Aaron Amat / Shutterstock.com
By facilitating public access to the work being done, universities face the challenge of maintaining a balance between being transparent and commercialising IP. LSIPR spoke to the head of the University of Manchester IP about walking the fine line.
When it comes to developing and marketing drugs, it is fair to say universities are in a precarious position. Unlike pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities are responsible to research councils and their taxpayer masters to be open about their research.
This can put a strain on protecting research with IP. By having to facilitate public access to the work being done, universities face the challenge of maintaining a balance between transparency and IP protection.
But things have moved beyond basic government demands that research be published and put in the public domain. Now, says Dr Rich Ferrie, head of the University of Manchester IP (UMIP), “research councils that are funding this research want to see that translated into some societal benefit”.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
UMIP; tech transfer; pharmaceuticals; C4X