Asian initiatives on Bayh-Dole, with special reference to India: How do we make it more "Asian?"

Journal of Intellectual Property

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 44-64

  Stephen, Tina K ^a  

^a Department of Polymer Science and Rubber Technology   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873264922     PISSN: 15599493     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Robert E. Litan et al., Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches, 8 NBER INNOVATION POL'Y AND THE ECON. 31, 38 (Adam B. Jaffe et al. eds., 2008).
2. David C. Mowery, The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Policy Model for Other Governments?, May 2, 2005, http://www.merid.org/bayh-dole/BDRFpaper Mowery.pdf.
3. Michael S. Mireles, An Examination ofPatents, Licensing, Research Tools, and the Tragedy of the Anticommons in Biotechnology Innovation, 38 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 141, 144 (2004).
4. Gregory D. Graff, Echoes of Bayh-Dole? A Survey oflP and Technology Transfer Policies in Emerging and Developing Economies, INTELL. PROP. MGMT. IN HEALTH AND AGRIC. INNOVATION: A HANDBOOK OF BEST PRACTICES 169, 195 (Anatole Krattiger et al., eds., 2007).
5. Anthony D. So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience, 6 (10) PLOS Bio. 2078, 2084 (2008), http://plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371 %2Fjoumal.pbio.0060262.
6. Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of US. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent, SOC'Y TECH. MGMT. NEWSL., July 2008, at 2.
7. Bhaven N. Sampat, Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole, 35 RES. POL'Y 772, 789 (2006).
8. Bhaven N. Sampat, Universities and Intellectual Property: Shaping a New Patent Policy for Government Funded Academic Research, SHAPING SCI. AND TECH. POL'Y: THE NEXT GENERATION OF RES. 55, 62 (David H. Guston & Daniel Sarewitz, eds., 2006).
9. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and Universily-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?, 30 J. TECH. TRANSFER 115, 127 (2005).
10. Elizabeth Popp Berman, Why Did Universities Start Patenting? Institution-Building and the Road to the Bayh-Dole Act, 38 SOC. STUD. SCI. 835, 871 (2008).
11. Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289, 314 (2003).
12. David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Ziedonis, Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?, 1 NBER INNOVATION POL'Y AND THE ECON. 187, 221 (2001).
13. David C. Mowery et al., Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University- Industry Technology Transfer Before and After Bayh-Dole, STANFORD UNIV. PRESS, 241 (2004). (The study suggests that a rise in patenting at the universities were due to several reasons and the enactment of the Bayh-Dole was just one among them rather than being the sole reason).
14. Rebecca Henderson et al., Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting: 1965-88, 80 REV. ECON & STAT. 119, 127 (1998).
15. Lita Nelsen, The Rise ofIntellectual Property Protection in the American University, 279 SC. 1460, 1461 (1998).
16. Mowery, D. C., et al., Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, 48 MGMT. SCI., 73, 89 (2002).
17. European Commission, The Role of Universities in the Europe of Knowledge, COM (2003), 58 final (Feb. 5, 2003), http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&typedoc=COMfinal&a n doc=2003&nu doc=58.
18. Bart Verspagen, University Research, Intellectual Property Rights and European Innovation Systems, 20 J. OF ECON. SURV. 607, 631 (2006), http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=14442.
19. Btrje Johansson et al., The Lisbon Agenda from 2000 to 2010, Royal Inst. of Tech., CESIS ECON. & INST. OF INNOVATION WORKING PAPER SERIES No. 106 (2007).
20. James Nurton & Emma Barraclough, Bayh-Dole's Influence Worldwide, 155 MANAGING INTELL. PROP. 38, 39 (2005).
21. Aldo Geunaa & Lionel J.J. Nesta, University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence, 35 RES. POL'Y 790, 807 (2006).
22. Jia Hepeng, China Amends S & T Law to Boost Research, SCIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORK, Jan. 3 2008, http://www.scidev.net/en/news/china-amends-st-law-to-boost-research.html.
23. Liu Ying, Former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh in China to introduce the Bayh-Dole Act, CHINA IP MAG., Feb. 1, 2008, http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/joumal-show.asp?id=371.
24. Gong K., Technological Innovation and Social Commitment: Perspectives and Practices of Tsinghua University, Presented at Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Annual Meetings, Phoenix, Arizona, (Feb. 4, 2005).
25. Robert Kneller, Ownership Rights to University Inventions in Japan and China, CASRIP Publication Series 5: STREAMLINING INT'L INTELL. PROP. 160, 164 (1999), http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/symposium/Number5/pub5atcll 8.pdf.
26. Hua Guo, IP Management at Chinese Universities, INTELL. PROP. MGMT. IN HEALTH AND AGRIC. INNOVATION 1673, (Anatole Krattiger et al. eds., 2007), http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/chl7/pO9/.
27. Risaburo Nezu, Current Status of TLO's Technology Transfer in Southeast Asia, Report on the International Licensing Seminar, National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (NCIPI), Japan 392, 397 (2006).
28. Yoshikazu Ogawa, Challenging the traditional organization ofJapanese universities, 43 HIGHER EDUC. 85, 108 (2002).
29. Shaunl Goldfinch, Rituals of Reform, Policy Transfer, and the National University Corporation Reforms of Japan, 19 GOVERNANCE 585, 604 (2006).
30. Steven Collins & Hikoji Wakoh, Universities and Technology Transfer in Japan: Recent Reforms in Historical Perspective, 25 J. TECH. TRANSFER 213, 222 (2000).
31. Robert Kneller, Japan's New Technology Transfer System and The Preemption of University Discoveries By Sponsored Research and Co-Inventorship, 18 J. Assoc. U. TECH. MANAGERS 15, 35 (2006).
32. National Science Foundation, Tokyo Regional Office, TLOs and University Intellectual Property Centers, Report Memorandum #04-05, (July 20, 2004).
33. Robert Kneller, University-Industry Cooperation and Technology Transfer in Japan Compared With the US.: Another Reason for Japan's Economic Malaise?, 24 U. PA. J. INT'L. ECON. L. 329, 449 (2003).
34. Ravee Suntheralingam, R & D at MSC Malaysia, 4th ENGAGE European Union - Southeast Asia ICT Research Collaboration Conference, Malaysia, (Feb 26-27, 2007), http://www.eurice.info/typo3sites/fileadmin/engage/public_penang/documents/programme/Ravee ENGAGE slides -RaveeSuntheralingam.pdf.
35. Bernama, National Nanotechnology Centre to Be Set Up under 9MP, Malaysian National News Agency (Malaysia), 14 March, 2006, www.bemama.com.my/bemama/v3/printable.php?id=185498. In furtherance of the intention to create an IP model the Malaysia Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) in 2006 came out with an announcement to that effect.
36. Linda Lim, Malaysia Boosts Efforts to Reverse Brain Drain, SCI. AND DEV. NETWORK, July 30 2004, www.scidev.net/News/index.cfin?fuseaction-readNews&itemid=1527&language=1.
37. Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia's Science & Technology Policy for the 21st Century, (2000), http://www.mosti.gov.my/mosti/images/pdf/dstn2bi.pdf.
38. Chew Kherk Ying & Sonia Ong, The Tech Transfer Landscape, 195 MANAGING INTELL. PROP. 79
39. A. Ali, Engaging Economic Development through the Commercialization of Research: the Malaysian Experience, General Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, Belfast (Aug. 31-Sept. 4, 2003).
40. Government of Malaysia, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Intellectual Property commercialisation Policy For Research & Development (R&D) Projects Funded by the Government Of Malaysia, (June 2009) http://www.mosti.gov.my/mosti/images/pdf/IP%2OCommercialization%2OPolicy.pdf
41. The Science and Technology Policy, 2003 (Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, 2003), http://www.dst.gov.in/stsysindia/stp2003.htm.
42. Mrinalini Kochupillai, The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light ofIndia's Innovation Environment, 15 J. INTELL. PROP. RTS. 19, 34 (2010).
43. Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act?, Business Standard, (2008), http://www.businessstandard. com/india/storypage.php?autono=328187.
44. Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property, Policy Brief Number 5, UNCTAD - ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (Oct.5, 2009).
45. C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill is Flawed, Say Experts, Live Mint, Sept. 21, 2009.
46. V. C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake, 13 (5) J.I.P.R., 480, 485 (2008).
47. David C. Mowery, The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Policy Model for Other Governments?, May 2, 2005, http://www.merid.org/bayh-dole/BDRFpaper Mowery.pdf.
48. Coe A. Bloomberg, Federal Funded Inventions and Bayh-Dole Act Compliance: Do You Really Own What You Think You Own?, 16 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 1, 6 (2004)
49. David C. Mowery et al., The growth ofpatenting and licensing by US. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, 30 RES. POL'Y, 99, 119 (2001).
50. R. Saha et al., Building a 'Cottage Industry'for Health (and Wealth): The New Framework for IP Management in India, 10 IP STRATEGY TODAY 23, 58 (2004), http://www.biodevelopments.org/ip/ipstl0.pdf.
51. Scott F. Kieff, Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 MINN. L. REV. 697, 754 (2001).
52. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government Sponsored Research, 82 VA. L. REV. 1671, 1691 (1996).
53. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions, 91, AMERICAN Eco. R., No. 1, 240, 259 (2001).
54. Shamnad Basheer & Shouvik Guha, Patenting Publicly Funded Research: A Critique of the Indian Bayh -Dole Bill, 24 COLUM. J. ASIAN L., (Forthcoming 2010).
55. Robert P. Merges & Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839, 916 (1990).
56. Jerome H. Reichman, Testimony before National Institutes of Health (NIH), Washington, D.C., Public Hearing on March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act (May 23, 2004).
57. Barbara M. McGarey & Annette C. Levey, Patents, Products, and Public Health: An Analysis of the Cell Pro March-In Petition, 14 BERKELEY. TECH. L. J. 1095, 1116 (1999).
58. Brett M. Frischmann, An Economic Theory ofInfrastructure and Commons Management, 89 MINN L. REV. 917, 1030 (2005).
59. Everett M. Rogers et al., Assessing the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer Offices at US. Research Universities, 12 J. ASSOC. UNIV. TECH. MANAGERS (AUTM), 43, 80 (2000).
60. Jamie Aboites & Mario Cimoli, Intellectual Property Rights and National Innovation Systems: Some Lessons from the Mexican Experience, 99 REVUE D'ECONOMIE INDUSTRIELLE 215, 232 (2002).