A polymer chemist initiated a lawsuit against a national research institute failed to pursue a patent on his behalf while he was a post-doctoral research fellow. The chemist must now decide whether a pre-judgment of cash less than one-sixth of what his lawyer claims that he is entitled to accept. Among the questions posed in this case: Should the Research Institute have a patent for an invention not even follow? By the Institute a file the patent … Read more »

A polymer chemist initiated a lawsuit against a national research institute failed to pursue a patent on his behalf while he was a post-doctoral research fellow. The chemist must now decide whether a pre-judgment of cash less than one-sixth of what his lawyer claims that he is entitled to accept. Among the questions posed in this case: Should the Research Institute have a patent for an invention not even follow? By the Institute file the patent application in his name, the chemist has not tacitly agreed to assign his invention to the Institute? The case will be used on the importance of human resources policy defining the ownership of inventions by scientists through an agency or other site work. It also shows how problems of assignment of intellectual property rights, if they are not resolved, can not result in transfer of technology. The case also provides a detailed look at how a scientist would report an invention of its technology transfer office, so that could be applied for a patent.
«Hide

from
Marc Banik
Source: Ivey Publishing
22 pages.
Publication Date: Jun 21,, 2006. Prod #: 906C09-PDF-ENG
Mak vs. Canadian Corn Hybrid Research Institute HBR case solution