Biomedical innovation in Jordan; More on Macrossan, by Macrossan

Now here's something to get you thinking: it's Intellectual Property Management in Bio-Medical Innovation in Jordan, a research paper by the IPKat's friend Roya Ghafele together with Michael P. Ryan. This project - effectively a healthcheck on the legal, techno and commercial dimensions to the encouragement of primary biomedical research - was supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Right: Petra, part of Jordan's rich and varied past. But Jordan, like many countries with a long history, would like to be known for its future too ...

However, the views contained within it are in no sense official. On local IP practice, the authors have this to say:

"The intellectual property bar, in general, lacks world-class expertise, so that most international IP management is carried out by local managers with developed countries IP counsel, sometimes with a local Jordanian agent as an intermediary. The problems appear to be of education and of market opportunities. Internationally-educated IP attorneys are valued; locally-educated attorneys generally are considered technically deficient due to language inadequacies and insufficient experience due to the sparse IP activity going on in Jordan. This problem will likely go away as the local market for IP management grows and talented young Jordanian attorneys increasingly seek specialized education and experience in developed countries Nevertheless, it is a problem and reform of the local education system could help".

There are a couple of significant points here, says the IPKat: (i) a good IP practitioner really does need the skills of the Renaissance Man - legal qualifications are only a first step; a command not only of foreign languages but of technical terminology and fundamental scientific concepts is needed to; (ii) "if you haven't got the experience, you don't have the ability - but if you don't have the ability, we can't risk letting you loose without the experience". Jordan is not alone in facing this problem, which must be solved before local practitioners in any small and developing jurisdiction can make a truly useful contribution. Experience is something you can't buy and you can't inherit: now that we have recognised the need to move towards equality of opportunity in terms of education, we must also recognise the need for equality of opportunity in terms of gaining experience, once the necessary educational criteria have been satisfied. Merpel says, there's a jolly good little bibliography at the end of this report.

This report is not available online but the authors would like it to be more widely read. If you'd like to see it, email the IPKat here and let him know.


Inventor, litigator and agitator Neal Macrossan has left a new comment on the IPKat's post earlier this week entitled "EPO: please stop asking questions". He queries:

"What about a second appeal by me to the House of Lords following the precedent set by Buttes Gas v Hammer [1982] AC 888 (see here), with the House of Lords granting me leave to appeal and then choosing to follow the European Patent Officeapproach (particularly now that the Technical Appeal Board has asserted in T 154/04 has asserted, in robust terms, their view that Jacob LJ was quite wrong, and given detail as to how they think he got it so wrong)?".

Well, says the IPKat, no-one ever died of a question - so would anyone like to answer it?