Canada s Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy submission from Polytechnics Canada

Similar documents
Technology and Innovation in the NHS Scottish Health Innovations Ltd

EASY ACCESS IP AN INTRODUCTION FOR UTS RESEARCHERS FEBRUARY 2014 RESEARCH & INNOVATION OFFICE

Globalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries

Canadian Health Food Association. Pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2018 budget

Engaging Industry Partners

Impact and Innovation in H2020 Proposals and projects

Pan-Canadian Trust Framework Overview

Brief to the. Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson President and CEO

IP and Technology Management for Universities

Climate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D) INSTITUTIONS

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy WORKING DOCUMENT. on Innovation Union: Transforming Europe for a post-crisis world

Technology Leadership Course Descriptions

ADVANCING KNOWLEDGE. FOR CANADA S FUTURE Enabling excellence, building partnerships, connecting research to canadians SSHRC S STRATEGIC PLAN TO 2020

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK Updated August 2017

A STRATEGY TO IMPROVE CANADA S MINERAL EXPLORATION INVESTMENT CLIMATE

CIPO Update. Johanne Bélisle. Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer

What is Digital Literacy and Why is it Important?

Fact Sheet IP specificities in research for the benefit of SMEs

SMART PLACES WHAT. WHY. HOW.

Technology Transfer: Working with Industry at MIT. 10 February 2009 Kenneth A. Goldman Manager, Corporate Relations MIT Industrial Liaison Program

Identifying and Managing Joint Inventions

Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB s)

COLLABORATIVE R&D & IP ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

DTI 1998 Competitiveness White Paper: Some background and introduction

The Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives

University IP and Technology Management. University IP and Technology Management

RFP No. 794/18/10/2017. Research Design and Implementation Requirements: Centres of Competence Research Project

World Trade Organization Regional Workshop, Hong Kong, November 11 to 13, 2014

Inclusively Creative

The role of IP and other enabling factors for innovation and uptake of climate relevant technologies WIPO Green technology database and services

Finnish STI Policy

OECD Innovation Strategy: Key Findings

Submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements

POLICY BRIEF AUSTRIAN INNOVATION UNION STATUS REPORT ON THE. adv iso ry s erv ic e in busi n e ss & i nno vation

UNCTAD Ad Hoc Expert Meeting on the Green Economy: Trade and Sustainable Development Implications November

Introduction to the SMEs Division of WIPO

Hackathons as a Source of Entrepreneurship in Corporations

National Innovation Systems: Implications for Policy and Practice. Dr. James Cunningham Director. Centre for Innovation and Structural Change

THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS FOR

Victor O. Matthews (Ph.D)

Contents. Acknowledgments

Technology transfer offices: a boost to licensing in Mexico

The main recommendations for the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) reflect the position paper of the Austrian Council

TTOs in Turkey. Orhan AYDIN Professor Karadeniz Technical University Member of TUBITAK s TTO Monitoring Committee

Public Sector Indicators of Innovation. Louise Earl Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division Statistics Canada

Case Study HYDRO-COAT: Duly protecting research project results

Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions. Business participation and entrepreneurship in Marie Skłodowska- Curie actions (FP7 and Horizon 2020)

EU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument

CanNor Building a Strong North Together Strategic Framework CanNor.gc.ca

Beyond the Disruptive Innovation Trap

Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution in carbonintensive

CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE ON INCLUSIVE/COMMUNITY-BASED INNOVATION FOR AU MEMBER STATES

THEFUTURERAILWAY THE INDUSTRY S RAIL TECHNICAL STRATEGY 2012 INNOVATION

Patenting, Innovation & Technology Transfer : The CSIR Experience

DOC-CAREERS II Project, Final conference Brussels 2012 University-Industry Intellectual property rights: Balancing interests

Technology transfer industry shows gains

Building an enterprise-centred innovation system

Opportunities and Challenges for Open Innovation

Climate Change and Intellectual Property

What We Heard Report Inspection Modernization: The Case for Change Consultation from June 1 to July 31, 2012

PAGE 02 OUR BRAND POSITIONING

A Science & Innovation Audit for the West Midlands

MARITIME MANAGEMENT MASTER S DEGREE (ONLINE) Train for a leading role in maritime-based organizations.

LAW ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1998

By Raghav Narsalay, Dr. Sabine Brunswicker, Mehdi Bagherzadeh and Gregory C. Roberts

15890/14 MVG/cb 1 DG G 3 C

1. Recognizing that some of the barriers that impede the diffusion of green technologies include:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE DRIVING HEALTH SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION IN CANADA

School of Informatics Director of Commercialisation and Industry Engagement

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Frequently Asked Questions

the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South Africa (CIPC)

Strategic Research Plan Summary for the Canada Research Chairs Program

Denmark as a digital frontrunner

CDP-EIF ITAtech Equity Platform

UNIVERSITY OF ALGARVE BRIDGING INNOVATION. wwwcria.pt

Knowledge Exchange Strategy ( )

Summary report: Innovation, Sciences and Economic Development Canada s roundtable on advanced robotics and intelligent automation

THE CONCEPT AND ROLE OF A NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM (NIS) IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. MR. K. Ramanathan Head, APCTT-ESCAP, India

The research commercialisation office of the University of Oxford, previously called Isis Innovation, has been renamed Oxford University Innovation

University Technology Transfer, Innovation Ecosystem and EIE Project

MILAN DECLARATION Joining Forces for Investment in the Future of Europe

9/27/2013. Office of Technology Transfer Overview. Impacts from NC State Technology Transfer. NC State s Office of Technology Transfer

EXPLORING HOW ENGINEERING ENTREPRENEURSHIP COMPETENCIES ALIGN WITH ABET CRITERION 3A-K

ERDF Stakeholder Workshop 4 th May 2016: Overview and Priorities

How to write a Successful Proposal

CRS Report for Congress

The Collaboration Imperative: Universities and Industry as Partners in the 21 st Century Knowledge Economy

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

Initial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair

Terms of Reference. Call for Experts in the field of Foresight and ICT

Introduction. digitalsupercluster.ca

GENEVA COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CDIP) Fifth Session Geneva, April 26 to 30, 2010

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

Expert Group Meeting on

executives are often viewed to better understand the merits of scientific over commercial solutions.

TRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE

MedTech Europe position on future EU cooperation on Health Technology Assessment (21 March 2017)

A POLICY in REGARDS to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. OCTOBER UNIVERSITY for MODERN SCIENCES and ARTS (MSA)

An Essential Health and Biomedical R&D Treaty

Transcription:

Canada s Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy submission from Polytechnics Canada 170715 Polytechnics Canada is a national association of Canada s leading polytechnics, colleges and institutes of technology, representing a learner population of approximately 336,500 students, including over 46,000 apprentices. All of our members are publiclyfunded, offer 4-year bachelor's degrees, are leaders in skilled trades training, and have deep relationships with industry through the applied research and development (R&D) and innovation services they offer. [Hereafter, when using the word polytechnics we refer to degree-granting colleges and institutes of technology across Canada that constitute an important sub-set of the overall college sector in Canada.] Polytechnic applied research is driven by solving industry-identified problems and operates on the principle of industry-friendly IP policies. Polytechnics serve local, regional, and national companies seeking to accelerate their commercialization activity, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that do not have in-house R&D and commercialization capabilities. By using faculty expertise, student creativity and entrepreneurship, and by our commitment to advanced technological applied education, Canada s polytechnics have enabled thousands of firms to bring innovations to market. Since 2007/08, Polytechnics Canada s member colleges and institutes have: Collaborated with 10,802 Canadian companies on innovation projects, a majority of which are small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs). Conducted 9,900 applied research projects solving industry-identified problems. Involved 68,438 students in hands-on applied research projects. Developed 3,986 prototypes for their industry research partners. Developing Canada s IP Strategy The Government of Canada announced the Innovation and Skills Plan in Budget 2017. A key element of this plan was the development of a new comprehensive IP strategy to help businesses prosper and grow. To support this process, the ISED has requested input as part of a national consultation. The stated premise of the consultation is to help define an IP regime that will support commercializing Canadian innovation and creativity, foster an ecosystem that supports business to grow at scale, and ensure that firms have the awareness and incentive to strategically use IP to grow and compete. This submission is provided in response to that request for consultation. In particular, Polytechnics Canada wishes to focus on section 1 Improving Education, Awareness and Outreach to Improve IP savviness. 1

Two key areas related to the national IP strategy commitment that are under-scrutinized in Canada are: the use of patent awards and protection as a measure of IP production; and the diverse nature of post-secondary education support to the IP production and commercialization process. First, Canadian companies are arguably already creating vast amounts of IP, which is not necessarily captured by current data collection systems. IP production and protection needs vary across industrial sectors, but simply counting patents does not reflect that fact. Yet the assumption in Canadian policy circles seems to be that more Canadian patents is the solution; this assumption must be challenged before establishing any national IP strategy. A single undifferentiated national IP strategy that does not reflect the nuances of individual sectors and the relative importance and value of IP protection in each case is unlikely to succeed. Second, there is a broad perception that the post-secondary environment does not effectively exploit the IP being created and does not efficiently engage in industry-driven collaborations. However, this perception is not accurate when looking at the differences in impact of the IP ownership strategies employed across the post-secondary landscape, nor are these differences truly understood by the Government of Canada. For example, as outlined below, polytechnics have a very different approach to IP ownership and exploitation, the impact of which is to reduce the barrier to industrial research collaboration and subsequent commercialization. The encouragement and encapsulation of diverse IP arrangements is critical for any national policy strategy to stimulate increases in commercial exploitation of IP from the post-secondary sector. To frame our submission to the consultation, two core questions need to be addressed: Is the scope and rate of IP production accurately or appropriately measured? Are there ways to further unlock and harness latent IP through more frictionless post-secondary collaboration systems enabled with appropriate motivation? The following are specific answers to question 1(b) - In addition to what is currently being offered, what types of information, programs or services would be useful to firms to increase their awareness of IP? What could be the delivery mechanisms? Correctly Measure IP Production Government measures of IP production success frequently point to the number of Canadian patents pending and granted. The prevailing view is that not enough Canadian patents are being granted to Canadian companies. This measure does not reflect the true nature of IP generated by Canadian companies for two primary reasons. First, many Canadian companies that apply for patent protections do so in jurisdictions outside of Canada where the perceived value of the patent and its associated protection are higher. The US and EU are primary jurisdictions of choice. As a result, the critical 2

question for the development of a national IP strategy is not how many Canadian patents are issued; instead, the issue and appropriate measure is how many Canadian companies are granted patents internationally? (or, frankly, in any jurisdiction including Canada). The second reason that patents do not reflect the true nature of IP generated in Canada is that the nature of IP differs significantly across sectors. Consequently, the need for and value of patent protection varies significantly too.. These differences are critically important. Any effort to use patent grants (Canadian or otherwise) as a measure of Canadian IP production success must consider a more granular and nuanced analysis of the IP objectives and outcomes across industry sectors. Building Frictionless IP Systems The post-secondary sector is an important contributor to the generation of IP in Canada. This contribution occurs through two primary mechanisms: academic research and licensing; and, collaborative R&D with industrial partners. The former occurs primarily within university institutions, while the latter occurs both in universities and polytechnics. The effectiveness of IP commercialization varies tremendously across the two mechanisms, as well as across institutions. The general view is that Canadian universities and individual researchers are not particularly successful commercializing the IP that they generate in their research. This ineffectiveness is attributed to institutional systems that do not streamline the IP licensing and commercialization process for industry. In addition, while individual researchers are measured by patents and publications, they are not incented to identify commercialization opportunities or to license the IP generated through their research. Any national IP strategy intended to stimulate commercialization must consider the differences between individual and organizational incentives and motivations. A parallel issue is that, when it comes to industry research collaborations, there are significant differences in the IP policy frameworks of universities, compared to those used by polytechnics. In most university collaborations, IP rests at least partly with the institution and/or the researcher. This leads to additional licensing steps, which, in the best case, slows the transition of IP for commercialization and, in the worst case, turns away potential industrial collaboration partners who require smooth access and clear outcomes. In contrast, polytechnics do not assume any IP ownership rights in their research collaborations with industry. Patenting and publications are not our key metrics; instead, successful R&D is measured by the number of students engaged in R&D projects, the number of projects and partners per year, and the economic benefits they can create for the economy. While the polytechnic will often retain usage rights solely for academic purposes, all IP created through industrial collaborations rests with the industry partner. The intent of 3

polytechnics IP policies is to provide incentives that foster creative activity, and to help assure that any IP produced will be exploited for the benefit of the creators, the polytechnic applied research enterprise, and the public. These consistent policies across polytechnics are designed to streamline their industrial collaborations and ensure that IP is not a barrier to collaboration. The result is unencumbered IP that removes barriers to future venture capital investment, minimal institutional IP protection overhead costs, and IP that is directly exploited and commercialized by industry (specifically the partnering firm or enterprise). There are several advantages to polytechnic IP policy and practice commonalities, such as: Industry exploits IP unencumbered by the partnership with the polytechnic; Companies working with multiple polytechnics find they have similar IP practices; Firms find clarity with respect to IP ownership; Time to negotiate project agreements is minimized; and IP is not an impediment to industry-academic research collaborations. The Government of Canada must do a better job of ensuring industry awareness and utilization of the diverse IP arrangements across the post-secondary education sector. A national IP strategy, including all aspects of policy, guidance, templates, and agreements, must capture the differences across the post-secondary sector and the unique approaches of polytechnic applied research and commercialization activity. In so doing, the strategy must drive a frictionless system that maximizes creation, transition, and commercialization of IP within academic-industry collaborations. Polytechnics Canada can, upon request, provide examples of IP and Non-Disclosure Agreements and contracts that our members regularly use as they enter into industry collaborations for research and innovation. The issues identified above are critical foundations for any new or refined comprehensive IP Strategy. Initiatives supporting IP education, industrial supports, and marketplaces are useful. However, without first considering these two high-level issues the measurement of IP production and the diverse IP arrangements across postsecondary institutions - any national IP strategy will be sub-optimal and unlikely to create the desired conditions for Canadian innovation, creativity, and business growth. For further information please contact: Nobina Robinson Chief Executive Officer Polytechnics Canada nrobinson@polytechnicscanada.ca 4

5