of the total automotive market.

This kind of careful management of intellectual property at company level, supported by policy-level awareness, can be a powerful way to support the same kinds of transitions to more sustainable technologies in other industries too.

Power companies need to adapt. Chiu Ho-yang/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Energy supply faces an array of difficulties: the depletion of natural resources; air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; nuclear risks; and security of supply. ̽��ֱ��water supply sector is restricted by water scarcity, pollutants, extreme environmental events such as flooding and costs associated with supplying water to communities in poor countries and remote communities. ̽��ֱ��agri-food sector, meanwhile, is under pressure to sustainably produce more food and to address malnutrition in poor countries.

For these industries to navigate a path around these problems, new knowledge and the innovations that follow will be essential. And in knowledge economies, intellectual property can either be an enabler or an inhibitor.

Taking the medicine

If the ownership of intellectual property is fragmented in an industry, it can slow down technology innovation and uptake, such as in the electronics industry where multiple players own complementary patents. However, firms can instead open up their innovation processes and move away from jealously guarded, internal cultures, where intellectual property is used to protect and prolong lifecycles. This change may see knowledge sharing that leads to accelerated innovation cycles and a more rapid uptake of sustainable alternatives throughout a sector: just what Tesla was hoping for in electric vehicles.

This approach to intellectual property, so-called “open IP”, is well advanced and mature in the software industry and healthcare. It has given access to life-saving medicines to millions of people, particularly in developing countries through patent pools, such as the Medicine Patent Pool. This kind of project relies on multinational pharmaceutical companies sharing their intellectual property, but small companies can also play a strategic roles in creating these new, more sustainable systems, and it’s not all about open IP.

Plumpy'Nut is handed out in Kenya. DFID /Flickr, CC BY

As progress in technology is cumulative, there will always be phases of “closed IP” for small companies to build up their portfolio. This can also be a strategy designed to make a social impact. Take Nutriset, which manufacturers food for famine relief. It protects both its invention, Plumpy’Nut, and its entire business model by patents. Plumpy’Nut is a peanut-based paste for the treatment of severe malnutrition and can be administered at home rather than through a supervised hospital treatment. As a result it can treat more patients.

Nutriset says that it uses patents to enable the development of local production plants for Plumpy’Nut and to protect those in emerging nations from being taken over by global manufacturing sites in more developed countries. ̽��ֱ��local production of Plumpy’Nut helps with creating skills and employment in the regions where Nutriset’s product is most needed.

An open approach to intellectual property has clear advantages in popularising and establishing new and widespread sustainable technologies, but there is a rationale in some cases for sticking to the more traditional approach. ̽��ֱ��trick now is to discover when and where different sectors and innovators deploy each strategy. ̽��ֱ��grand open IP gestures in the mould of Tesla can force through rapid structural advances; a small peanut paste supplier shows that patent protection can still help put the building blocks in place.

Frank Tietze, Lecturer in Technology and Innovation Management, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

Are strict IP policies harming the development of sustainable technologies? In this article for ̽��ֱ��Conversation, Frank Tietze from the Institute for Manufacturing investigates how the open source approach taken by companies such as Tesla may help the economy and the planet.

TED Conference

TED2013_0042956_D41_7031

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Patenting ethics in stem cell research

lw355 — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:53:03 +0000

A storm could soon hit European courts over whether it is ethical to patent work involving human embryonic stem cell lines. Scientists fear that the lengthy legal debate could spark more restrictive legislation, or even a ban on such work in Europe.

Professor Austin Smith, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and scientific co-ordinator of the EuroSyStem Project, and other prominent coordinators of European stem cell research bodies, weigh in with an open letter in this week’s Nature supporting the right to patent in this field, now under review by the European Court of Justice.

Arguing that these established cell lines do not involve commercialisation of the human embryo and are superior to other available technologies for developing therapies, they say that European bioindustry must have patent protection in order to realise the clinical benefits of stem cell lines.

“We trust that [the court] will deliberate on the full implications before making a legally binding ruling,” say the signatories.

̽��ֱ��letter plus comments from ethicists and scientists is available on eurostemcell.org, along with the opportunity to comment or add a signature at www.eurostemcell.org/stem-cell-patents

̽��ֱ��EuroSyStem Project is a member of EuroStemCell and is an EC-funded partnership between Europe's top stem cell research groups. ̽��ֱ��Project aims to interlink complementary biological and computational expertise to drive the generation of new knowledge on the characteristics of normal and abnormal stem cells.

Scientists say ‘No’ to a ban on stem cell patents recommended by the European Court of Justice.

European bioindustry must have patent protection in order to realise the clinical benefits of stem cell lines.

Dr Thomas Moreau

Human embryonic stem cell colonies

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

What is knowledge transfer?

ns480 — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:34:22 +0000

It’s all about the transfer of tangible and intellectual property, expertise, learning and skills between academia and the non-academic community. It’s also well recognised by government and funders as an important return on the UK’s investment in academic research, one that provides a significant driving force for enhancing economic growth and societal wellbeing. For academics, KT can be a way of gaining new perspectives on possible directions and approaches for research. This two-way exchange element of KT is at the heart of successful and sustainable collaboration.

Academics are often asked to consider the potential audiences, impact and applications for their work, and increasingly there are opportunities to apply for grants specifically with non-academic collaborative partners. In response, Research Councils UK (RCUK) has recently launched the RCUK Knowledge Exchange and Impact as a single point of access for those interested in KT schemes and activities.

Making the most of research

Discussion around KT often focuses on the formation of spin-out business, or the licensing of intellectual property (IP), based on the outputs of university science and technology-related research. Although these are vitally important areas, KT actually encompasses a much broader range of activities and is not limited to the science and technology disciplines. In terms of activities, KT can be split into six types:

People: When students graduate and join the workforce, they bring with them new knowledge and are effectively helping to ‘regenerate the gene pool’ of industry. ̽��ֱ��temporary placement of students and graduates in companies or in the public or voluntary sectors can be a more directed way of exchanging knowledge on a shorter term basis. One of the longest standing schemes is Knowledge Transfer Partnerships funded by the Technology Strategy Board and supported by most UK Research Councils.

Publication and events: Knowledge is transferred through publication of research outputs, and through events and networking. In Cambridge, events can vary from Horizon Seminars (which provide a first look at new findings and developments at the ̽��ֱ�� and are organised by Research Services Division) to the Corporate Gateway (offering a bespoke programme of customised meetings with leading ̽��ֱ�� researchers and new technology companies in Cambridge).

Collaborative research: This is a powerful means of creating opportunities for innovative knowledge exchange. In Cambridge, examples include the Cambridge Integrated Knowledge Centre (CIKC), which brings together ̽��ֱ�� research, industry secondments, business acumen and manufacturing expertise to help those with exploitable concepts to achieve commercial success in photonics and electronics; and the Institute for Manufacturing (IfM), which creates new ideas and approaches to modern industrial practice – from understanding markets and technologies, through product and process design, to operations, distribution and related services. As a whole, the ̽��ֱ�� typically engages in 650 research agreements, worth £22 million, with industry annually.

Consultancy: ̽��ֱ��provision of domain-specific expert advice and training to external clients by university staff can be a very effective KT mechanism – it can provide a platform for the exchange of both explicit and more tacit knowledge, and a window on areas of possible collaboration. Support for consultancy is one service offered by Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. ̽��ֱ��IfM also disseminates its research outputs through consultancy services provided by the ̽��ֱ��-owned company IfM Education and Consultancy Services Ltd. Together, Cambridge Enterprise and IfM provide consultancy support to more than 200 companies annually.

Licensing: Licensing the right to use specific research outputs (IP such as patentable ideas) is an important KT mechanism. Information on IP that is available for licensing is accessible through various websites, but successful licensing arrangements are long-term relationships often leading to research collaborations and individual contacts. Licensing is a key area of activity for Cambridge Enterprise, with about 50 new commercial agreements closed annually and a portfolio of over 450 active licence agreements.

New businesses: Bringing research outputs to market through the formation of a new business can be particularly appropriate when the application represents a ‘disruption’ to the current market or sector, or where there isn’t any obvious external partner to whom the idea could be licensed. New businesses based on research outputs often build their business models around collaboration with larger, established firms to access expertise, equipment and routes to market. Cambridge has a well-developed ecosystem for supporting this, including student business-plan programmes, area angel networks and access to capital through Cambridge Enterprise Seed Funds (see: ie.cam.ac.uk).

KT is a contact sport

Three key factors seem to underpin successful KT. First, it’s not a ‘zero cost’ activity; it takes effort and time to make it work. Second, it is a ‘contact sport’; it works best when people meet to exchange ideas, sometimes serendipitously, and spot new opportunities. Third, it needs practical, timely and active support at an institutional level – within companies and universities – encouraging a culture of open access and open innovation.

Knowledge transfer (KT) is a term used to encompass a very broad range of activities to support mutually beneficial collaborations between universities, businesses and the public sector.

KT is a ‘contact sport’; it works best when people meet to exchange ideas, sometimes serendipitiously, and spot new opportunities.

Tim Minshall

ExerciseEngineering from Flickr

Happy young business woman shaking hands with another female

Examples of support for KT in Cambridge

Student recruitment and student projects

Direct recruitment of Cambridge graduates: www.careers.cam.ac.uk
Hosting of student or graduate projects: www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/working/studentprojects
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships: www.research-operations.admin.cam.ac.uk/major-funders/knowledge-transfer...

Public availability of research results, events and networking

Direct access to research outputs: www.cam.ac.uk/research
Events and networking: www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/events; www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/corporategateway

Collaborative research

Setup of collaborative research projects: www.research-operations.admin.cam.ac.uk

Licensing of research outputs

Working with ̽��ֱ�� inventors to license patentable ideas to new and existing companies: https://www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk/for-external-organisations/available-technologies/

Formation of new businesses

Support to assist with new business formation: www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk; ie.cam.ac.uk

For more information, please contact the author Dr Tim Minshall (thwm100@eng. cam.ac.uk) at the Centre for Technology Management in the IfM. Dr Minshall has extensive experience of supporting industry–academic collaboration, technology transfer and open innovation.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Proactive IP analysis: helping commercialisation not to (micro)drop out of sight

tdk25 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Too often researchers discover that prospects for patenting and commercial exploitation of their inventions are compromised before they have even begun, either because they have prematurely disclosed the information or because ‘prior art’ exists that invalidates their application. What if researchers could instead build into their research process a review of the patent landscape at an early stage, rather than wait until issues are forced by the desire to publish? ̽��ֱ��IP position and commercial potential could then be used to inform strategic decisions about the direction of their research.

Cambridge Enterprise is working to do just this with Professors Chris Abell and Wilhelm Huck in the Department of Chemistry. With funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Cambridge Microdroplets Project will be used as a test-bed for proactive IP analysis. A full analysis of the relevant patent space will be conducted, together with an exploration of the best criteria for identifying and protecting IP during the course of the project; business models for commercialisation that are synergistic with the research will then be built.

̽��ֱ��Microdroplets Project is ideal to model this approach to IP because of its numerous and diverse IP and commercial opportunities. Microdroplets – small water droplets generated in microfluidic systems – have the potential to act as individual reaction chambers in which discrete chemical or biological transformations can be conducted. ‘ ̽��ֱ��power of this discovery platform is that it offers the prospect of a completely new approach to experimental science by allowing quantitative analytical experiments to be carried out in a high-throughput way,’ explained Professor Abell.

Microdroplet research is developing rapidly and has strong international competition from the USA, Europe and Asia. ‘Understanding the patent landscape in any emerging field can inform the strategy for patenting and partnering for commercialisation,’ explained Teri Willey, Chief Executive of Cambridge Enterprise. ‘In this case, the intention is to optimise the value of the research results as the programme evolves. It represents a strategy by which dissemination of the results can be maximised in parallel with development of a longer term commercialisation strategy. In traditional approaches, these things have sometimes been mutually exclusive.’

This model builds on processes generally adopted in academic research and is one that may well become an exemplar as more IP-sensitive translational research is undertaken by the ̽��ֱ��.

For more information, please contact Cambridge Enterprise Ltd (email: enquiries@enterprise.cam.ac.uk; Tel: +44 (0)1223 760339;www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk)

An innovative new project spearheaded by Cambridge Enterprise Ltd and researchers in the Department of Chemistry is taking a proactive approach to intellectual property (IP) and commercialisation.

̽��ֱ��power of this discovery platform is that it offers the prospect of a completely new approach to experimental science by allowing quantitative analytical experiments to be carried out in a high-throughput way.

Professor Abell

Professor Chris Abell

Microdroplets

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes