1.
a. i. the right of the owning the IP:
the provider of the background IP has the complete right to warrants the other consortium members use the knowledge of patented by the IP in members’ activities of GCP.
ii. The open source /humanitarian license of IP:
The access to the knowledge of background IP was totally free when members use the knowledge in their activities of GCP.
iii. The right of the provider owned the background IP could not be infracted.
iv. The change of the ownership to the background IP will not interfere the obligation that the knowledge serves in members’ activity of GCP.
v. contributor could grant certain members of GCP take commercial activities using the background IP.
vi. the license of usage of background IP in non-GCP activities of GCP members follow the IPR, and the activities would not interfere GCP activities.
vii. the GCP members under the obligation to protect the background IP, including reasonable assistant and notification for the IP contributor.
b. the main issues concern IP in future institutional policy are follows:
i. the relationship of employee and the content IP:
according the agreement, the employee of the institution have no right own the content IP under whatever conditions, including the research results, the breeding and product results. The IP right ownership follow the agreement between the institution and the SAU university.
ii. the ownership rights of members to IP
distinguish the private IP right of personal member(S) in institution, and the public IP right of the institution.
The content, including research materials, breeding varieties, or technologies, which derived from the content belonging to the institution, the IP rights owned by the institution, not by personals.
The administration of IP concern personal member(S) following the national law of IPR. Their usage could not interfere the activities of other members in this institute.
the members of the institution, including the employee, colleagues under the grant of the institutional committee, could use the knowledge/varieties in their activities. These activities, including research, education, or commercialization, must permitted by institutional committee.
iii. out-bound of content
members have no right transfer the content of the institution, including materials, technologies, to third party, without the permission of the institution committee.
The flow of contents, according to the agreement of MTA in this institution.
iv. in-bound of content
the flow in of materials, technologies, follow the agreement of MTA in institution, and be permitted with the committee. Basic principle, invalid the infraction of IPR to other party, and invalid conflict with the object of institution.
v. breeding products commercialization details, the benefit of personals and public.
v-i. the checkup of IP issues relevant the product will be in commercialized. Including the materials, varieties, technologies, in breeding procedure, according to the national law.
v-ii. the balance of the benefits of personal members who conduct the breeding products and the institution.
v-iii. the IP ownership of the breeding product with the institution.
2. the IP plan of key IP issue in the construction of institution.
i. in-bound terms, concern materials, varieties, knowledge, technologies. The law be involved, include seed laws, circumstance conservation laws (in broad), MTA of CBD.
ii. out-bound terms. Concern materials, varieties, knowledge, technologies. The law be implemented with: seed laws, patent laws, circumstance conservation laws, MTA of CBD.
iii. IP management for materials, data, and information, etc. the laws be involved, except those be mentioned above, include TRIPS, ITPGR.
iv. commercialization of the IP.
v. personnel/employee rights and obligation with IP issue.
3. IP terms will implemented in institution with the IP terms of GCP
Difference:
i. in-bound. The content of agreement with the provider maybe various, according to the requirement in later work. Maybe research, education, or commercial application.
ii. out-bind. Different with the GCP non-profit policy, detail agreement accords the objective of the action, slight difference in law term, others are same.
iii. IP management. The research result or breeding materials, including diversities, data, information, technologies, not be accessed to all publics, according the objective, deliver to administrative agent, or retained.
iv. personnel/employee rights/obligation concerns IP issue. Because the self-determination of personnel in the same institution. The cooperation or do by-self in research, education or breeding activities concern the share of content and IRP issue, etc. distinguish the IPR issue of individuals and public institution.
v. the laws be implemented of above activities. In-broad, mainly under seed laws, circumstance conservation law and patent law. Concerns international affairs, accords the MTA, etc.
Overlaps:
i. although in-broad/out-bound, the law be implemented with the national law, e.g. seed law, circumstance conservation law, the basic principle consist with the treaty of CBD, TRIPS, ITPGR, because china has been the member of those international organizations or participant. In international IP affairs, the MTA, TRIPS, ITPGR would be considered.
ii. the detail treaty of national laws those concern genetic resource, agricultural breeding, or bio-materials, bio-technologies, I have not view them, but the agreement of our institution concerns these issues would in the framework of national law, and the national laws about genetic resource, breeding, bio-materials or technologies, consist with the international MTA CBD, TRIPS, and ITPGR. But some detail terms of administrative agents are not be constructed well.