Commission IP recommendation sparks criticism

Contract clause: source of conflict.

The wording of an important clause in the recommendation about ownership of intellectual property rights in situations where a private company has contracted a public research body wrongly assumes that all such arrangements leave all IP in the hands of the company.

“In the case of contract research the foreground generated by the public research organisation is owned by the private-sector party,” the Commission said in the recommendation, which was formally adopted last week.

“The wording is imprecise. It’s not helpful in a recommendation designed to help foster research and innovation,” said Christopher John Hull, secretary general of EARTO, the European Association of Research and Technology Organizations in a telephone interview.

Hull pointed out that part from that one clause the tech transfer recommendation is helpful, though he noted that it is isn’t law, just a guideline. But, he said, “We are happy with the paper overall.”

Frequently, contracted research organisations are already looking into the subject that the private company wants to research, Hull said, adding that the research teams often want to share the IP so that they can continue their own research, and disseminate their findings throughout the relevant research community.

“I’m not disputing the fact that a private company that pays 100 per cent of the costs should get all the IP goodies. I’m just pointing out that in reality it isn’t always as clear cut as that,” Hull said.

The Commission compiled the recommendation in response to a call for a charter on IP and tech transfer from the German government, when it held the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union last year.

The paper states that IP should be handled in a strategic way, that staff should be trained so they understand the importance of IP, and how it can act as an incentive to innovate.

Michel Morant, managing director of the university–industry liaison office of the University of Liege, also criticised the wording of the Commission's recommendation, describing the clause in question as “ambiguous”.

When the research organization gets no IP rights, “Is it still research or is it service?” he asked in an e-mail to officials at the European Commission.

People close to the research directorate at the Commission blame the wording of the clause on the directorate responsible for enterprise. DG Enterprise has played a prominent role in the drafting of the recommendation.

“There’s an internal battle going on in the Commission between those representing the interests of universities and research bodies, and those representing the interests of business. The clause in question appears to be drafted,” said one person who asked not to be quoted.

Gunter Verheugen, commissioner for enterprise, claimed joint credit for the initiative with Janez Potočnik, the commissioner for science and research, when it was published last week.

“Proper management by public research organisations of their intellectual property is crucial for transferring knowledge to business, for licensing new technologies or creating spin-off companies. Doing this at a European scale brings new opportunities. We cannot afford to let valuable inventions lie idle in laboratories or on bookshelves,” said Potočnik last week.