In January 2006, CCST released the final report from a study group convened to provide a blueprint for California's intellectual property (IP) policies. The study group consisted of a diverse collection of 17 leaders from California's science and technology community selected for their expertise in IP.
The report, Policy Framework for Intellectual Property Derived from State-Funded Research, concludes that the state would be best served by letting inventors own the results of their research, and recommends that California allow universities and other research institutions to retain ownership of inventions developed through state funding with certain restrictions and requirements. A consistent approach is important because the way that IP is handled affects the environment in research institutions as well as the business and industry environment necessary for risk taking.
"Consistent IP policies increase opportunities for the development of new products and services...key goals in creating a California set of policies would be to streamline contracting processes, preserve the state's rights, and minimize the costs of doing so."
-Stephen Rockwood
Executive Vice President, SAIC
Co Chair Intellectual Property Study Group
|
This approach is largely consistent with federal IP policy (the Bayh-Dole Act) that has allowed researchers to own the patenting rights to federally funded research since 1980. The Bayh-Dole Act appears to have been successful in fostering an effective environment for innovation and bringing these innovations to market, and it would be logical for California to devise a set of policies consistent with this federal environment. Furthermore, extensive research at the federal level has demonstrated that there is a substantial return on investment for basic research funded by the federal government and by private industry, but that this investment takes years, even decades, to manifest. Furthermore, the benefits of this investment are largely indirect, affecting the economy in a variety of ways.
The CCST report was prepared in response to Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 252 and ACR 24, authored by Assembly Member Gene Mullin. ACR 252 requests that CCST develop recommendations on how the state should treat IP created under state contracts, grants, and agreements; ACR 24 requests that CCST address specific issues relevant to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). As requested in the legislation, the CCST study group worked with the State Department of General Services, state government experts in contract and licensing, research and development practitioners, experts in technology transfer, and individuals representing the public interest.
The IP study group made headlines around the state in August 2005 when it released an interim report targeted specifically for CIRM at the request of ACR 24. That report stressed the importance of focusing on bringing therapies to market as efficiently as possible via accelerated commercialization of treatments. In February 2006, CIRM ratified an intellectual property policy which closely follows many of the recommendations of the interim report.
Since the release of the report, Assembly Member Mullin proposed a second bill, AB 2721, that adopted many of the study group's recommendations including the establishment of a central office to track state-funded IP.
