Mak Vs Canadian Corn Hybrid Research Institute
“Mak Vs. Canadian Corn Hybrid Research
Institute”
Summary
From the case study it
can be observed that Mak, a polymer scientist, was a major actor and Gravelle,
head of intellectual property and technology licensing at CCHRI, played
significant role in bringing the situation at this point. In addition, B3 and
Stevenson were the key players lacking efficiency and made the situation worse.
However, Fletcher turns out to be the fairest person during the whole events.
Mak played a double
role as a job seeker and an inventor but was naive about his goals. As a job
seeker he never filled any application at CCHRI and as an inventor, he was
naive about protecting his invention. Even after getting some clues about the
patenting process, he didn’t try to learn more about it from the inventor’s
perspective. Mak didn’t assure the
ownership of his invention to the B3 members and he never took initiatives in
getting the patent for it. He terminated the patent application filing process
by not cooperating with Librowicz to respond to the USPTO examiner’s claims.
Gravelle was also sloppy
as shown by his activities. He thought that Mak was the sole owner of the
invention but in the provisional patent application there are three inventors.
He didn’t care about the duration about filing the patent application (from its
first public disclosure to patent application filing day). In his attempt to
get a patent, he didn’t make sure that Mak would cooperate with him until they
get the patent. His activity of excluding Mak in the second meeting with B3
made the situation worst.
In this case, Fletcher
shows his honesty. He never claimed the ownership of the invention because he
felt that he had done no mental work for the invention. Further, he had not
paid for the research activities. But, the boss of CCHRI, Stevenson, showed his
inertness in examining the whole activity.B3 focused in getting the license but
they didn’t care about the ownership of the invention. They never tried to
investigate about the situation in CCHRI.
From the above
observations, it seems that the activities by Gravelle and Mak are the decisive
factors in the story. Gravelle’s decision to exclude Mak in the second meeting
resulted in the serious consequence. When Mak knew about the second meeting
with B3 and realized that he was excluded in the process without any job offer
and any commitment about the licensing revenue. Since then, he became furious
and started to be uncooperative with Librowicz to respond to the USPTO
examiner’s objection to certain claims. Thus, it seems that Mak terminated the
case by refusing to forward the case.
If Gravelle had
included Mak in the second meeting with B3, Mak would have cooperated with
Librowicz. In such situation, they could have obtained the patent. Further, if
Mak had cooperated with Librowicz he would have been in the stronger position
to claim the licensing revenue, provided that they had obtained the patent.
In my opinion, Mak
should accept the cash settlement offer of almost $600,000 from CCHRI attorney.
The following arguments can support the above preferential action that should
be taken by MAK.
Read More at:
Comments
Post a Comment