Friday morning and it was another lovely day in DC (lovely to a person who is used to living in a very cloudy city). Today is our last day (of course we can have meetings on own tomorrow) so let us say it is the last official day of our Annual NPI meeting.
We don’t know yet where destiny might take us from know but we are very confident the strong bonds built during the last three years will allow us to continue seeing each other and working together for many years.
So, we started today discussing a very interesting case (Mama Cares et al v. NutriSet) presented by Robert Chiavello and Kirby Drake from Fulbright (the legal firm working pro bono on the case). Discussion surrounded patenting and licensing conditions/terms for therapeutic foods such as plumpy’nut (which is a peanut-based food for use in famine relief at the centre of the debate, see recent CAS-IP blog post). The dispute is mainly related to NutriSet’s philosophy of licensing (licensing the production to African partners for development) and patent infringement (it is not clear if Mama Cares et al will be free of any suits if producing a similar product in the US). We’ll have to wait and see how the case develops since we could say from a legal perspective, it has just started… (Note from Kay:we will write a separate post dealing with this issue shortly)
Then we had a great lecture given by Michael Gollin on Freedom to Operate. Key steps for accessing innovation strategically were given. You can always buy it, go around it or fight it… At the end of the day, IP does not have to always be an obstacle! Michael provided a very sophisticated diagram on accessing an outsider’s innovation when access is not readily available. Lots of creative ways there for achieving our goals. Afterwards, very interesting input was provided by Marc since he shared CIP’s experience on FTO on weevil resistant sweetpotato. Thanks Marc!
Next, a panel integrated by Silvia, Carolina, Marc, Michael and Victoria shared more experiences on FTO and funding terms and conditions. It was pointed out by Silvia that it is essential to know (and read!!) all agreements related to technology transfer. We can not assume that IP issues are well understood by all actors involved in a project. Therefore, a good practice is to raise all IP issues from the very beginning. Then, Carolina raised the issue that national organizations are susceptible to be refused to get material from companies even though IPRs are not granted in the country. At this point, although there may be FTO, it might just as well not be applicable in reality. Subsequently, Victoria mentioned that there are some specific circumstances or elements (such as immunities) that need to be taken into account to understand the whole context of every project. Michael then mentioned that most of the time it is by making a cost/analysis assessment that the best way of proceeding can be determined. Questions and comments were posed later on regarding “fair use”, use of traditional knowledge and genetic resources for research, disclosure requirement in patenting processes and patent landscapes.
After healthy and not so healthy meals, we talked a bit about the NPI Future. As the NPI has evolved into a strong community of practitioners, we are searching for a new host/coordinator. Our own participation as members is required for funding raising and we are determined to do so (you can be sure of this Peter).
Our day ended with a reception where we were able to talk to some of pro bono lawyers. Well guys, let me quote Karine and say “Our work is not over, keep up with your workplans and see you all in six months!!”
Hasta la vista!!!
Post written by Pamela Ferro, National Partner in Peru (ESTUDIO GRAU)