Scientific collaboration between universities and industries

    Collaboration between universities and industry in the United States has a long history. Unlike university systems in many other countries, the US system is decentralized. From its earliest days, the top priority for American universities has been to equip graduates with the skills needed by the local economy. Early research collaborations were often based on the local orientation of the university's academic mission. The development of electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and aeronautical engineering in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was focused on universities. Many of the interactions that are known today originated before World War II (for example, start-up companies based on university research, university-industry-government research centers, instructor consultancy, and licensing of university-created inventions). However, the post-war period saw an explosive growth in US research and development (R&D) and an expanded role for the university in research.

    One of the incentives was the 1980 amendments to the Patent and Trademark Act and subsequent changes, commonly referred to as the Bye Dole Act, that rationalized and simplified federal policy on patenting and nonprofit licensing of government-funded research results. Most importantly, Bayh-Dole gave universities control of most of the property rights stemming from federal government-funded research. The second contributing factor was emergence of revolutionary advances in university research in the life sciences. Today, industry finances about 7% of university research, roughly double what it did 20 years ago, and various indicators of university-industry interaction are showing constant rapid growth.

Cluster development state

    Now in the United States, the entire economic policy for the development of individual states is largely based on the cluster approach, and there are even special rules for governors that allow governor of any state to make the necessary decisions regarding the construction and development of a cluster. The formation of industrial clusters is currently one of the general directions in the innovation sphere, highlighted by the National Association of US Governors, in the framework of state policy to support entrepreneurship. The states create commissions to initiate the creation of clusters. Research centers and universities carry out analytical work. The Commission distributes the shares of cluster members, helps to overcome obstacles, and takes care of strengthening the clusters. The state allocates initial capital, then funds from private companies are attracted. Participation in global competition is a characteristic feature of American clusters with priority innovation approaches. To determine the necessary and expedient structure of the emerging cluster, extensive and in-depth studies of cluster complexes are being conducted in the United States. Researchers at the Institute for Regional Studies of the United States, using the components of the methodology of factor and matrix analysis, made an attempt to consider the problem of the national economy through the prism of existing cluster associations. In the course of studies of the intensity of connections between industries, clusters, cluster sectors, 23 production cluster groups were identified, united into 4 blocks, in which from 5 to 116 participating sectors were combined. They included from 82 to 102 thousand enterprises with the number of employed from 38 thousand to 4.5 million people, which created added value from 4.5 billion dollars to 324 billion dollars.

    The creation and strengthening of regional innovation clusters in the United States was highlighted as a top national priority in a 2001 Council on Competitiveness report. It states: "In an era where national boundaries are becoming less important as capital, technology and talent move globally, innovation engines are more local than ever."

Patent applications filed with two offices

    In 2016, 3.1 million patent applications were filed by innovators around the world, up 8.3% from a year earlier, and this positive trend has been observed over the past seven years, according to WIPO's annual report World Intellectual Property Performance property "(WIPI). Of nearly 240,600 additional patent applications, China received about 236,600, accounting for 98% of the total increase. Trademark filings rose 16.4% to nearly 7 million, while global design filings increased by 10.4% to around 1 million, both driven by increased demand in China.

    “The latest data on the growth in demand for intellectual property rights continues the trend over the past decade, whereby developments in China are increasingly affecting the world,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. "China continues to strengthen its position as a leader in global innovation and branding."


In numbers





 Patent applications

2 887 300

3 127 900


 Trademark registration applications

6 013 200

6 997 600


 Applications for registration of industrial designs

872 600

963 100






This year, WIPO compiled for the first-time data on geographical indications (GIs) - indications used on products that originate from a specific geographic area and have qualities or a reputation attributable to that origin, such as Gruyere for cheese or Tequila for spirits. These data cover 54 national and regional authorities reporting nearly 42,500 protected GIs.

Geographical indications

What is Geographical Indication?

   A geographical indication is a designation that appears on goods that originate from a specific geographic region and possess properties, reputation or characteristics primarily due to their place of origin. The designation can serve as a GI only if it indicates the origin of the product from a certain area. In addition, the properties, characteristics or reputation of such a product must be determined primarily by its place of origin. Since the properties of a product depend on the geography of production, we can talk about a clearly expressed connection between the product and the place of its original production.

    Moreover, WIPO asked IP Offices for new information on certain aspects of their operations, including the number of examiners, the processing time of the application and the results of patent examinations. These data show, among other things, that the examination capacity of most IP Offices has increased with the number of patent applications they have received.

Intellectual property payments

Intellectual property

    Ireland is an ideal place to develop and operate Intellectual Property (IP). The Irish tax system is one of the most favorable and competitive in the world in terms of investment in research and development, commercialization and IP protection that comes from those investments. Ireland offers a low tax rate for companies of 12.5% ​​and provides a range of tax breaks and reliefs for companies hoping to develop and operate IP.

    IP rights and exploitation are considered valuable assets for Irish companies. Types of IP rights include patents, trademarks, copyright, design, and recognized trade secrets. They can be sold, licensed, appointed, and bequeathed. Irish tax law provides many attractive reliefs in the form of capital allowances against trade income, research and development loans, and a more favorable corporate tax rate.

    To qualify, companies must continue to trade in Ireland and have sufficient employees with the appropriate expertise and skills required to perform the trading function.

Available tax exemptions:

    Research and Development credit (R&D) - R&D tax credits 25% are available for qualified (R&D) expenses.

  Knowledge Development Box (KDB) - KDB provides an effective tax rate for companies of 6.25%.

 Capital Allowances - The allowance is based on the amount accumulated in the accounts of companies during the reporting period in relation to the amortization of the related intangible asset. Alternatively, a company can choose a fixed write-off period of 15 years with an unchanged interest rate of 7%. And 2% in the final period. Intangible assets include the following:

  • Any patents, registered industrial design, projected right or invention.
  • Any trademark, trade name, brand, brand name
  • Computer software or agreements for the right to use other computer software;
  • any rights derived from research in the field of medicine or a product of any design, formula, process or invention.
  • Goodwill
  • Withholding Tax (“WHT”) - WHT refers to the payment of royalties by Irish companies to non-residents. A reduced percentage can be applied if the relevant proof of residence has been provided to the agent who makes the payment

Intellectual property in Finland


  When considering the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Finland, a distinction must be made between patents, trademarks, copyright and unfair competition (including trade secrets). Small patents, registered plant rights and integrated circuits are enforced on a general level following patent infringement proceedings.

    In matters of patents and trademarks, the protection of rights was primarily concentrated in a specialized department of the Helsinki District Court. Some copyright issues must be dealt with by the Helsinki District Court, but most copyright enforcement action must be initiated in the District Court in the respondent's place of residence. Issues related to unfair competition and the use of other trade secrets are dealt with by a separate tribunal, the Markets Court, which specializes in competition, unfair competition and consumer law.

  The decisions of the district courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the decisions of the Court of Appeal as well as the decisions of the Market Court can be appealed to the Supreme Court, provided that the appeal is granted.


  Enforcement of intellectual property rights is often a quick response issue, and in a rapidly evolving business environment, slow litigation usually does not fit into a business strategy. However, if interim assistance is available at an early stage in the proceedings, the main processes can continue for a longer time without prejudice to the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.

     Proceedings before the courts of first instance (including the Market Court) usually take about one year, unless the case is very complex or is delayed by the actions (or usually lack of activity) of the parties involved. Patent lawsuits are generally more complex, requiring extensive technical reasoning that can drag out the proceedings.

 Intellectual property appeals, which usually take place at the Helsinki Court of Appeal, usually take between one and a half to two years. The Supreme Court again decides whether to grant leave for appeal within six months, and if leave is granted, the decision is issued after about a year.

     An important aspect in dealing with the timing aspect is that when dealing with infringements in matters relating to registered rights, including patents, registered designs and trademarks, it is possible (in particular in patent matters) that the defendant may begin invalidation proceedings in in relation to the validity of the registered right. A Finnish court usually suspends infringement proceedings until a final invalidation decision is made. This means that the time frame for, say, patent infringement proceedings can easily double.

Own relief

     The Finnish Procedural Code, as well as individual intellectual property rights laws, provide for the possibility of interim assistance. Finnish Customs applies the EU Counterfeit Regulation, which sets out measures to effectively prohibit the release of counterfeit goods for free circulation (3842/86), which is a good starting point for combating IPR piracy.

        Temporary assistance can be requested both prior to and during the main IP proceeding. Traditionally, Finnish courts have been reluctant to issue interim injunctions. Courts have become somewhat more positive following the introduction of new procedural rules for interim relief in 1991, but we are still awaiting a Supreme Court decision on interim relief in IPR matters under the new regime.

High-tech and medium-tech products

    The most recent value for China's high-tech exports (at current prices) was $ 496,007 billion as of 2016

 Development Relevance: The OECD has developed a four-pronged classification of exports: high, medium-high, medium-low and low technology. The classification is based on the importance of research and development expenditure in relation to the gross output and value added of the various types of industries that produce goods for export. Examples of high-tech industries include aircraft, computers, and pharmaceuticals; mid-high technologies include automobiles, electrical equipment, and most chemicals; medium-low technology includes rubber, plastics, base metals and shipbuilding; low-tech industries include food, textiles, apparel and footwear. High- and medium-intensity high-tech industries account for more than two-thirds of total OECD manufacturing exports. The differences between countries are significant; the share of high and medium high tech industries ranges from over 80 percent in Japan and Ireland to less than 10 percent in Iceland. Technology exports grew rapidly in Iceland, Turkey and Eastern European countries, although most of these countries, with the exception of Hungary and the Czech Republic, continue to focus mainly on low and medium low technology exports.

    Limitations and exclusions: Since industrial sectors specializing in a few high-tech products can also produce low-tech products, the grocery approach is more suitable for international trade. The method takes into account only the intensity of R&D, but other characteristics of high technology, such as know-how, scientific personnel and technologies embodied in patents, are also important. Taking these characteristics into account, another list can be obtained (see Hatzichronoglou 1997).

  Statistical concept and methodology: The method for defining high-tech exports was developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in cooperation with Eurostat. It uses a “product approach” (rather than an “industry approach”) based on R&D intensity (costs divided by total sales) for product groups from Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States. The original high-tech product classification is based on the SITC Rev. 3 and taken from Table 4 in Appendix 2 of Thomas Hatzironuglu working paper, OECD, 1997. The methodology used to define high-tech exports is based on a “commodity approach” based on R&D intensity for products from Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States. High Tech Product List - SITC