| 王佳存.美国未行使成果转化“介入权”的四个案例[J].全球科技经济瞭望,2014,29(9):55~59 |
| 美国未行使成果转化“介入权”的四个案例 |
| Four Tech-Transfer Cases in which Administration Refuses to Exercise March-in Right |
| 修订日期：2014-03-12 |
| DOI：10.3772/j.issn.1009-8623.2014.09.010 |
| 中文关键词: 美国；成果转化；技术转移；介入权；《拜杜法案》 |
| 英文关键词: U.S.；achievement transformation；technology transfer；march-in right；Bayh-Dole Act |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2535 |
| 全文下载次数: 1948 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 为推动科技成果转化，美国《拜杜法案》规定了“介入权”条款。几十年来，美国出现过 4个申请强制科技成果转化的案例，但美国职能部门都认为不满足法律规定的条件，因而没有行使“介入权”。根据“介入权”条款，对 Fabrazyme、CellPro、Norvir 及 Xalatan 4 个案例进行了分析和研究，并对“介入权”条款的执行情况进行了评价。美国“介入权”强制成果转化的条款形同虚设，其原因主要有：资助部门认为该条款可能影响研究人员参与政府科技项目的积极性；“介入权”程序较为复杂，调查取证需要较长时间，使之难以实施；所涉及的成果往往不只是获得政府一个部门的资助，还获得其他方面的经费，导致“介入权”的行使更加复杂、困难。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| To promote technology transfer, the U.S. Congress passed “The Bayh-Dole Act” which includes the government’s “March-in”right. In the past several decades, there were four cases requesting the exercise of “March-in” right to transfer the related patents to the third party, but the R&D funding agency refused to exercise
this authority while holding that these cases don’t meet the law regulation. Based on the language of “Marchin”right, this paper makes a full analysis on the four cases of CellPro, Norvir, Xalatan and Fabrazyme, and gives a brief comment on the government’s exercise of the right. The paper gives reasons that the “March-in” right performed no function in four cases as follows: the R&D funding agency thinks that the “March-in” right could have negative effects on researchers to participate the government projects; the complex procedure and long period to obtain evidence through investigation makes it difficult to exercise the right; the research funds involves multi-channel funds besides the government support, resulting in the hard exercise of the “March-in” right. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
