• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
From the time of the Statute of Monopolies 1623, 21 Jac 1, c 3 ('Statute of Monopolies'), the flexible concept of a 'manner of manufacture' was understood to involve some form of limitation which was expressed in the statute as being 'mischievous to the State - or hurt of trade, or generallie inconvenient'.1 Years of judicial consideration resulted in various classes of subject matter being carved out as unpatentable. Apart from noncontentious material such as discoveries, ideas and principles of nature, these classes included methods of medical treatment for humans, horticultural and agricultural methods, computer programs, presentations of information, plans and business schemes.2 The classes were relatively clear by 1959 when the High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents3 was asked to judge the patentability of an invention in an excluded class, namely a horticultural method. The trouble was that there were no consistent rationales to justify the excluded classes and to distinguish patentable from non-patentable subject matter. The High Court faced the quandary squarely, dismissed the proposition that horticultural and agricultural methods are unpatentable as a class and opened the way for future courts to approve the patentability of inventions that fell within this and other formerly excluded classes.4 In consequence of NRDC, the mere fact that an invention may be called amethod for medical treatment, a business method or a plan or scheme, for example, no longer prevents it being properly the subject of a patent.

Patents Act, Patents, Manner of Manufacture, patentability, grant v commissioner of patents, business methods, excluded subject matter

Abstract:
A common pattern for scientific research will involve experimentation with existing theories, products and processes with the aim of discovering something new. Some of the products and processes that researchers use or investigate may be patented, but the user may be ignorant of this fact. There is therefore a risk that the research may involve unauthorised use of patented inventions in a way that infringes a patent holder's exclusive rights.

This article examines the obligations that universities assume under the Australian Research Council et al (ARC, 2001) National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research (National Principles), National Principle 5 (NP5) when their researchers win national competitive grants. It identifies the problems that they face with compliance both before and during the research project. The article concludes that universities should review, and if necessary, upgrade internal practices for practical risk management as a way of dealing with the obligations that NP5 imposes. It also recommends that the ARC and other national research councils should be proactive in initiating a review of NP5 and its intended purpose. It may be necessary for universities to be proactive in initiating this review.

Research use of patented technologies, intellectual property, risk management procedures for intellectual property, Australian Research Council National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research Principle 5

Abstract:
A person will infringe a patent if they exercise the exclusive rights of the patentee in relation to the invention without authorisation and without the benefit of an express or implied exemption from infringement. Two important reviews examined the existence of and need for an experimental use exemption from infringement.

patentee, experimental use exemption, exclusive rights, third party, experimental use, research use, patent, infringmement

Abstract:
Biomedical discoveries often provide the basic tools for research. Such discoveries may be patentable or non-patentable products or processes, as well as the materials necessary for further research. Without rapid access to these materials on reasonable terms, there is concern that the progress of science will suffer. In 1995, the National Institutes of Health in the United States published a Master Uniform Biomaterial Transfer Agreement (UBMTA) to improve access to biomedical materials. Guidelines for transfers were published in 1999. This article analyses a survey that the author conducted in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University. It observes that a significant minority of respondents experience frustration and/or adverse effects upon their research as a result of restrictions imposed upon their access to materials. It concludes that the extensive experience and precedent material in the United States provides an immediate resource to help improve access to biological materials in Australian universities.

research materials, access, biomedical research, Australia

Abstract:
The DART project was an integral part of a new generation of e-Research initiatives, both in Australia and internationally, that have the potential to transform university research. The Report on legal issues clarifies that the differences between the emerging e-Research environment and the previous environment create new legal issues. The report also confirms that legal problems that exist with current research practices will become more prominent in the new environment. If e-Research is to fulfil its true potential, researchers must be satisfied that the benefits of involvement outweigh any associated risks. A prime area of risk involves legal issues that escalate into disputes that involve lengthy and costly resolution. Minimisation of this risk is only possible after identification of the potential legal problems that might arise within the e-Research environment. The legal problems arise mainly because e-Research facilitates new forms of remote research collaboration across institutions, across national borders and across academic disciplines. Importantly, the new forms of collaboration can involve researchers with no established legal or research relationships.

intellectual property, copyright, patents, privacy, eresearch, information security, freedom of information

Abstract:
Purpose - The aim of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the evolution of a new e-research paradigm and to outline key projects and developments in Europe, North America, Canada and Australia. The article also provides a detailed summary of the Dataset Acquisition, Accessibility and Annotation e-Research Technology (DART) project.

Design/methodology/approach - A review of relevant government reports, documents and general literature was conducted.

Findings - Projects currently being conducted in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia are part of an international movement that aims to use modern ICTs to enhance e-research. The DART project is a significant part of this movement as it has adopted a "whole process" approach to e-research, and provides a platform for the examination of the technical, legal and policy issues that arise in the new e-research environment.

Originality/value - Provides an overview of current projects that concern the development of e-research, with a particular focus on Australian research and the DART project.

Data Acquisition, Accessibility and Annotation e-Research Technology

Abstract:
The vital role played by universities in producing creative and innovative products is becoming increasingly recognized both by policy makers and by the universities themselves. Universities are now looking to tighten up their policies on intellectual property so as to maximize revenue, for instance through spin-off companies; but this arguably restricts the free flow of knowledge and scientific progress. The authors look in detail at this highly topical subject, both from a policy and a practical legal point of view, drawing upon research covering universities in the UK, Australia, and the USA.

The book begins with identifying what is protectable as university intellectual property and the principal features of the various intellectual property regimes that are relevant to these questions: subject matter, criteria for protection, ownership and entitlement, rights conferred and their duration. It then turns to the creators - the academics, students, visiting scholars, and outside collaborators who have an interest in the intellectual property - and the varied collaborative circumstances in which it is created. It evaluates differing intellectual property policies and methods of commercial exploitation and postulates certain guidelines and models that will be of assistance to universities in dealing with these issues.

Readership: Intellectual Property lawyers, University officials, scientists, academics and reference libraries in the UK and worldwide

1. Introduction 2. What is a University? 3. What is University Intellectual Property? 4. Identifying the Creators and the Circumstances of Creation 5. Allocating the Rights - The Legal Background 6. Policy Developments and Specific Challenges 7. How Universities Allocate IP Rights through Institutional Policies 8. Reporting, Rights Allocation, and Other Matters 9. Exploitation of Intellectual Property: Universities as Entrepreneurs 10. Future Directions: Ownership 11. Future Directions: Commercial Exploitation 12. Looking to the Future Appendix 1 Ownership and Exploitation of Intellectual Property in Universities: A National, Comparative, and Theoretical Study

intellectual property,universities,ownership of intellectual property, commercialisation of intellectual property