Abstract

A pandemic calls for large-scale action across national and international innovation systems in order to mobilize resources for developing and manufacturing crisis-critical products efficiently and in the huge quantities needed. Nowadays, these products also include a wide range of digital innovations. Given that many responses to the pandemic are technology driven, stakeholders involved in the development and manufacturing of crisis-critical products are likely to face intellectual property (IP)-related challenges. To (governmental) decision makers, IP challenges might not appear to be of paramount urgency compared to the many undoubtedly huge operational challenges to deploy critical resources. However, if IP challenges are considered too late, they may cause delays to urgently mobilize resources effectively. Innovation stakeholders could then be reluctant to fully engage in the development and manufacturing of crisis-critical products. This article adopts an IP and innovation perspective to learn from the currently unfolding COVID-19 pandemic using secondary data, including patent data, synthesized with an IP roadmap. We focus on technical aspects related to research, development, and upscaling of capacity to manufacture crisis-critical products in the huge volumes suddenly in demand. In this article, we offer a set of contributions. We provide a structure, framework, and language for those concerned with steering clear of IP challenges to avoid delays in fighting a pandemic. We provide a reasoning why IP needs to be considered earlier rather than too late in a global health crisis. Major stakeholders we identify include 1) governments; 2) manufacturing firms owning existing crisis-critical IP (incumbents in crisis-critical sectors); 3) manufacturing firms normally not producing crisis-critical products suddenly rushing into crisis-critical sectors to support the manufacturing of crisis-critical products in the quantities that far exceed incumbents’ production capacities; and 4) voluntary grassroot initiatives that form during a pandemic, often by highly skilled engineers and scientists in order to contribute to the development and dissemination of crisis-critical products. For these major stakeholders, we draw up three scenarios, from which we identify associated IP challenges they face related to the development and manufacturing of technologies and products for 1) prevention (of spread); 2) diagnosis of infected patients; and 3) the development of treatments. This article provides a terminology to help policy and other decision makers to discuss IP considerations during pandemics. We propose a framework that visualizes changing industrial organizations and IP-associated challenges during a pandemic and derive initial principles to guide innovation and IP policy making during a pandemic. Obviously, our findings result only from observations of one ongoing pandemic and thus need to be verified further and interpreted with care.

Highlights

  • I N DECEMBER 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, manifested itself as a global health tragedy

  • Major innovation stakeholders we identify include the following: 1) governments; 2) manufacturing firms owning existing crisis-critical intellectual property (CC-IP) [incumbents in crisis-critical sectors (CC-S)]; 3) manufacturing firms normally not producing critical products (CC-P) suddenly rushing into CC-S to support the manufacturing of CC-P in the quantities that far exceed incumbents’ production capacities; 4) voluntary grassroot initiatives that form during a pandemic, often by highly skilled engineers and scientists in order to contribute to the development and dissemination of CC-P

  • We provide a framework for conceptualizing changing industrial organizations during pandemics, followed by an initial discussion of policy responses including some first thoughts about guiding principles for IP and innovation policy making

Read more

Summary

Introduction

I N DECEMBER 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, manifested itself as a global health tragedy. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced it as a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020 [1] and as a pandemic on March 11, 2020 [2]. The virus, later named SARS-CoV-2 [3], can cause mild flu-like symptoms (or even be asymptotic) but can progress to acute pneumonia-like respiratory illness called novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). In just less than six months since its emergence, the virus is affecting more than 212 countries, with more than 4 million confirmed cases worldwide [2]

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.