Ireland – do we suck at filing patents?
Adrian Weckler recently posted that Ireland sucks at filing patents, despite the significant amount of funding that has gone into research in Ireland. In his analysis he correctly identifies SFI as one of the funding sources.
I would offer a number of observations on Adrian’s post:
- I understand that it takes 18 months for a patent application to be published after it has been filed. Hence, these figures probably refer to patents filed in 2005 and 2006.
- Ireland is relatively late to the game here. Significant funding for research in Ireland, through SFI, has only been around since about 2002. Given that it can take a number of years to invent the thing, whatever the thing is, we’re still pretty early on.
- While patent filings and awards are an important metric, we have to be careful that they do not become the be all and end all of the academic research process. Otherwise, we will end up incentivising people (through renewed research funding) to just file patents, without regard to whether those patents have any merit or commercial potential.
One final point worth bearing in mind, which these figures obscure, is that the patent filing culture is very different across different sectors and industries. In the pharma/drug discovery space, patent filings of new molecules is all important, and a real driver of activity. In my own area (software) this is much less the case.
All of this notwithstanding, SFI are tracking patent filings and awards, in particular in our larger CSET and SRC programmes, and will be monitoring this issue on an on-going basis.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I think that your third observation is already happening in Ireland to a certain extent, based on the experiences of some friends of mine who worked in a science research lab in a Dublin university.
Within my own area (software also) I have only had one experience of fourth level researchers applying for a patent (and it was more maths related). I think the bigger problem is encouraging university researchers to consider that a patent is just the first small step in commercialising research, rather than the final step of a project!
Finally, I am a bit surprised that SFI has such a strong interest in patents. I thought that SFI’s remit was more related to basic research, and I associate patents more with applied research.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Teknovis, thanks for your comment.
Your point about seeing a patent as a starting point rather than an end goal is correct, to a certain extent. I would be of the view that there are many players involved, and the end goal of one (the basic researcher) might be the starting point for another (a industrial researcher, a tech-transfer specialist or an entrepreneur, for example). As long as everybody recognises that, then it can all work smoothly.
Problems can arise when researchers want to patent for the sake of patent, without any consideration as to the commercial viability or otherwise of the work. It is the role of the tech transfer office to make decisions as to which invention disclosures they should invest their finite funds in taking to full patent, and exploiting thereafter.
As to your final point, basic research does not necessarily mean that the work is not suitable for patent. Many patents, particularly in the bio/pharma area are as the result of very fundamental research.
Many of the larger and more successful US research universities have significant patent royalty income from their accumulated backlog of patents, and that income helps to fund the development of the university as a whole. This is what SFI is trying to encourage.