How can intellectual property rights (IPRs) be used to promote the development of the clean technologies needed to tackle climate change? This was the question on everybody's lips at the European Patent Forum, which was held on 6 and 7 May in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana.

According to European Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen, 'the problems relating to climate change can be seen as opportunities for some industrial sectors'.

As Yvo de Boer of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change pointed out, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly reduced with current and near-ready technologies. The question is whether the current intellectual property rights (IPR) system is helping or hindering the implementation and deployment of these technologies.

Focusing on the question of technology transfer to developing countries, he noted that industrialised countries tend to defend IPRs as being necessary to stimulate and reward innovation. Meanwhile developing countries claim that IPRs represent a barrier to technology transfer from the developed to the developing world.

Other arguments in favour of IPRs include the fact that most climate friendly technologies are not patent protected, although this is more relevant in some sectors than others, and furthermore developing countries rarely cite IPRs as a major problem in their official reports to the UNFCC.

A major problem is, however, that until now the debate on the role of IPRs in clean technology development has been largely theoretical, argued Mr De Boer. 'We need more clarity on where IPRs may prevent access to technologies and where they are not,' he stated, adding that where barriers were identified, means to overcome them needed to be found.

Elsewhere at the conference a breakout session on technology transfer from science to industry focused on the challenges faced by universities when trying to patent the results of their research.

As Johan Bil of the Technology Transfer Office at the University of Ghent in Belgium explained, one of the main hurdles faced by universities applying for patents is the cost of hiring a patent attorney. Defending patents is also a costly business. One possible solution put forward by Dr Koen Verhoef of the Free University (VU) Amsterdam in the Netherlands involves universities clubbing together to employ full time, in-house patent attorneys.

Another cost comes from proving that a technology which works in the lab can be successfully scaled up to the industrial level; without this proof, industry is unlikely to invest in developing the technology further. The University of Ghent has a proof of concept fund to help researchers surmount this particular obstacle.

Meanwhile Dr Verhoef highlighted the importance of communicating the need for patents to researchers and students in the university. One way to do this would be to reward researchers more for their technology transfer activities. For example, funding could be allocated based on a researcher's links with industry or the number of patents filed.

A way also needs to be found for researchers to benefit from the results of their patents. 'Translating their knowledge into applications takes time and we need to recognise this,' he said.

Source: Community R&D Information Service (CORDIS)