Faculty Intellectual Property Rights in Canadian Universities

Open access


This article reports on a qualitative study of Intellectual Property regulation in Canadian universities, visited by the author. The study was based on policy and regulation comparative analysis, as well as semi-structured expert interviews carried out at Southern Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia universities. The principal assumption and purpose of the study is the useful understanding of the Canadian university intellectual property policies for potential applications to Lithuania and other emerging economies in the Baltic region and elsewhere. The study aimed to review and identify features of Canadian university intellectual property regimes, which can be held responsible for stimulating and sustaining technological innovation.

  • 1. Apple, Kirsten S. “Evaluating university technology transfer offices”: 139-157. In: Zoltan J. Acs and Roger Stough, eds. Public policy in an entrepreneurial economy. New York: Springer, 2008.

  • 2. Bouchie, Aaron. “Survey reveals US university licensing up, startup formation down.” Bioentrepreneur (2005) // http://www.nature.com/bioent/bioenews/012005/full/bioent843.html (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 3. Canada Statistics. “Patent or perish? Universities are more inventive than ever.” Innovation Analysis Bulletin 1(1) (1999) // http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/88-003-x/88-003-x1999001-eng.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 4. Canadian Association of University Teachers. “Intellectual Property & Academic Staff Legal Review (Parts 1-3).” (Ottawa, 2003-2004) // http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=217 (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 5. Canadian Association of University Teachers. “Responding to the Intellectual Property Commercialization Challenges Report.” (Ottawa, 2006) // http://www.caut.ca/uploads/ipcon_comm_workshop.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 6. Doloreux, David. “Regional innovation systems in Canada: a comparative study.” Regional Studies 38 (2004): 481-494.

  • 7. Flick, Uve. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Berlin: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009.

  • 8. Hoye, Katherine A. University Intellectual Property Policies and University-Industry Technology Transfer in Canada. Ph.D. dissertation. Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 2006.

  • 9. Jensen A., Richard, Jerry G. Thursby, and Marie C. Thursby. “The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with’.” (2003) // http://www.nd.edu/~rjensen1/research/Disclosure.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 10. Karjala, Dennis S., and Mindaugas Kiškis. “Intellectual property rights within the university.” Intellectual economics No. 1(9) (2011): 65-84.

  • 11. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. “Does Inventor Ownership Encourage University Research-Derived Entrepreneurship? A Six University Comparison.” (May 2011) // http://ssrn.com/abstract=1847184 (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 12. Kiškis, Mindaugas. “Understanding Canadian Innovation System.” SocialSciences Vol. 75, No. 1 (2012): 92-99.

  • 13. Lach, Saul, and Mark Schankerman. “Incentives and invention in universities.” NBER Working Papers 9727 // http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9727.html (accessed October 1, 2012)

  • 14. LaRoche, Kevin, Christine Collard, and Jacqueline Chernys. “Appropriating innovation: The enforceability of university intellectual property policies.” International Property Journal 20(2) (2007): 135-175 // http://www.danielnelson.ca/pdfs/20_IPJ-CAN_135_4-9-09_2122.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012)

  • 15. Lissoni, Francesco, and Fabio Montobbio. “Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit.” Centro di Ricerca sui Processi di Innovazione e Internazionalizzazione(CESPRI) Working Paper No. 224 (2008) // http://www.francescolissoni.com/prova_g000019.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012)

  • 16. Mizaras, Vytautas. Autorių teisė. 2 tomas. Justitia, 2009.

  • 17. Monotti, Ann L., and Sam Ricketson. Universities and Intellectual Property:Ownership and Exploitation. Oxford University Press, 2003.

  • 18. Neuman W., Lawrence. Social Research Methods: Quantitative and QualitativeMethods. 10th ed. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2009.

  • 19. Polster, Claire. “The University Has No Business in the Intellectual Property Business.” CAUT Bulletin Vol. 46, No. 7 (September 1999) // http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=2740 (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 20. Salazar, Monica, and Adam Holbrook. “Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: the product of regional networking?” Regional Studies 41 (2007): 1129-1141.

  • 21. Silverman, Ed. “The Trouble With Tech Transfer.” The Scientist (January 1, 2007) // http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24640 (accessed October 1, 2012).

  • 22. STIC-CSTI. “State of the Nation 2010 - Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation System” // http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/h_00038.html(accessed on October 1, 2012).

  • 23. Turk L., James, ed. The Corporate Campus: Commercialization and theDangers to Canada’s Colleges and Universities. Toronto: ACPPU & James Lorimer, 2000.

  • 24. Vaver, David. Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks. 2nd ed. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011.

  • 25. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. “The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.” Science 316 (5827) (2007): 1036 - 1039.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

A Journal of Vytautas Magnus University

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.102
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.276

Target Group researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 29 29 17
PDF Downloads 8 8 4