Director of the research centre on competition law, faculty of law, university of nankai
Basic research is the source of the entire scientific system and the principal body for all technical issues. In the face of the accelerated evolution of the new scientific and technological revolution, the protection and application of intellectual property rights has become not only a back-end remedy at the legal level, but also a systematic enabling tool throughout the entire cycle of basic research and original innovation, becoming an important player in the country's new institutional advantages and participation in global science and technology governance。
The underlying logic of intellectual property empowerment research and original innovation
The results of basic research, with its high level of investment, long cycles and high risks, are based on new theories, new methods, new discoveries and not directly pursuing economic benefits. The effective allocation of market resources is often difficult to achieve without stable and predictable security of interests. The breakthrough of the original innovation focus “from 0 to 1” is the source of subversive technologies, but also faces market failures。
By granting exclusive property rights to innovation subjects, intellectual property rights provide institutional “stabilizers” for addressing the mismatch between the return on innovation and inputs. Higher education and research institutes and enterprises can obtain a reasonable return from the transformation of results and licensing, compensate for the costs and risks of basic research, and motivate various subjects to engage in basic research. Strengthening intellectual property rights protection in the field of basic research will lead to the investment of social capital in the front line of the foundation, will create a diversified pattern of inputs and will be of major strategic importance in building on the country's new institutional strengths and focus on breaking through key core technologies。
At the same time, intellectual property rights provide a “bridge” between basic research and industrial applications. Market-based mechanisms such as patent transfers, licensing and equity promotion promote the transfer of research results to enterprises and create a chain of innovation for the development of teletechnologies. Original innovation can only be achieved if it translates into real productivity. This process requires not only legal regulation but also economic policy guidance and competition policy escorts to optimize the allocation of innovation elements。
Practical gaps in the protection and application of intellectual property rights in basic research
The characteristics of basic research and original innovation dictate the need for an intellectual property layout at an early stage of the study to clarify tenure of results and avoid the risk of abuse. At present, the front-end intellectual property layout has yet to be strengthened to allow innovation subjects to better or better target their research in the pre-research period and avoid duplication of research, thereby affecting the quality and efficiency of innovation. Middle-end intellectual property incentives depend heavily on administrative incentives for protection, and more flexible and efficient forms of diversification need to be explored, in particular by strengthening market-based operating mechanisms, and by better matching basic research and diversification of original innovations。
Data are an important element of the digital transformation of basic research, and the accumulation of big scientific, experimental and documentary data in the field of basic research is extremely valuable, but the current system of intellectual property protection of the data needs further refinement. The “in originality” requirement of copyright law makes it difficult to cover systematically collected and collated scientific data sets; there is an inherent conflict between commercial secrecy protection models and the demand for data flows; and the application of general provisions of anti-improper competition law is not effective in providing stable expectations and pre-emptive powers in data protection. Although the data intellectual property registration system has been explored, its legal attributes, registration effectiveness and review criteria have not yet been harmonized and have not resulted in a stable and credible disclosure and credibility of property rights throughout the country. Fundamental research data are assured of the stability of the rule of law, circulation, trade, etc., so that the value of the data elements can be released more fully, making basic research more efficient and accelerating the emergence of a new paradigm of data-driven research。
Moreover, policies in the areas of science and technology, education, talent, landscapes and intellectual property policies are not closely linked at present, and mechanisms for synergy need to be further strengthened, and there is an urgent need to better underpin the full cycle of intellectual property rights enabling basic research and original innovation. In terms of foreign rule of law guarantees, our voice in international rule-making still needs to be strengthened in the face of technical blockades and intellectual property rights in key technical areas in some countries. The capacity of universities and scientific institutions and enterprises to deal with intellectual property disputes involving foreign countries is relatively weak; there is still considerable scope for increasing the depth and breadth of our participation in multilateral intellectual property rule negotiations on such major global scientific issues as climate change, life health and artificial intelligence governance。
The rule of law underpinning intellectual property empowerment infrastructure research and original innovation
At the present time, based on both domestic and international considerations, it is only through a full cycle of intellectual property rights systems that deep-rooted, enabling and original innovations can we build on the roots of our scientific and technological development and continue to achieve critical core technological breakthroughs and secure future development and international competition initiatives。
In particular, a system of full-cycle protection of intellectual property should be built to enhance its suitability. Promote forward-end and process-wide extension of back-end relief. At the level of the legal framework, improvements have been made to the laws and regulations on patent law, copyright law, conversion of scientific and technical results, etc., focusing on the specificities of basic research results, and the addition of special provisions on the early determination of basic research results, tenure pre-sets, distribution of proceeds from job inventions, etc., to provide a legislative framework for the establishment of front-end layout, middle-end care, back-end transformational systems. At the level of national governance, the integration of top-level design and governance is strengthened to integrate a full cycle of intellectual property protection and application into the core framework of building national innovation systems. To address basic research, original innovations, to identify new theories, new approaches, the scope and standards of protection for new discoveries, and to explore the establishment of specific protection mechanisms, such as enhanced protection through copyright, commercial secrecy, optimization of patent review processes and shortening of patent review cycles for original innovations. (c) accelerate innovation in the data intellectual property rights system, draw on local pilot experiences, harmonize registration review norms, and build protection models for pre-determinative registration and ex-competitive regulation. (d) establish a mechanism for the protection of basic research in new and emerging areas, improve the relevant rules of protection in a timely manner and achieve a balanced level of protection。
The second is to strengthen policy synergy and build a full-cycle enabling policy support system. At the level of science and technology policy, increased investment in basic research, continuous improvement of research facilities and hardware support for in-depth research and innovation; at the level of education policy, the creation of a cross-section of basic research and intellectual property and the development of composite talent; at the level of talent policy, the inclusion of intellectual property creation, use and protection in the evaluation indicators and the rejection of the “paper-only” orientation; and at the level of presence policy, efforts were made to build a landscape of basic research, original innovations and the promotion of intellectual property use and value for results. To encourage enterprises to engage in collaborative innovation in productive sciences, build a consortium of industrial intellectual property (ipr) innovation, focus on basic research and original innovation in key core technologies, and promote the effectiveness of a system of full-cycle protection and application of iprs。
Thirdly, a synergistic and efficient protection of intellectual property rights should be built to enhance the judicial effectiveness and professionalism of law enforcement. (c) to promote the professionalization of judicial protection, to improve the capacity of the courts to deal with new types of difficult cases, such as basic research and data ownership, and to harmonize the judicial system. Strict implementation and refinement of the conditions for the application of a punitive compensation system significantly increases the cost of violations. To further strengthen the institutional interface between the administration and the judiciary, to improve the judicial recognition of agreements on administrative conciliation of intellectual property rights and to establish quick, low-cost and diversified avenues for dispute resolution. (c) to develop mechanisms for coordinated administrative and judicial protection, and to establish multisectoral mechanisms for coordinated enforcement, such as science and technology, intellectual property rights, market regulation and networking, and to develop joint and specific actions to focus on protection。
Fourth is to be deeply involved in global intellectual property governance to enhance the international competitiveness of basic research. Active participation in global intellectual property rule-making relies on multilateral platforms, such as the world intellectual property organization and the world trade organization, to contribute to china's programmes in emerging areas and to enhance our voice in global science and technology governance. Strengthening international intellectual property cooperation in the field of basic research and exploring mechanisms for the sharing of intellectual property rights and the distribution of benefits within a multilateral framework around major scientific issues. (c) to improve systems for the prevention and control of intellectual property-related risks, strengthen capacity-building in the field of foreign law and order, establish early warning and emergency response mechanisms for intellectual property-related risks in the field of basic research and enhance capacity to respond to international intellectual property disputes。
