Analysis

Implications of Case

Impacting all university inventors, the implications of this case are far-reaching. Most schools follow the advice of adversarial IP attorneys and take the ‘iron fist’ approach to patenting. Students and faculty are compelled to sign, under what is substantially duress, a complete assignment of sole ownership and complete control of their patent applications, granting their university sole discretion over all future decisions for their invention for the following 20-30 year lifecycle of the proposed patents. Combine the anticipation of large profit potential, staff turnover, selective memory, an abundance of overzealous IP litigators who legally represent the University and not the inventors (inventors generally cannot afford or access competent counsel), unaccountable research foundation budgets (discretionary spending), closed executive Research Office board meetings and the opportunity for abuse of sole discretion should be quite obvious.

While some leading research universities invite and encourage inventor participation in licensing and commercialization negotiations, many institutions still choose to act behind a veil of secrecy. When commercialization efforts are not conducted transparently, accountability is sacrificed.

When discussions are not transparent, poor intentions, incompetence and naiveté can be shrouded by a lack of disclosure. When universities abuse the efforts of their intellectual workforce, the spirit of research will dwindle and the drive for innovation will die. No one will prosper under these conditions - not the university, not its researchers and not the public.

It is incumbent upon universities and their technology transfer offices to establish policies of transparent negotiations and communications, inventor involvement and a review and oversight process that ensures the future of the pursuit of knowledge and innovation for the betterment of all mankind.

The actions of the University of Georgia, the University of Georgia Research Foundation and Allergan are a worst-case example of the need for reform in the academic intellectual property arena. Using the combined coercion tactics of financial stricture, nuisance litigation, bottomless legal funds and the abuse of the name of a well-respected university, this behemoth sought to crush one of its foremost researchers.

Unequivocally, the litigious aftermath that incessantly shadows any inventor's 'home run' debilitates American entrepreneurial productivity for mankind.

Future Activity Anticipated

Dr. Kaswan plans to appeal the summary judgment dismissal of breach of contract claims and present her claim before an Athens, Georgia jury that Allergan fraudulently induced UGARF to breach the UGA Intellectual Property Policy and Georgia Sunshine laws for Allergan’s undue enrichment. Additionally, Dr. Kaswan sponsors www.IPAdvocate.org as a forum for reform of the standards of conduct associated with the Intellectual Property Policies of all American universities.