scholarly journals PowerbyProxi Connecting the Unknown Dots in the Commercialisation of Inductive Power Transfer

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Karlson ◽  
Nadine France ◽  
Cristiano Bellavitis
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Business Model ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Consumer Electronics ◽  
Inductive Power Transfer ◽  
Slip Ring ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Breakthrough Technology

This case describes New Zealand technology company PowerbyProxi, which was established by entrepreneurs Fady Mishriki and Greg Cross in 2007. PowerbyProxi developed a patented wireless slip ring designed for applications within the “wet, dirty and moving” industrial market and also offered breakthrough technology for wireless charging solutions for consumer electronics market. The case gives an overview of one research commercialisation experience through the lens of a New Zealand start-up. It depicts the challenges related to developing a viable product; identifying, creating and interacting with a market; securing intellectual property rights, and developing a business model.

scholarly journals ECONOMIC AND LEGAL PROSPECTS OF ACTIVATION OF SCIENCE PARKS ACTIVITY JN THE WAY TO NEOECONOICS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Олександр Бутнік-Сіверський
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Science Parks ◽  
Science Park ◽  
State Budget ◽  
Start Up

The author researches and substantiates by generalizing the scientific points of view improving the legal regulation of the created science parks on the initiative of higher education institutions and / or research institutions, taking into account the economic and legal prospect of intensifying their activities. National and foreign experience of scienceparks activity is considered. The content of using the founding agreement on creation of a science park and the agreement on partnership of business entities with a science park is provided. Problems that have not yet been resolved in the process of creating science parks and using innovative developments are noted. The classical content of entrepreneurship in innovation is provided and considered from thestandpoint of clarifying the content of the innovation structure, which is based on the commercialization of intellectual property rights by their types, which is a part of the intellectual capital cycle with a corresponding effective result. There is substantiated the procedure of formation of the statutory capital of the science park, to which higher educational institutions and / or scientific institutions cannot use intellectual property rights to the objects, created at the expense of budgetary funds, but can only under the conclusion of a license agreement with business entity,having non-state and state form of ownership as transferred assets, which does not require the alienation of the object of intellectual property rights as part of intangible assets. It is proposed to use the target budget funds as the initial start-up capital, which is provided on reverse terms to the state budget in case of closure (liquidation) of the science park by the decision of the founders or on the basis of a court decision. Alternatively, in the absence of target budget funds, it is proposed as a source of money to contribute to the statutory capital of the science park as a start-up capital to send part of the special fund of the state budget. It is justified the creation of a technology transfer office, which will be a structural unit of higher education institutions and / or research institutions, which will deal with the process of filing and reviewing a patent application and subsequent licensing. It is noted that the science park can be the founder (co-founder) of small innovative enterprises and enter into partnership agreements with them for the implementation of certain innovative projects.

scholarly journals The Need for a University Start-up Framework for Commercialisation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): A Malaysia Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-134
Author(s):  
Noor Hidayah Shahidan ◽  
Ahmad Shaharudin Abdul Latif ◽  
Sazali Abdul Wahab
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
Management Technology ◽  
Academic Researchers

Purpose: There is only 8% of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) produced by the universities in Malaysia is being commercialized, therefore there is a need to increase the success rate of university start-up for sustainable income’s generation by the universities. The aim of this paper is to review the need for a university start-up framework especially for Malaysian universities, which would facilitate the commercialisation initiatives.   Design/Methodology/Approach: Review of literatures, which was comprised of articles in the field of management, technology transfer, social and behavioral sciences as well as reports from Malaysian government agencies and commercialisation policies of 11 Malaysian universities.  Qualitative content analysis method was used to analyze the commercialisation policies by 11 Malaysian universities.   Findings: This paper reviews issues and challenges of IPR commercialisation from the perspective of academic researchers and industry, issues related to university start-up in the context of Malaysia and the need for a university start-up framework for commercialisation of IPR. Implications/Originality/Value: This paper is amongst the first to highlight on the issues of university start-up as a commercialisation vehicle in the context of Malaysia.      

Patent pooling: Uncorking a technology transfer bottleneck and creating value in the biomedical research field

10.5912/jcb16 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Grassler ◽  
Mary Ann Capria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Consumer Electronics ◽  
Efficient Technology ◽  
Patent Pools ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
Cost Efficient

Patent pools have long been used to collect intellectual property rights into a basket of rights that can facilitate the licensing thereof. By pooling relevant patent rights together, the out-licensing is streamlined and made more cost efficient. Many recent patent pools involved establishing and administering patents that meet an established industry standard and then granting non-exclusive licences to the patents that are considered essential to that standard, eg consumer electronics. While there are few, if any, established industry standards in biomedical research, there are opportunities to pool intellectual property rights that facilitate cost-efficient technology transfers and foster better research.

Parallel Importing Post Trips: Convergence and Divergence in Australia and New Zealand

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Longdin
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Distribution Networks ◽  
Barriers To Entry ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Import Restrictions ◽  
The Impact

In a famous act of studied neutrality the framers of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)1 left nations adhering to the Agreement completely free, in Article 6 of that document, to determine the extent to which they would allow the parallel importation of products affected by intellectual property rights which had been lawfully placed on the market outside the jurisdiction.2 The hands off approach embodied in Article 6 came as no surprise to commentators and TRIPS watchers. What to do about parallel importing has always been an issue which has deeply divided the world's trading nations and continues to be the subject of vigorous debate within them.3 Intellectual property owners and their licensees are uniting across national borders not just to defend historically entrenched advantages but also to portray these advantages as so much a part of the post TRIPS order that their extension (at home as well as abroad) seems both natural and inevitable. Importers and would-be importers outside existing distribution networks not unnaturally remain sceptical of arguments which threaten to replace tariffs and import restrictions with private law barriers to entry, barriers backed by both civil and criminal sanctions. In Australia and New Zealand these self-interested opponents of parallel importing have, in recent years, been joined in their scepticism by competition regulators and policy makers eager to bring to bear on the debate economic insights derived from detailed analyses of the impact of such restrictions both on particular product markets and the national economy as a whole. Increasingly too, the wider consuming public has begun to see that grey markets have charms hitherto invisible behind now removed protectionist walls.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document