Intellectual Property Rights (and wrongs)

Matthew — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:16:57 +0000

Robert Pitkethly’s (18th February) presentation asked a few important questions. What are Intellectual Property Rights? How do you manage them? What is the purpose of them? How do you get them? He eloquently explained the bewildering array of terms – patents, trademarks, copyright, appropriation, registered designs, confidential information, and he showed that one needs to find a balance between appropriating all the rights to the inventor and sharing it so that investors can be incentivized.
Intellectual property rights are an important way to package, define, diffuse and control intellectual assets and when used appropriately, IPRs can lead to enormous gain for the inventors, investors and for society in general. Dr Pitkethly drew on the two contrasting cases of Fleming and Florey for Penicillin and Abraham and Newton for Cephalosporin-C to illustrate why it is necessary to seek professional advice first and foremost.
Linda Naylor complemented his presentation nicely, by asking how, in the Oxford area, one can access this professional advice. ISIS Innovation (http://www.isis-innovation.com), NHS Innovations (http://www.innovationssoutheast.nhs.uk) and others work to assist researchers and inventors with their IPR requirements. They also help with how payments, costs and royalties will be worked out
There are a variety of investment sources for those looking to commercialize a product:
- the Oxford University Challenge Seed Fund (http://www.isis-innovation.com/researchers/UCSF-1.html)
- Wellcome Trust Translation Awards (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Technology-transfer/Awards/Translation-Awards/index.htm)
- and a wide network of ISIS Angels (http://www.isis-innovation.com/about/ian.html)
There are also Research Council Follow-on funds (e.g. BBSRC, EPSRC, NERC and STFC) (http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/FoF2008.htm) but note that the call for proposals ends on 26th February for the EPSRC.
GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement on February 13th to voluntarily create a patent pool to spark the development of new treatments for neglected diseases in the world’s poorest countries is an interesting development in the minefield of Intellectual Property Rights. It will provide a notable boost to generics manufacturers in India, Thailand and Brazil and, by capping the prices of patented medicines to no more than 25% of the cost in wealthy nations, make them more affordable for purchase by developing country governments.
Whilst a positive development, we need to recall that this is not necessarily synonymous with increasing access to the medicines. Reducing the cost of the medications, and enabling competitor companies to manufacture them more cheaply will make them more accessible for purchase by developing country governments. However, their distribution to the people that need them is a health service delivery issue that is a very different animal.
When I was working in an HIV/AIDS hospital in Mozambique, we did not have a problem with the supply of anti-retroviral medications. Instead we had real difficulty getting the right patient onto the right treatment. Bottlenecks in the hospital meant that the wrong people were getting on to treatment, and many that were needing it could not get a consultation with a doctor. People were dying, not for lack of medications, but for lack of access to the medications. We had to completely reassess the patient flow within the hospital and decentralize care out into peripheral primary health care centres, so that more people could be seen, more quickly and more effectively. It was this issue of health care management that seemed to determine access to treatment rather than the availability of reasonably priced medications.
Whilst creating a patent pool by Glaxo is clearly a positive development, and should be lauded for its boldness, one needs to be cautious in thinking that this will facilitate and enable access to needed medications in developing countries. For this aim, Glaxo could think about sharing its logistics and supply chain expertise instead.

The Oxford Centre for Entrepreneurship and Innovation » Developing Countries

Intellectual Property Rights (and wrongs)