sou · GTB395 · 2006-01-01 00:00:00 — The Inquiry has interpreted the terms of reference to mean that the objective of more extensive facilitation of research commercialisa- tion does not incorporate any immediate aspiration towards an increased degree of self-sufficiency for HEIs, through licence revenues from, or the sale of, inventions made by HEI employees. Instead, the underlying aim of regulations facilitating commerciali- sation is to create increased incentives for HEIs to turn inventions to account. The idea is also to provide a stronger spur for inventors to have the results of their research further developed into com- mercialisable products or, in general, to work to promote broader use of their research results by colleagues, businesses and the interested general public, with the assistance of the HEI. The Inquirys proposals have been strongly influenced by the view that HEI research should be utilised more extensively by society as a whole. The Inquiry has been premised on the implicit condition that the fundamental tasks of higher education – to conduct research and education – must not be disrupted by any changes in legislation. Conducting free, independent and scientifically based research and education is, and will remain, the central task of HEIs. Academic freedom must not be compromised. This basic principle has led, for example, to proposed solutions where the researcher must always be free to choose between publishing and commercialising. If achieving greater commercialisation of HEI inventions is desirable, there is reason to attach importance to both the actual compensation for a takeover and inspiration for future research. If HEIs are permitted to take over the rights to patentable HEI in- ventions, the terms for transferring ownership must be at least as good for researchers as the terms for commercialisation that a researcher may be offered today. This perspective has characterised legislation and other agreements in some of the other countries the Inquiry has studied, including , , and . Within the broad framework of the remit of the Inquiry, i.e., between the one extreme of abolishing the teachers exception and the other of introducing a system of mandatory reporting, it is possible to consider a wide range of diverse structures are possible to enable HEIs to take ownership of inventions in whole or in part. For example, it would be possible for HEIs to be given priority to negotiate and/or the right to use HEI researchers inventions in their own activities. However, the Inquiry has chosen only to highlight the legal consequences of two alternative cases, namely a mandatory reporting and a takeover alternative. The chosen working method has allowed in-depth analysis and identification of the legal consequences of either abolishing the teachers excep- tion or of retaining it but with an obligation to report patentable inventions. The broad spectrum that is thus presented also makes it possible to add or remove different aspects to see how different possible intermediate solutions can be designed and take into account their practical consequences. The mandatory reporting alternative would mean retaining the teachers exception but introducing an obligation on the part of teachers and other employees engaged in research to report patentable inventions attributable to the sphere of activities of the HEI at which the researcher is employed. In this case, the main purpose is transparency and the dissemination of information on research at the HEI, but the reporting system may also result in the commercialisation of research results. As freedom of contract applies, there is every conceivable opportunity for the HEI to negotiate on taking over the rights to an HEI invention in whole or in part. In the takeover alternative, the HEI is instead given the exclusive right to acquire a reported patentable invention that is attributable to the sphere of activities of the HEI in question and that is connected with the researchers employment or actual research activities at the HEI. The Inquiry has concluded that without such an exclusive right, it is not reasonable to build up the organisation for evaluation and marketing, including support structures, that are required for professional and competitive commercialisation. For the takeover alternative to be realistic and practicable, the Inquiry has also chosen to go a step further than merely removing the teachers exception and letting the HEI researchers activities fall under the Inventors Act. If the HEI is to have a real chance to commercialise research results that are considered suitable for such utilisation, any acquisition should take place rapidly and smoothly and the scope to use the rights should be total. Furthermore, the takeover alternative does not exclude the possibility of the HEI and the researcher or research group reaching other agreements. To examine what is required to enable the HEI to commercialise HEI inventions, the Inquiry has analysed the areas of legislation that are central for HEIs, primarily the Higher Education Act but also other legislation involving the rights of HEIs to engage in commercial undertakings and to be parties in proceedings. One conclusion the Inquiry has drawn from its studies is that, at present, it is not clear that the current legislation allows HEIs the right to commercialise HEI inventions. Similar assessments have been made in , and in connection with discussions on abolishing the teachers exception in these countries. A legislative amendment on HEI activities is therefore required to allow HEIs to make commercial use of research results. The deliberations of the Inquiry on the part of its remit related to the need for extended secrecy – in order, inter alia, to enable more effective commercialisation of HEI inventions – are based on how to create a reasonable balance between transparency and secrecy. Transparency is necessary and is inherent in the role of the HEI as an upholder of the free exchange of opinions and provider of all-round information. As government agencies, HEIs are required under the Freedom of the Press Act to give every Swedish citizen the right of access to public documents held by agencies that are official and not classified as secret. The law thus confirms, as indeed goes without saying, that HEIs must be as open and transparent as possible. an inherent conflict exists between the for and requirements of transparency, and the ambition to commercialise. If one wishes to commercialise an HEI inven- tion, patenting is perhaps the only way to protect the invention and make it reasonably attractive for an interested party, or for an investor to be willing to go in and further develop the invention into a commercialisable product. Patent legislation requires an in- vention to be new for it to be patentable, i.e., it is not to have been publicly available before the patent application is submitted. This means that information about the invention must not be made publicly available until the patent application has been submitted to the registration authority. In addition, there are a number of real practical problems related to how the Swedish principle of public access to official documents is applied at HEIs, problems that have long been recognised and that have not infrequently led to researchers and HEIs entering into secrecy commitments that they cannot live up to. For example, secrecy undertakings that contravene the principle of public access to official documents are required for participation in EU framework programmes. Another well-known problem is that prominent researchers may be forced to refrain from applying for grants from research sponsors that are government agencies, since their chances of obtaining patents are lost if their applications contain information on patentable invention. A further problem involves opportunities for HEI researchers to enter into com- mercial agreements with private research sponsors. For such com- mercialisation agreements and commissioned research of different kinds, it is normally a requirement that information on inventions be kept secret. The Inquirys analysis shows that, not in the latter case either, does the Swedish principle of public access to official documents offer the required secrecy protection. Neither EU grants nor commercialisation are actually possible without a number of further limitations of the principle of public access to official documents. Based on the deliberations of the Inquiry, two alternative and com- prehensive proposed solutions are presented. Under both proposals, the Higher Education Act needs to be amended to enable the commercialisation of inventions, by the HEIs them- selves or by someone who has been given the assignment to com- mercialise inventions. Both alternatives propose the same amend- ments to the Higher Education Act but the implications of the demands placed on HEIs would differ in practice. Linked to these alternatives, the Inquiry has also included modified proposals on how certain limitations of the principle of public access to official documents should be implemented in order to allow patenting and/or applications for research grants and participation in joint research projects, while ensuring the required secrecy and as much transparency as possible in the activities of the HEI. Amendments to the Higher Education Act Universities and other institutions of higher education will be given a new task in Chapter 1, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Higher Education Act. This will be expressed as an obligation to promote the utilisation of research results generated at HEIs. This new task will involve, for example, entitling universities to make commercial use of research results by such means as acquisitions, sales, licences and patents. Both solutions presented by the Inquiry assume an obligation on the part of HEI researchers to report any patentable inventions to their employer/HEI. This mandatory reporting is a fundamental prerequisite for enabling the HEI to accomplish its new task of promoting utilisation of research results generated at the university, regardless of whether this is done under the mandatory reporting alternative or the takeover alternative. The mandatory reporting alternative: Teachers and other employees with research duties at HEIs are to report patentable inventions to their employer, if these inventions are attributable to the research activities conducted at the HEI in question. The pro- vision on mandatory reporting is to be included in the Inventors Act. Even without a statutory right for the HEI to take over ownership of inventions produced there, the HEI and the em- ployee may naturally enter into an agreement that the HEI is to take over the rights to an invention in whole or in part. The takeover alternative: If the teachers exception is abolished, a new Act regarding HEI inventions will be introduced, the Act (xxxx:yy) on the right to inventions made by teachers and other employees engaged in research tasks at HEIs.. The new Act will entitle the employer, in return for compensation, to acquire all rights to reported inventions associated with the employees em- ployment. The compensation proposed is a standard amount paid out when the HEI takes over an invention plus reasonable compen- sation. Reasonable compensation should amount to at least 30 per cent of the HEIs receipts in the event of commercialisation. Academic freedom always takes precedence, which is to be expressed in a provision that the employers right to acquire an invention is conditional on the employee not reserving the right to publish information about the invention. With the exception of those that apply to the employees right to compensation, the provisions of the law may be set aside via an agreement. If the HEI makes use of its right to take over an invention, the HEI will then also be required to take effective measures to utilise this invention. As a minimum requirement for effective measures, the Act specifies that the employer must apply for a patent for the invention if this has not yet been done. If the HEI has not taken effective measures for utilisation, the employee has the right to recover the rights to the invention or, if the HEI has sold the rights, the right to compensation for damage incurred. The Court will be made the court of exclusive jurisdiction in cases concerning application of the new Act. Proposed amendments to secrecy legislation As has become evident, most of the proposed amendments to secrecy legislation are of such a nature that they should be imple- mented regardless of whether changes are made along the lines proposed in the Inquirys two alternatives or variants of these. Amendments to the secrecy legislation are inter alia essential to enable Swedish researchers to take part in EU programmes, for the sake of efficient joint research projects and so that individual researchers dare to apply for the grants they need from govern- ment research sponsors. The proposed amendments to the secrecy legislation involve the following points: A five-year period of secrecy will be introduced for informa- tion about inventions and research results deriving from research cooperation between an HEI and another agency, company or other individual party, if there is reason to assume that it will be damaging to an individual if the information is disclosed. The Government shall have the opportunity to order exemptions from secrecy, if it finds it important that the information is released. Secrecy will be introduced for information about patentable inventions that are to be reported or have been reported to the employer, under the Act (xxxx:yy) on the right to inventions made by teachers and other employees engaged in research tasks at HEIs. The period of secrecy is to be at most 20 years. The period of secrecy may be discontinued earlier by the party in whose interest the secrecy was established. The legal right of the individual to publish information will not apply. To the extent that the Government so prescribes, secrecy will be applicable to information about inventions or research results that is included in an application for financial support addressed by an HEI to a government agency. Such secrecy, however, shall only apply if there is reason to assume that it will be damaging to an individual if the information is disclosed. The Government may order exemptions from secrecy, if it finds it important that the information is released. Other proposals and consequences In the course of the Inquirys work, two essential conditions for the commercialisation of inventions made at HEIs have come up repeatedly. It is of vital importance that HEI researchers acquire a basic knowledge of intellectual property rights to research material, of the way in which the principle of public access to official documents works at HEIs, when secrecy may apply, what agreements mean, etc. Such education should be provided as a compulsory part of research education, and should also be included in the continuing professional development courses offered by the HEI. It is absolutely vital for enabling HEIs to succeed in utilising research results that a professional organisation is available to assess the patentability, and particularly the commercial poten- tial, of reported inventions. It is not within the remit of the Inquiry to present detailed proposals concerning the specific design of such educational courses or of the necessary organisation. The Inquiry has therefore only outlined the general starting points for these necessary condi- tions. Europeiska patentverket/European Europeiska gemenskapen och Europeiska ge- om patentsamarbete/Patent Förhandlings- och samverkansrådet PTK Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Avtalet om handelsrelaterade aspekter på im- materialrätter/Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights including Trade ramavtal mellan SAF och PTK om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar Lag (1949:345) om rätten till arbetstagares Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära Organisationen för den intellektuella ägande- rätten/World Intellectual Property Organi- Anmälningsalternativet: lärarundantaget behålls med en anmälningsskyldighet 1Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (1949:345) om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om lagen (1949:345) om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar, dels att 1 § skall ha följande lydelse, och dels att det i lagen skall införas en ny paragraf, 4 a §, av följande lydelse. Denna lag avser här i riket patenterbara uppfinningar av arbets- tagare i allmän eller enskild tjänst. Lärare vid universitet, hög- För lärare i denna egenskap väsendet skall inte i denna egen- universitet och högskolor gäller endast 4 a §. I övrigt äger denna enligt denna lag, dock att lagen lag inte tillämpning på sådana skall tillämpas på sådana lärare vid Försvarsmaktens skolor som Inte heller officerare på reserv- Lärare vid andra inrättningar officerare eller de som fullgör det än de som anges i andra stycket skall inte i denna egenskap 1 Senaste lydelse av 1 § 1994:2078. svarsplikt skall i denna egenskap anses såsom arbetstagare enligt denna lag. denna lag, dock att lagen skall tillämpas på sådana lärare vid Försvarsmaktens skolor som är yrkesofficerare. Inte heller officerare på reserv- stat, reservpersonal, reserv- officerare eller de som fullgör värnplikt eller civilplikt enligt lagen (1994:1809) om totalför- svarsplikt skall i denna egenskap anses såsom arbetstagare enligt denna lag. Gör en lärare eller annan arbetstagare med forskningsupp- gifter vid universitet och hög- skolor en uppfinning som kan hänföras till arbetsgivarens verk- samhetsområde skall arbetstaga- ren utan dröjsmål lämna arbets- givaren en skriftlig underrättelse om uppfinningen. 2Förslag till lag om ändring i högskolelagen (1992:1434) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om högskolelagen (1992:1434) att 1 kap. 2 § skall ha följande lydelse. Staten skall som huvudman anordna högskolor för 1.utbildning som vilar på vetenskaplig eller konstnärlig grund samt på beprövad erfarenhet, och 2.forskning och konstnärligt utvecklingsarbete samt annat ut- vecklingsarbete. Högskolorna skall också samverka med det omgivande samhället och informera om sin verksamhet. Högskolorna skall också samverka med det omgivande samhället och informera om sin verksamhet samt främja nyttig- görande av forskningsresultat till- komna vid högskolan. Denna lag träder i kraft den 1 Senaste lydelse av 2 § 1996:1392. Sekretess gäller för sådan uppgift angående uppfinning som har lämnats till myndighet enligt lagen (1949:345) om rät- ten till arbetstagares uppfin- ningar.Sekretess gäller även för uppgift om uppfinning som arbetsgivaren skall underrättas om enligt 4 a § lagen (1949:345) om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar.Om patent har sökts på upp- finningen, gäller dock sekretessen endast om uppgiften omfattas av sekretess enligt första stycket.Sekretess gäller i ärende om registrering av mönster för uppgift om mönstret, om sökanden har begärt det och ej annat följer av gällande lagstiftning om mönster- skydd. 3Förslag till lag om ändring i sekretesslagen (1980:100) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om sekretesslagen (1980:100) att 8 kap. 13 § skall ha följande lydelse. Sekretess gäller i ärende om ansökan om patent för uppgift om uppfinning eller företagshemlighet, om annat inte följer av gällande lagstiftning om patent. Sekretess gäller för sådan uppgift angående uppfinning som har lämnats till myndighet enligt lagstiftning om arbets- givares rätt till arbetstagares uppfinningar. Om patent har sökts på uppfinningen, gäller dock sekretessen endast om uppgiften omfattas av sekretess enligt första stycket. Sekretess gäller i ärende om registrering av mönster för uppgift om mönstret, om sökanden har begärt det och ej annat följer av gällande lagstiftning om mönster- skydd. I fråga om uppgift i allmän handling gäller sekretess enligt andra stycket första meningen i högst . I fråga om uppgift i allmän handling gäller sekretess enligt andra och tredje styckena i högst . Denna lag träder i kraft den Övertagandealternativet: lärarundantaget avskaffas 1Lag (xxxx:yy) om rätten till uppfinningar av lärare och övriga arbetstagare med forskningsuppgifter vid universitet och högskolor 1 § Denna lag innehåller bestämmelser om rätten till här i landet patenterbara uppfinningar som är gjorda av lärare i denna egenskap och av övriga arbetstagare med forskningsuppgifter vid universitet och högskolor. 2 § De arbetstagare som avses i 1 § har samma rätt till sina uppfin- ningar som andra uppfinnare om annat inte framgår av denna lag eller lagen (1949:345) om rätten till arbetstagares uppfinningar. Bestämmelserna i denna lag tillämpas inte i den mån annat ut- tryckligen avtalats eller kan anses framgå av anställningsför- hållandet eller omständigheterna i övrigt. Som framgår av 8 § tredje stycket kan dock villkor i avtal om rätten till arbetstagares uppfin- ningar förklaras ogiltigt eller jämkas. 3 § Om en arbetstagare gör en uppfinning, som kan hänföras till arbetsgivarens verksamhetsområde, skall arbetstagaren utan dröjs- mål i en skriftlig anmälan underrätta arbetsgivaren om uppfin- ningen. I anmälan skall anges om arbetstagaren förbehåller sig rätten att publicera uppgifter om uppfinningen. Har arbetstagaren ansökt om patent på uppfinningen skall även det anges i anmälan. 4 § Har arbetstagaren i anmälan enligt 3 § inte förbehållit sig rätten att publicera uppgifter om uppfinningen får arbetsgivaren helt in- träda som rättighetsinnehavare till uppfinningen, om den 1.kan hänföras till arbetsgivarens verksamhetsområde och 2.har ett samband med arbetstagarens anställning. Vill arbetsgivaren utnyttja sin rätt att förvärva uppfinningen, skall arbetsgivaren meddela arbetstagaren detta från det att arbetsgivaren enligt 3 § mottog anmälan om uppfin- ningen. 5 § En arbetstagare som i anmälan enligt 3 § första stycket förbe- hållit sig rätten att publicera uppgifter om uppfinningen, och som därefter ansöker om patent, skall med att patentansökan inges lämna arbetsgivaren en skriftlig underrättelse om detta. Arbetsgivaren får i ett sådant fall inträda som rättighetsinne- havare till uppfinningen om 1.förutsättningar för detta föreligger enligt 4 § första stycket 1 och 2, och 2.arbetsgivaren från det att underrättelsen om patentansökan togs emot meddelar arbetstagaren sin avsikt att för- värva rätten till uppfinningen. 6 § som arbetsgivaren enligt 4 § kan förvärva rätten till uppfinningen, får arbetstagaren inte förfoga över uppfinningen på annat sätt än att söka patent på den. Om patent söks skall arbetstagaren med att patentansökan inges lämna arbets- givaren en skriftlig underrättelse om detta. Arbetstagaren får som avses i 4 § inte heller avslöja något om uppfinningen så att den offentliggörs eller riskerar att bli utnyttjad för annans än arbetsgivarens räkning. som arbetsgivaren enligt 5 § kan förvärva rätten till uppfinningen, får arbetstagaren inte förfoga över uppfinningen. 7 § Arbetsgivaren skall vidta effektiva åtgärder för att uppfinningar som förvärvats med stöd av denna lag nyttiggörs inom skälig tid. Har patent på uppfinningen inte sökts av arbetstagaren vid tid- punkten för arbetsgivarens förvärv, skall arbetsgivaren ansöka om patent. Om åtgärder enligt första stycket inte vidtas, kan arbetstagaren begära återgång av rättigheterna till uppfinningen eller, i det fall arbetsgivaren har avyttrat uppfinningen, ersättning för den skada som uppkommit. Talan om återgång av rättigheterna till uppfinningen eller om er- sättning får endast upptas till prövning om arbetstagaren från arbetsgivarens förvärv av uppfinningen skriftligt meddelat arbetsgivaren att denne inte vidtagit åtgärder enligt första stycket.