Material Transfer Agreement Uwa

For example, in 2002, the nine sites of the University of California system achieved nearly 2,000 MTAs, 30% more than the previous year. As the number of EPAs increases, their complexity increases, with constraints and obligations going far beyond the material itself, to data or inventions made using the material and/or derived materials. Since mtAs are contractual agreements between two parties, they generally do not have the geographical or temporal limitations of patented technologies and can therefore be much broader than the scope of rights conferred by patents. Interestingly, an assessment of the property rights associated with GoldenRice found that 44 patented products or processes and at least 15 materials, many of which were regulated by A.A., may have been used in development (Kryder et al., 2000). When navigating through the IP and technical landscape around “GoldenRice”, Potrykus (2001) indicated that the unfair use of an MTA was particularly problematic. Overall, the transfer of material between researchers is becoming increasingly difficult and it seems that the open exchange days of materials, especially from researchers in industry to university researchers in the life sciences, are over. While some free movement sectors continue to thrive, and funding agencies such as the NSF and NIH actively encourage the open exchange of material, these are becoming exceptions rather than a rule. Universities and private companies each have very legitimate interests that they are trying to support in material transfers, and if those interests come into conflict, it can be very difficult to find common ground. . . .

About bentemeindertsma

View all posts by bentemeindertsma →