VUT v Wilson, UWA v Gray and university intellectual property policies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

49 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In Wilson and Gray the respective university intellectual property policies were held to be ineffective. The Federal Court therefore had to examine the default law concerning academic ownership of inventions. The trial judge in Wilson accepted that inventions that were a normal incident of the kind of research a particular academic was engaged to perform may belong to the employing university. However, French J and the Full Court in Gray emphasised that academic autonomy, duty to publish and freedom to collaborate with outsiders set academics apart. Employer ownership of inventions is therefore not to be implied into standard academic employment contracts, which are of a separate kind. A duty to research does not equate to a duty to further the university's commercial interests by pursuing patentable inventions, as is by contrast required of researchers in industry. This article examines the rulings in Wilson and Gray and explores what they mean for the structure and terms of university intellectual property policies in the future.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-163
Number of pages16
JournalAustralian Intellectual Property Journal
Volume21
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

intellectual property
invention
university
academic law
employment contract
incident
employer
autonomy
industry

Cite this

@article{79c9c0226ff145438085fabcbca183f4,
title = "VUT v Wilson, UWA v Gray and university intellectual property policies",
abstract = "In Wilson and Gray the respective university intellectual property policies were held to be ineffective. The Federal Court therefore had to examine the default law concerning academic ownership of inventions. The trial judge in Wilson accepted that inventions that were a normal incident of the kind of research a particular academic was engaged to perform may belong to the employing university. However, French J and the Full Court in Gray emphasised that academic autonomy, duty to publish and freedom to collaborate with outsiders set academics apart. Employer ownership of inventions is therefore not to be implied into standard academic employment contracts, which are of a separate kind. A duty to research does not equate to a duty to further the university's commercial interests by pursuing patentable inventions, as is by contrast required of researchers in industry. This article examines the rulings in Wilson and Gray and explores what they mean for the structure and terms of university intellectual property policies in the future.",
author = "{Van Caenegem}, William",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "148--163",
journal = "Australian Intellectual Property Journal",
issn = "1038-1635",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "3",

}

VUT v Wilson, UWA v Gray and university intellectual property policies. / Van Caenegem, William.

In: Australian Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2010, p. 148-163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - VUT v Wilson, UWA v Gray and university intellectual property policies

AU - Van Caenegem, William

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - In Wilson and Gray the respective university intellectual property policies were held to be ineffective. The Federal Court therefore had to examine the default law concerning academic ownership of inventions. The trial judge in Wilson accepted that inventions that were a normal incident of the kind of research a particular academic was engaged to perform may belong to the employing university. However, French J and the Full Court in Gray emphasised that academic autonomy, duty to publish and freedom to collaborate with outsiders set academics apart. Employer ownership of inventions is therefore not to be implied into standard academic employment contracts, which are of a separate kind. A duty to research does not equate to a duty to further the university's commercial interests by pursuing patentable inventions, as is by contrast required of researchers in industry. This article examines the rulings in Wilson and Gray and explores what they mean for the structure and terms of university intellectual property policies in the future.

AB - In Wilson and Gray the respective university intellectual property policies were held to be ineffective. The Federal Court therefore had to examine the default law concerning academic ownership of inventions. The trial judge in Wilson accepted that inventions that were a normal incident of the kind of research a particular academic was engaged to perform may belong to the employing university. However, French J and the Full Court in Gray emphasised that academic autonomy, duty to publish and freedom to collaborate with outsiders set academics apart. Employer ownership of inventions is therefore not to be implied into standard academic employment contracts, which are of a separate kind. A duty to research does not equate to a duty to further the university's commercial interests by pursuing patentable inventions, as is by contrast required of researchers in industry. This article examines the rulings in Wilson and Gray and explores what they mean for the structure and terms of university intellectual property policies in the future.

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 148

EP - 163

JO - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

JF - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

SN - 1038-1635

IS - 3

ER -