ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Transfusion medicine technology transfer: Traps to avoid

Authors:

Abstract

Technology transfer is the process of commercializing technology and taking it from the laboratory to the marketplace. At some stage in the technology transfer process, a due diligence will be undertaken. A due diligence is an enquiry into the technology and, in particular, its ownership. Research organizations including hospitals, universities, and blood banks need to own the intellectual property that they seek to commercialize. They own the intellectual property created by their staff in the course of employment. But volunteers, students, and collaborators, not being members of staff, will own the intellectual property that they create. This gives rise to due diligence and ownership defects, when intellectual property may in fact be owned by someone other than the research organization that seeks to commercialize it. Joint ownership can sometimes prevent commercialization. An assignment of intellectual property from a volunteer or student may sometimes be required. Such an assignment, if it inadequately deals with all relevant issues, may be void pursuant to laws throughout the world. A void deed of assignment may expose the research organization to legal liabilities. The categories of technology transfer traps to be explored are (1) ownership issues arising from the participation of students and volunteers in research, (2) ownership issues arising from collaborative research relationships, (3) ownership issues arising from the participation in research of visitors from another research organization, and (4) ownership issues arising from inventions made by employees. Each of these is considered in the context of the legal and regulatory framework in Australia, Canada, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... According to Chalmers and Glasziou [4], of the nearly 240 billion U.S. dollars spent on pharmaceutical research annually in the world, up to 85% of the funds are not well-utilized due to inefficiency. Technology transformation is the process of bringing pharmaceutical research results from the laboratory to the market [5]. In this process, the main task of universities is not only teaching and research but also its role in the knowledge production system. ...
... However, the pharmaceutical research results of faculty inventors Chalmers and Glasziou [4], of the nearly 240 billion U.S. dollars spent on pharmaceutical research annually in the world, up to 85% of the funds are not well-utilized due to inefficiency. Technology transformation is the process of bringing pharmaceutical research results from the laboratory to the market [5]. In this process, the main task of universities is not only teaching and research but also its role in the knowledge production system. ...
Article
Full-text available
University–industry technology transfer (UITT) plays an important role in the construction of the national pharmaceutical innovation system. The speculations of a faculty inventor may hinder the successful transfer of pharmaceutical research results. This paper divides the specific process of the transformation of pharmaceutical research results into two parts: (1) an evolutionary game between faculty inventors and universities; and (2) a Stackelberg game between faculty inventors and pharmaceutical companies. Further, we carry out numerical simulations to analyze the impact of transformation success rate, income distribution coefficient, and a faculty inventor’s future working years on the transformation of pharmaceutical research results. The findings indicated that whether a combination of action strategies of faculty inventors and universities can evolve to the optimal equilibrium is determined by many factors, such as the technological transaction price of the pharmaceutical company and the reward or the income obtained by the faculty inventor. The transformation success rate and the income distribution coefficient are the key factors that affect the faculty inventor’s will and the behavior of the pharmaceutical company. The conclusions of this paper contribute to the research on how we can improve the success rate of research results and avoid resource waste, and provide a decision-making reference for the management of pharmaceutical research results in universities.
  • Slator Vnolan
Slator VNolan, Ir. R. 11 Eq. 367 at 386 (1876)
Trade Practices Act 1979, Alberta Unfair Trade Practices Act
  • British Columbia
British Columbia, Trade Practices Act 1979, Alberta Unfair Trade Practices Act 1980, Ontario Business Practices Act 1990, Newfoundland Trade Practices Act 1990, Prince Edward Island Business Practices Act 1988
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd 10 NSWLR 468 1987 16
Schnack Applied Arts Corporation, 278 NW 117 Mich 434 15. Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd 10 NSWLR 468 1987 16. Sterling Engineering Co Ltd v Patehett, AC 534 (1955) 17. Spirrol Corp v Putti, 29 CPR (2d) 260 (1976)
  • W J Gage V Sugdent
W. J. Gage v Sugdent, 20.R 151 (1967) t9. Section 39 Patents Act 1977 (UK)