no stated patent policy, a professor of surgery and biochemistry at its medical school developed a therapeutic formulation for treating a specific infectious state. He requested advice from DHEW, the sponsors of his research, as to how best to proceed in developing the invention for widespread public use. The DHEW administrator suggested that Research Corporation work with the university's administrative personnel in developing a mutually acceptable agreement and procedures for developing marketable products. Over a period of approximately eight years this was accomplished with the United States market now approximating several million dollars. As a result a major portion of royalty income is being forwarded to the medical school for further research, and the university is developing a patent policy for guidance of both faculty members and administrators. While these examples all have to do with the drug industry, other similar examples could be cited in the electrical, electronic and mechanical fields, if time permitted. These "case histories" indicate the need for definitive patent policy and its vigorous, intelligent and diligent administration by universities. Summing up, I have given an historical perspective to the necessity for universities to formulate patent policies and have described their development to the present state of sophistication. I have described the major concepts which should be addressed in university patent policies, and have given some illustrations of typical problems that arise in handling inventions arising as a result of academic research. The gist of this paper is that a very real public service need exists for academic institutions to accelerate and smooth the way for the transfer of the results of academic research for public use. This need can be filled through the development of clearly stated, well publicized patent policies, followed by their firm and dedicated implementation and administration. Filling the need in this manner uses the patent system most productively in encouraging and enabling industry to invest in new ideas for the public benefit while, at the same time, benefitting academic institutions and inventors -- scientists or engineers as well. Abstract Patent policies at educational and non-profit scientific institutions incorporate a number of common principles but vary widely in administrative detail. Policy provisions and administrative procedures which may expedite or may hinder the transfer of academic research results for the public benefit are illustrated with actual case histories taken from Research Corpora-. tion's long experience as invention administrator for such institutions. Literature Cited 1. White, Harry J., Centenary of Frederick Gardner Cottrell, Journal of Electrostatics, (1977/1978) 4, 1-34. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Anonymous, Wisconsin Alumnus, (February 1968), No. 5. Marcy, Willard, Davis, Albert S., Jr., Chapter 8, pp. 1-105, Marcy, Willard, The Academic Inventor, Chemical Engineering Woodrow, R.J., Survey of University Patent Policies and Mintzer, D., Private Communication. Owens, Mark, Jr., Reports on the Current Status of Univer- Biographic Notes After more than 25 years experience in production and process research and development in the sugar industry, Willard Marcy joined the Patent Program of Research Corporation. As an associate in this group, he was involved in evaluating, arranging for patent coverage and licensing of inventions arising from research at more than 270 academic and scientific institutions. His present position is Vice President. Dr. Marcy also served as a Research Assistant at Massachusetts Institute of Technology for several years. He has a baccalaureate in chemical engineering and a doctorate in organic chemistry, both from M.I.T. Factors in Developing Patent Awareness on the University Campus Willard Marcy Vice President Almost four years ago the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Experimental Technology Improvement Program of the National Bureau of Standards (ETIP) funded an experiment proposed by Research Corporation to test a procedure for developing an awareness of patents by faculty researchers at eight institutions of higher education in the United States. We hoped to show that such an educational program would result in bringing to the surface inventive concepts lying hidden or simply latent in scientific publications or in the notebooks of the researchers. The experiment has now been completed and I wish to report the results of the work and draw general conclusions about the experimental methods used. Some in the audience will recall that a detailed description of the procedure was given at the NRDO meeting in Milan in 1974, and a preliminary report of results obtained was made at the NRDO meeting in Paris in 1976. Those two reports along with this one being given today will constitute a relatively complete picture of the work done. A formal comprehensive final report is being prepared for submission to NSF/ETIP. This paper was delivered at the Meeting of National Research In addition a detailed instruction book for setting up a patent awareness program at educational institutions is being written. Both the formal report and the instruction book will be made publicly available. The experimental procedure consisted basically of three steps : a preliminary review and analysis of ongoing research at each institution seminar presentations of needed information about patents, their importance and how to use them, followed by intensive interviews with selected individual researchers over a two-year period. The objective desired was the development of an understanding by faculty researchers of the innovation process, with particular emphasis on the recognition of inventive concepts and the methods readily available for bringing these concepts into public use through proper utilization of the patent system. Success of the experiment was expected to be shown by an increase in both quantity and quality of invention disclosures made for two years immediately following the seminars as compared with the four years immediately preceding them. What have the results been? Using the information obtained from the eight institutions studied we can now answer the questions posed in the Milan talk where the qualitative objectives of the experiment were listed. Q. Has the awareness program been more effective in one discipline as compared to others? The A. Yes, but this varies from institution to institution. Generally increased patent awareness is most effective in producing invention disclosures in chemistry and chemically related disciplines, including pharmaceutical chemistry, agricultural engineering and veterinary medicine; less effective in physics, biology and biologically related disciplines; and least effective in food science, ecology and the like, astronomy and nuclear science. program was effective in the engineering disciplines, but for the most part the invention disclosures resulting are simple devices or electrical circuitry which are generally not suitable for patenting or would be expected to generate only minimal financial return. Such inventions might be sold outright or be used to obtain funding for further development. Q. Has the program been more effective at one type of institution than at another? |