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: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-JuRIkz6sSj8bozDim34AYdFnqgm52lLWRnIinBy-c0/edit?usp=sharing

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Coopers Brewery - Analysis Report

Patent Search on Application of Cellulases in Denim Finishing

Aquaculture Business Plan