Cochlear vs Proteome Systems Limited
Minor Project 1: Cochlear vs Proteome Systems Limited by Yan He, Li Fan, Tamara Leahy, Jo Whittaker
1. Introduction Intellectual property has historically been regarded behind raw materials and capital in importance, but is increasingly being regard as the most important aspect of business success [1]. Companies that recognise the importance of intellectual property, and manage it accordingly, are better positioned to receive economic benefits[2]. However, in the biotechnology industry this does not always guarantee success, although if successful, the economic benefits can be great. The following report provides a case study of a company that has been successful in leveraging their intellectual property and one that has been unsuccessful.
2. Cochlear Limited (Successful) Cochlear are a biotechnology company that designs, manufactures and sells cochlear implants, alternatively known as bionic ears [3]. The ways in which Cochlear presently, and historically, leverage their intellectual property include; licensing, patents arising from internal research and development, joint venture, and acquisition.
(i) Licensing The first cochlear implant, developed by researchers led by Dr Graeme Clarke at Melbourne University, was ‘switched-on’ in 1978 [4]. Today, patents related to early research are licensed to Cochlear from Melbourne University and the Commonwealth, who provided support for early research [5].
(ii) In-house research and associated patents Cochlear conduct the majority of their research in-house and in the 2006 financial year spent $56.7 million (12% of revenues) on research and development [6]. Research is conducted to improve and expand existing products, as well as to develop entirely new products such as cochlear implants with both electrical and acoustic stimulation for people with low frequency residual hearing [6]. Cochlear generated 23 new patents in the cochlear implant field in 2006 [6]. Other areas where in-house
1. Introduction Intellectual property has historically been regarded behind raw materials and capital in importance, but is increasingly being regard as the most important aspect of business success [1]. Companies that recognise the importance of intellectual property, and manage it accordingly, are better positioned to receive economic benefits[2]. However, in the biotechnology industry this does not always guarantee success, although if successful, the economic benefits can be great. The following report provides a case study of a company that has been successful in leveraging their intellectual property and one that has been unsuccessful.
2. Cochlear Limited (Successful) Cochlear are a biotechnology company that designs, manufactures and sells cochlear implants, alternatively known as bionic ears [3]. The ways in which Cochlear presently, and historically, leverage their intellectual property include; licensing, patents arising from internal research and development, joint venture, and acquisition.
(i) Licensing The first cochlear implant, developed by researchers led by Dr Graeme Clarke at Melbourne University, was ‘switched-on’ in 1978 [4]. Today, patents related to early research are licensed to Cochlear from Melbourne University and the Commonwealth, who provided support for early research [5].
(ii) In-house research and associated patents Cochlear conduct the majority of their research in-house and in the 2006 financial year spent $56.7 million (12% of revenues) on research and development [6]. Research is conducted to improve and expand existing products, as well as to develop entirely new products such as cochlear implants with both electrical and acoustic stimulation for people with low frequency residual hearing [6]. Cochlear generated 23 new patents in the cochlear implant field in 2006 [6]. Other areas where in-house
References: [1] D. Chung, IDPM Conference, 2006. [2] O.B. Arewa, TRIPs and traditional knowledge: local communities, local knowledge, and global intellectual property frameworks. , Marquette Intellectural Property Law Review 10(2006) 155-180. [3] R. Gottliebsen, Cochlear 's deaf-defying feat, The Australian, 2007. [4] http://www.cochlear.com/Corp/Company/182.asp, (27/03/2007). [5] http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/media/pages/innovations/ear.htm, (27/03/2007). [6] Cochlear Annual Report, 2006. [7] Annual General Meeting, Questions and Answers, 2005. [8] Mathews, Carmen, Proteome Systems Ltd: A Macquarie life-sciences spinoff. MGSM case studies in Management http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp25.pdf (2002). [9] http://www.proteomesystems.com, (27/03/2007). [10] Proteome Systems Limited Annual Report, (2005). [11] Proteome Systems Limited Annual Report, (2004). [12] D. James, Science Friction, Business Review Weekly March 15-21(2007) 64-65.