Technology Transfer: From the Research Bench to Commercialization: Part 1: Intellectual Property Rights-Basics of Patents and Copyrights

Development of medicines for rare diseases and inborn errors of metabolism: Toward novel public-private partnerships

Medicine development for rare diseases, including inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) is challenging. Many academic innovations fail to reach the patient, either by stranding in the translational stage or due to suboptimal patient access related to pricing or uncertain effectiveness. Expanding and solidifying the role of the academic in public-private partnerships (PPPs) may present an innovative solution to help overcome these complexities. This narrative review explores the literature on traditional and novel collaborative approaches to medicine development for rare diseases and analyzes examples of PPPs, with a specific focus on IEMs. Several academic institutions have introduced guidelines for socially responsible licensing of innovations for private development. The PPP model offers a more integrative approach toward academic involvement of medicine development. By sharing risks and rewards, failures in the translational stage can be mutually absorbed. If socially responsible terms are not included, however, high pricing can impede patient access. Therefore, we propose a framework for socially responsible PPPs aimed at medicine development for metabolic disorders. This socially responsible PPP framework could stimulate successful and accessible medicine development for IEMs as well as other rare diseases if the establishment of such collaborations includes terms securing joint data ownership and evidence generation, fast access, and socially responsible pricing.

Access to medicines for rare diseases: A European regulatory roadmap for academia

Background: Novel or repurposed medicines for rare diseases often emerge from fundamental research or empirical findings in academia. However, researchers may be insufficiently aware of the possibilities and requirements to bring novel medicinal treatment options to the patient. This paper aims to provide an easily applicable, comprehensive roadmap designed for academic researchers to make medicines for rare diseases available for patients by addressing the relevant regulatory frameworks, including marketing authorization and alternative routes. Methods: Key points of the regulatory chapters "Placing on the Market" and "Scope" of Directive 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use were summarized. Provisions in EU directives regarding blood products, radiopharmaceuticals, and herbal and homeopathic medicinal products were excluded. Cross-referencing to other provisions was included. European case-law was retrieved from the InfoCuria database to exemplify the implications of alternative routes. Results: Medicines may only be placed on the market with a valid marketing authorization. To obtain such authorization in Europe, a "Common Technical Document" comprising reports on quality and non-clinical and clinical studies must be submitted to a "competent authority", a national medicine agency or the European Medicines Agency. Timely interaction of academic researchers with regulators via scientific advice may lead to better regulatory alignment and subsequently a higher chance for approval of academic inventions. Furthermore, reimbursement by national payers could be essential to ensure patient access. Apart from the marketing authorization route, we identified multiple alternative routes to provide (early) access. These include off-label use, named-patient basis, compassionate use, pharmacy compounding, and hospital exemption for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products. Discussion: Aligning academic (non-)clinical studies on rare diseases with regulatory and reimbursement requirements may facilitate fast and affordable access. Several alternative routes exist to provide (early) pharmaceutical care at a national level, but case-law demonstrates that alternative routes should be interpreted strictly and for exceptional situations only. Academics should be aware of these routes and their requirements to improve access to medicines for rare diseases.

Drivers of university–business cooperation of university faculty from the social cognitive theory perspective

As an independent research field, there is growing attention to university–business cooperation (UBC). However, few studies focus on the driving factors of UBC, which remains an open problem in this area. This study analyzes a broad mix of drivers underlying seven UBC activities, namely, curriculum development and design (CDD), student mobility (SD), lifelong learning (LLL), professional mobility (PM), research and development (R&D), commercialization (COM), and entrepreneurship (ENT), and discusses the internal mechanism and external environment of higher education institutions (HEIs) as the moderator variable affecting UBC activities and individual motivations. Specifically, based on the social cognition theory, the independent variables include motivations (money, career, research, education, and social), the internal mechanism (support mechanism, strategic mechanism, and management mechanism), and the external environment (policy environment, economic environment, and cultural environment) are designed. The aforementioned seven UBC activities are taken as dependent variables. This work takes university faculty as the research object. Through empirical analysis, it demonstrates that the combination of driving factors of different UBC activities has its particularity. Furthermore, the results showed that the internal mechanism and external environment of HEIs could positively moderate the relationship between individual motivations and UBC activities. In terms of theoretical contribution, this study reveals the combination of factors that drive university faculty to engage in UBC. On the other hand, it can provide a reference for policymakers and managers to better development of UBC.

Rules of engagement: Promoting academic-industry partnership in the era of digital pathology and artificial intelligence

Academic industry partnership (AIP) represents an important alliance between academic researchers and industry that helps translate technology and complete the innovation cycle within academic health systems. Despite diverging missions and skillsets the culture for academia and industry is changing in response to the current digital era which is spawning greater collaboration between physicians and businesses in this marketplace. In the field of pathology, this is further driven by the fact that traditional funding sources cannot keep pace with the innovation needed in digital pathology and artificial intelligence. This concept article from the Digital Pathology Association (DPA) describes the rules of engagement for pathology innovators in academia and for their corporate partners to help establish best practices in this critical area. Stakeholders include pathologists, basic and translational researchers, university technology transfer and sponsored research offices, as well as industry relations officers. The article discusses the benefits and pitfalls of an AIP, reviews different partnership models, examines the role of pathologists in the innovation cycle, explains various agreements that may need to be signed, covers conflict of interest and intellectual property issues, and offers recommendations for ensuring successful partnerships.

Why do few drug delivery systems to combat neglected tropical diseases reach the market? An analysis from the technology's stages

INTRODUCTION

Many drugs used to combat schistosomiasis, Chagas disease, and leishmaniasis (SCL) have clinical limitations such as: high toxicity to the liver, kidneys and spleen; reproductive, gastrointestinal, and heart disorders; teratogenicity. In this sense, drug delivery systems (DDSs) have been described in the literature as a viable option for overcoming the limitations of these drugs. An analysis of the level of development (TRL) of patents can help in determine the steps that must be taken for promising technologies to reach the market.

AREAS COVERED

This study aimed to analyze the stage of development of DDSs for the treatment of SCL described in patents. In addition, we try to understand the main reasons why many DDSs do not reach the market. In this study, we examined DDSs for drugs indicated by WHO and treatment of SCL, by performing a search for patents.

EXPERT OPINION

In this present work we provide arguments that support the hypothesis that there is a lack of integration between academia and industry to finance and continue research, especially the development of clinical studies. We cite the translational research consortia as the potential alternative for developing DDSs to combat NTDs.

The valorization of non-patent intellectual property in academic medical centers

Turning university research output into useful products such as drugs, devices and diagnostics requires skills, knowledge, and resources traditionally attributed to private industry. When it comes to intangibles such as care delivery models, informatics and algorithms, and the software behind smart wearables, the commercialization challenges are even greater. With notable exceptions, Academic Medical Centers have typically not excelled in advancing commercialization of such non-patent intellectual property (IP). We believe that this is in part because the traditional closed form university IP policy, formulated since Bayh-Dole (1980), is ill-suited to non-patent IP. In this paper, we reflect on the evolving challenges that new forms of healthcare-related discoveries, specifically non-patent IP, are placing on the traditional university intellectual property and technology transfer regime, and to offer suggestions on how universities can begin to modernize their IP policies to support the valorization of non-patent IP.

Pharmaceutical patents: reconciling the human right to health with the incentive to invent

•

Drug discovery is exciting and transformative but conflicts exist between the incentive to invent and the rights of others to access medicines

•

Tensions between fundamental rights to access essential medicines and rights of the inventor and investors are considered

•

Effective incentives to innovate in developed countries can lead to global improvements in access to medicine if the intellectual property system is calibrated to permit this

•

Compulsory licensing and alternative mechanisms facilitating global access to drugs in the context of rights to the highest attainable standard of health and intellectual property are also discussed

In developed countries that protect core aspects of the fundamental human right to the highest attainable standard of health, how does that right intersect with intellectual property rights? Here, the human rights implication of providing access to all cancer drugs recommended by experts in a developed country is considered in the context of conflict between the incentive to invent and the rights of others to access medicines. Effective incentives to innovate in developed countries can lead to global improvements in access to medicine if the intellectual property system is calibrated to permit this. This depends partly on the usefulness of compulsory licensing and alternative mechanisms facilitating global access to drugs. This review considers tensions between fundamental rights to access essential medicines and rights of the inventor and investors, including the pharmaceutical industry.

Intellectual property management at the National Animal Science Research Institute in India: A case study

Aim:

The National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics is an animal science research institute under the aegis of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The intellectual property management system (IPMS) of the institute oversees technology creation, protection, and transfer/commercialization. This study reviews the effectiveness of the IPMS using traditional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) evaluation.

Materials and Methods:

A comprehensive repository was developed to compile the SWOT pertaining to the IPMS based on relevant document reviews and the inputs of experts and stakeholders. The repository was shared among scientists of the institute for rating. The rating process revealed the top ten key SWOT associated with the structure and operation of the IPMS. The weighted SWOT matrix technique was used to identify the best strategies to improve and develop the IPMS further. This included strategies derived from the best combinations of key strengths and opportunities (S-O strategies), key weaknesses and opportunities (W-O strategies), key strengths and threats (S-T strategies), and key weaknesses and threats (W-T strategies).

Results:

The top-ranked strengths included “possession of patented technology” and “state-of-the-art biosafety laboratory facilities,” while “lack of in-house faculty with legal expertise in intellectual property rights (IPR)” and “lack of technology incubation facilities” were the key weaknesses. The key opportunities included “external funding for research projects” and “market demand for onsite diagnostic tools.” The major threats were “lack of market for veterinary diagnostics” and “broad-based patents on research tools and technologies.”

Conclusion:

The strengths of the system, such as a state-of-the-art biosafety laboratory and technology-marketing collaboration with Agrinnovate India Ltd., could be employed effectively to gain from the opportunities tendered by the market demand for on-site disease diagnostic tools (S-O strategies). The limitation arising from a dearth of technical staff could be overcome by technological backstopping through international linkages in the area of disease monitoring and surveillance. Funding from externally supported projects could also be utilized for recruitment of personnel (W-O strategies). Limitations arising from the combination of inadequate in-house IPR expertise and the threat arising from broad-based patents on research tools warrant vigilance (W-T strategies).

How Can We Improve the Transformation Success Rate of Research Results in the Pharmaceutical Industry? The Game Theoretic Model of Technology Transfer Subjects

University–industry technology transfer (UITT) plays an important role in the construction of the national pharmaceutical innovation system. The speculations of a faculty inventor may hinder the successful transfer of pharmaceutical research results. This paper divides the specific process of the transformation of pharmaceutical research results into two parts: (1) an evolutionary game between faculty inventors and universities; and (2) a Stackelberg game between faculty inventors and pharmaceutical companies. Further, we carry out numerical simulations to analyze the impact of transformation success rate, income distribution coefficient, and a faculty inventor’s future working years on the transformation of pharmaceutical research results. The findings indicated that whether a combination of action strategies of faculty inventors and universities can evolve to the optimal equilibrium is determined by many factors, such as the technological transaction price of the pharmaceutical company and the reward or the income obtained by the faculty inventor. The transformation success rate and the income distribution coefficient are the key factors that affect the faculty inventor’s will and the behavior of the pharmaceutical company. The conclusions of this paper contribute to the research on how we can improve the success rate of research results and avoid resource waste, and provide a decision-making reference for the management of pharmaceutical research results in universities.