Grad Students, PostDocs, &Intellectual Property:

A Study for CAGS

Matthew.Herder@Dal.caFaculties of Medicine & Law

@cmrherder

( frame ) 1 law

/ US , Canada2 policy

/ 12 Canadian institutions3 practice

/ synthesis + questions

Intellectual Property (1)

forms of IP /patent (apps , grants)copyrighttrademarktrade secrets( other )

contracts (k) / pre-assignment

confidentiality kmaterial transfer kdata management

k( uni policies )

Intellectual Property (2)

IP in context

education

commercialization

document-based analysis

but

empirically-informed

( frame )law

/ Canadapolicy

/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice

/ synthesis + questions

academia

ideas

IP

Sources of Liability

patent infringement

copyright infringement

misappropriation of trade secrets

breach of contract

breach of confidentiality

breach of fiduciary duty

Boudreau v. Lin (1997 Ont Ct J)

Corporation de l’École polytechnique de Montréal v. Fardad (2010 Qué CA)

Plews v. Pausch (2006 AB QB)

Legal Issues

CreditControl

ContractsEmployment Status

( fiduciary obligations )

Credit and Control

( legally )

InventorshipOwnership

Authorship

Inventorship

“inventive concept”

verification

Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2002 SCC 77

Authorship

“original expression”

typing, editing

Kantel v. Grant, [1933] Ex. C.R. 84Dolmage v. Erskine, [2003] O.J. No. 161

Credit and Control

InventorshipOwnership

Authorship

Inventorship vs. Ownership (1)

historically

“If a servant, while in the employ of his master, makes an invention, that

invention belongs to the servant, not the master.”

Bloxam v. Elsee (1825), 1 C.&P. 558 (K.B.)

Inventorship vs. Ownership (2)

more recently

hired to invent?

express or implied contract?

nature of the inventor-employer relationship

Spiroll Corp. v. Putti, [1975] B.C.J. No. 992Comstock Canada v. Electec Ltd., [1991] F.C.J. No. 987

Authorship vs. Ownership (1)

13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright...

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1984, c. C-42

Authorship vs. Ownership (2)

academic/teacher exception

application to students ?

to PDFs?

UBC v UBC Faculty Assn., (2004) 125 L.A.C. (4th) 1

Dolmage v. Erskine, (2003) 120 A.C.W.S. (3d) 127

Contract and Status

contractual pre-assignmentsincreasingly common?

funder driven?legally valid?

postdoc unionizationreversing ownership presumptions?

Fiduciary Obligations (1)

“...inherent in the nature of the relationship itself is a position of

disadvantage or vulnerability on the part of one of the parties which causes

him [sic] to place reliance on the other...”

Lac minerals ltd. v. International corona resources ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574

( frame )law

/ Canadapolicy

/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice

/ synthesis + questions

Policy Comparison

CAGS members ( n=65 )

subset of 12

Policy Comparison

collective agreementsIP policies

conflict of interest policiesacademic / research integrity policiesgraduate student / postdoc policies

Institution

#Grad Stu

Med School

IP Own’p TTO

Emily Carr

30 NO Joint YES

Brandon 120 NO Institution

NO

Lethbridge

430 NO Creator YES

U Regina 830 NO Creator YES

Ryerson 2060 NO Creator YES

Memorial 2310 YES Institution

YES

Manitoba 2970 YES Joint YES

Carleton 3000 NO Creator YES

Dalhousie 3220 YES Creator YES

McGill 6940 YES Joint YES

UBC 9070 YES Institution

YES

U of T 14800 YES Joint YES

Points of Comparison (1)

policy inclusion?

Institution

IP Own’p Policy Incl ?

Emily Carr

Joint YES

Brandon Institution

NO

Lethbridge

Creator YES

U Regina Creator YES

Ryerson Creator YES

Memorial Institution

YES

Manitoba Joint YES

Carleton Creator Unclear

Dalhousie Creator NO

McGill Joint YES

UBC Institution

YES

U of T Joint YES

CA, CAGS Guide

CA only

CA only

Points of Comparison (1)

clarity ?

( common law )

Points of Comparison (2)

consent ?

ab initio

Institution

Consent Req’d?

Inst’al Resp’ty

Supervisor Resp’ty

Ongoing Oversight

?

Emily Carr NO NO NO NO

Brandon YES NO NO NO

Lethbridge NO NO NO NO

U Regina NO NO NO NO

Ryerson YES ? YES NO

Memorial YES YES YES YES

Manitoba NO NO NO NO

Carleton NO NO NO NO

Dalhousie NO NO NO NO

McGill NO NO NO NO

UBC NO NO NO NO

U of T NO NO NO NO

Points of Comparison (3a)

commercialization decision-making ?

a ) right to commercialize independently

Institution

IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF

Emily Carr

Joint Unclear Unclear

Brandon Institution

Ex Post Unclear

Lethbridge

Creator Ex Ante Ex Ante

U Regina Creator Ex Ante Unclear

Ryerson Creator Ex Ante Ex Ante

Memorial Institution

Ex Post Ex Post

Manitoba Joint Ex Ante Unclear

Carleton Creator Ex Ante Unclear

Dalhousie Creator Ex Ante Unclear

McGill Joint Ex Post Ex Post

UBC Institution

Ex Post Ex Post

U of T Joint Ex Ante Ex Ante

Points of Comparison (3b)

commercialization decision-making ?

b ) right not to commercialize

Institution

IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF

Emily Carr

Joint YES Unclear

Brandon Institution

Unclear Unclear

Lethbridge

Creator YES Unclear

U Regina Creator YES Unclear

Ryerson Creator YES Unclear

Memorial Institution

NO NO

Manitoba Joint YES Unclear

Carleton Creator YES Unclear

Dalhousie Creator YES Unclear

McGill Joint YES YES

UBC Institution

YES YES

U of T Joint NO NO

Points of Comparison (3c)

commercialization decision-making ?

c ) right to share in revenues

Institution

IP Own’p Faculty Stu / PDF

Emily Carr

Joint YES Unclear

Brandon Institution

YES Unclear

Lethbridge

Creator YES Unclear

U Regina Creator YES Unclear

Ryerson Creator YES YES

Memorial Institution

YES YES

Manitoba Joint YES YES

Carleton Creator YES Unclear

Dalhousie Creator YES Unclear

McGill Joint YES YES

UBC Institution

YES YES

U of T Joint YES YES

Further Points of Comparison

dispute resolution process ?

confidentiality clauses?

mission statements?

( frame )law

/ Canadapolicy

/ 12 Canadian institutionspractice

/ synthesis + questions

Law/Policy vs Practice (1)

survey of > 2000 life scientists

Authorship extends to contributions of research material / data

original expression?

reputation in the field predicts authorship

social influence

Haeussler, Carolin & Henry Sauermann. “Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship” (2013) 42:3 Research Policy

688.

Law/Policy vs Practice (2)

survey of > 2000 life scientists

Inventorship predicted by status in the lab

inventive concept?

Stronger adherence to legal standard?

risk of patent invalidity

Haeussler, Carolin & Henry Sauermann. “Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship” (2013) 42:3

Research Policy 688.

Growing Exposure

Norm Change? (1)Reasons for choosing research projects by research goal

Walsh et al. 2007

Scientific importance 97

Results patentable 7

N382

131417829

532

Master’sPhDs

Post-DocsAssist ProfsAssoc ProfsFull Profs

532

Norm Change? (2)Hong and Walsh 2009

1966 1998

Comp. Secrecy Comp. SecrecyYes% (N) Yes% (N) Yes% (N)Yes% (N)

63 (316) 55(316) 81 (80) 87 (89)

Significant increase in both competition and secrecy

Competition is major predictor of secrecy

Effects of commercial activity are mixed (patents no impact on secrecy but industry funding inc’d)

Norm Change? (3)

2013

CompetitionSecrecy

Yes% (N) Yes% (N)

83 (74) 75 (64)Full Profs

86 (87) 83 (77)Assist + Assoc Profs

87 (78) 83 (70)Post-Docs

88 (135)83 (116) PhDs

70 (116)76 (111) Master’s

Competition remains major predictor of secrecy

Commercial activity predicts secrecy for emerging researchers only

Fiduciary Obligations

confront norm change

offer more than ‘how to’ commercialization sessions

foster critical thinking capacity about IP and commercialization

Acknowledgment

CAGS

CIHR