scholarly journals Intellectual property rights in research and development collaboration/ contract agreements between research institutions, universities and firms: part 2 — Ukraine, New Independent States

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-107
Author(s):  
Yurii Kapitsa
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
State Level ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Independent States ◽  
Research Organisations ◽  
New Independent States

Keywords: research and development contracts, research and development collaborationagreements, intellectual property rights, research organisations, universities The practice of regulatingintellectual property issues in R&D cooperation agreements/contracts betweenacademic institutions and companies in Ukraine and other New Independent States(Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia) (NIS) is studied. It is shown the undevelopment ofmodern approaches to the distribution of IP rights in R&D agreements, including thelack of, as a rule, the allocation of Background IP and New IP and payments to academicinstitutions for the use of such IP.The changes in the legislation of Ukraine are substantiated, as well as the need todevelop standard IP provisions for different options for relationships between academicinstitutions and national and foreign companies. The necessity is shown of (a)making changes to Chapter 62 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine“On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity”, other legislative acts related to IP inR&D contracts; (b) adoption by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine andthe Ministry of Economy of Ukraine of Recommendations on IP policy in research organizationsand universities; (c) developing, at the level of public authorities or academiesof science, leading academic institutions model IP provisions for R&D agreementsfor various options for relationships with companies; (d) at the state level, promotinga new model of relations between academic institutions and companies, whichstipulates that can receiving by academic institutions significantly more fundsthrough payments in addition to the cost of R&D contract, the license fees for theBackground IP and New IP.

scholarly journals Directions of legislative regulation of the intellectual property rights distribution in R&D contracts, financed from the state budget, in the newly independent states (NIS)

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Dmytro Makhnovsky
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
State Budget ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
Independent States ◽  
Newly Independent States ◽  
Model Agreement

The article analyzes the legislative regulation of the distribution of intellectual property rights in contracts for research and development, which are funded in whole or in part from the state budget, in the newly independent states: Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia,Areas of legislative regulation in the newly independent states (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia) the distribution of intellectual property rights in R&D contracts, funded in whole or in part from the state budget. Settlement of distribution of intellectual property rights in R&D contracts, financed from the state budget, in the NIS countries is carried out through general regulation, covering all subjects of legal relations, and the adoption of special acts — to finance R & D from the budget. At the level of special legislation, there are differences between countries both in the system of legislation and in the presence of model agreements for the implementation of R & D. Also, principle of the Bai-Dole Act and EU regulations on the research Framework Programs, that ownership of IPR rights belongs to the contractor, is fully implemented only in Ukraine. It is important for the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine to develop a special model agreement for case, when research and development are being funded in whole or in part from the state budget. This Model agreement should contain options for the distribution of intellectual property rights and shall bring the provisions of model agreements on conducting research and development in accordance with the Art.11 of the Law of Ukraine «On state regulation of activities in the field of technology transfer» and Art. 64 of the Law of Ukraine «On scientific and scientific-technical activities». Key words: contracts for research and developments, intellectual property, rights to results of research developments.

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights Within NAFTA 1.0: Implications for NAFTA 2.0 and for Democratic (Health) Governance in Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faisal Ali Mohamed ◽  
Claudia Chaufan
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Drug Prices

In 1993, the Canadian federal government ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Prior to ratification, compulsory licensing was eliminated from Canada’s Patent Act and intellectual property rights (IPRs) were strengthened. Compulsory licensing allows competitors to produce drugs under patent without the consent of the patent holder, challenging drug monopolies and lowering prices, whereas IPRs lengthen patent protections, shielding patent holders from competition and increasing prices. We perform a critical discourse analysis of key provisions in Chapter 17 of NAFTA in light of industry claims that pharmaceutical innovation requires important investments in research and development, justifying high drug prices. We note that since NAFTA, spending in research and development in Canada has decreased and drug prices have increased, becoming a major barrier to equitable access to critically necessary medications. We argue that by modifying the law, the federal government has wronged the Canadian people by discursively appropriating the language of protecting the public good while in practice legitimizing and consolidating private drug development and production, legalizing exorbitant profits, and excluding well-tested publicly financed alternatives. While NAFTA has now been superseded by the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, our analysis offers important lessons moving forward.

Intellectual Property Protection for Biologics: Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement Fails to Deliver

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina M Lybecker
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights Protection ◽  
Data Exclusivity ◽  
Property Rights Protection

Biopharmaceutical research and development is overwhelmingly focused in the U.S. becasue here it is incentivized and encouraged through a robust intellectual property rights protection environment.  Across the board, the United States provides the most comprehensive, effective intellectual property rights protections for biopharmaceuticals.  As a result, the industry locates here, researches here, and thrives here.  With an acknowledgement of the importance of intellectual property rights as well as the wider benefits of biopharmaceutical research and development, it's tremendously disappointing that the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement fails to deliver sufficient IP protections for biologics.  This article explores the importance of a rigorous intellectual property environemtn for the biopharmaceutical industry through an examination of the importance of data exclusivity provisions.  Such protection is critical as the number, complexity and cost of clinical trials increases.  Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it.  As technology evolves, making the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies possible, society's commitment to incentivize innovation and protect it must be enshrined in the intellectual property protections of agreements such as the TPP.

Research and Development of CRAMTRA 1.0 Code for Consequence Assessment From Radioactive Material Transport

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Renze ◽  
Zhang Jiangang ◽  
Li Guoqiang ◽  
Zhuang Dajie ◽  
Sun Hongchao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Material Transport ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Consequence Assessment

Code for consequence assessment (CA) from radioactive material transport (RMT) is an important tool for RMT CA. Since 1980s relevant codes have been introduced from western countries to China, however, there isn’t a code with independent intellectual property rights of China. Design, programming and test of CRAMTRA 1.0 code for RMT CA was introduced in this paper, the results show that CRAMTRA 1.0 has reliable quality and fine practicability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document