Improving services on intellectual property rights and developing their forum for research innovations on forestry in Indonesia

Improving services on intellectual property rights and developing their forum for research innovations on

forestry in Indonesia

A Case Study

Under CPFRD-CIFOR and CAS-IP NPI Collaboration Project

By:

C Nugroho Sulistyo Priyono Centre for Plantation Forest Research and Development (CPFRD)

Email: [email protected] And

Dede Rohadi Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Email: [email protected]

Centre for Plantation Forest Research and Development (CPFRD), Forestry Research and Development Agency of Indonesia (FORDA)

Jl. Gunung Batu 5 BOGOR-INDONESIA Ph: 62-251-8631238 – Fax: 62-251-7520005

Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Jl. CIFOR - Situ Gede - Bogor Barat 16115 - Indonesia P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD-Bogor 16000 Indonesia Ph: 62-251-8622-622 - Fax: 62-251-8622-100

Improving services on intellectual property rights and developing their forum for research innovations on Forestry in Indonesia

2

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. THE LOCATIONS 4

3. APPROACH AND METHODS 5

3.1 Case study approach 5

3.2 Methods of data collection and analysis 6

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 7

4.1 Some constraints and potential research products for IPR application 7

4.2 Developing the manual of procedures for applying Forestry IPR 7

4.3 Establishing the Forestry IPR Forum 8

5. GENERAL LESSONS LEARNT 9

6. CONCLUSIONS 11

REFERENCES 12

ANNEXURES 1 - 2 13


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study discusses some of the experiences and lessons learnt during the development of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on forestry research innovations, based on work carried out at the Centre for Plantation Forest Research and Development (“CPFRD”), Indonesia. IPRs had never been an important issue within the CPFRD due to the general believe among its staff that all research findings and innovation generated in the centre ought to remain in the public domain. Through intensive discussions among the research managers, scientists and supporting staff within the CPFRD, clearer understanding about IPRs and its potential role on stimulating research and innovation, IPRs are now becoming one of the priority issues within the CPFRD: the centre has developed some initial “IPRs Policy Guidelines”, a “manual of procedures for IPRs application”, and has initiated a Forestry IP Forum among forestry research institutions and practitioners in Indonesia. One important step in bringing IPRs into the research agenda is to build the awareness of the staff, in particular of scientists and research managers, on the benefits of IPRs in their research. This study demonstrated that, to build staff’s awareness, continous support from the management, and interaction between scientists and managers are needed. “Policy guidelines” and a “manual on the use of IPRs” play an important role in clarifying the potential benefits and risks, as well as procedures, on applying IPRs. The development of IPRs Policy Guidelines should be seen as a learning process for any center or organization where decision makers are open to improvement. Finally, the study also found that a Forestry IP Forum was able to be an effective way of communicating and learning among all IP practicioners in the forestry sector.


4

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the effects of the increased awareness of IPRs in the CPFRD is that scientists realise the importance of excellent supporting facilities to be used during their research. The availability of a clear manual and procedures on the use and management of IPRs in research help scientists in negotiating research collaborations, as well as motivating them in their research. CPFRD’s Manual and Guidelines can be a good example both for the Forestry Research and Development Agency (“FORDA”), which currently has no guidance or procedures at all, and for all FORDA institutions.

However, awareness of IPRs among forestry research institutions and forestry practitioners in Indonesia need to be strengthened in order to foster innovation in the forestry sector. For this purpose, an IPR forum which is specifically concerned on forestry issues is an effective way to facilitate information sharing and exchange of experiences in applying or managing IPRs among forestry research institutions and forestry practitioners. Such forum, unfortunately, did not exist in Indonesia. The CPFRD could fill this gap; it could initiate this IPR awareness through the establishment of an IPR forum among forestry research institutions and companies.

Supported by the Centre for Advisory Services on Intellectual Property (“CAS-IP”), the National Partners Initiative (“NPI”) (a program under the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR)), the CPFRD completed a case study to achieve the objectives outlined above, namely, (i) the making of a Manual of IPRs policies and procedures (the “Manual”); and (ii) the set up of a Forestry IP Forum.

This report provides information and lessons learnt from the implementation of the case study. Three main topics are discussed in this report: (i) the possibilities and constraints to develop IPRs within forestry research; (ii) the Manual; and (iii) the Forestry IP Forum.

2. THE LOCATIONS

The case study was carried out at the offices of the CPFRD. The centre is one of the four research centres that work under the umbrella of the Forestry Research and Development Agency, Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia. Other reseach centres are: the Centre for Natural Forest Conservation, Research and Development, the Centre for Forest Product Research and Development, and the Centre for Social Economic and Forest Policy Research.

CPFRD is a new research centre that was set up in 2005. Before the centre was the Centre for Forest Biotechnology and Tree Improvement Research and Development. The organization under CPFRD includes 3 divisions: the Program Planning Division, the Evaluation and Reserach Service Division, and the General Affair Division. This study is mainly carried out through the collaboration between the Program Planning and the Evaluation and Service Divisions.


5

It was proposed that experiences obtained in managing IP at CPFRD would be shared and used by FORDA Secretariat and further be implemented in all FORDA institutions.

3. APPROACH AND METHODS

3.1 Case study approach

The case study involved two main activities: the development of the Manual within the CPFRD, and the development of the Forestry IPR Forum.

To initiate both activities, an ad hoc IP Team was set up by the Director of the CPFRD in March 2009. The Team was chaired by Nugroho S. Priyono and advised by the Director of CPFRD. The team consisted of four members, recruited from the two CPFRD divisions (the Program Planning and the Evaluation and Research Service), and Dede Rohadi from the CGIAR Centre for International Forestry Organization Research (“CIFOR”) as the resource person. The team conducted several meetings to understand the objectives of the case study and to prepare a working plan.

The Manual

The Manual compiles procedures and all the necessary documents that need to be completed by all CPFRD scientists who generate Intellectual Property (“IP”) arising out of their research. The manual is based on those research findings within the CPFRD that most likely can be protected by IPRs. An inventory of these research findings was done through an assessment of research publications, technical guidance and other research products. Some interviews were conducted among scientists and forestry practitioners. Interviews were conducted at CPFRD. Ten reseachers out of eighteen working at CPFRD were interviewed. Questionnaires were also distributed to IP Forestry paractioners at government research institutions and forestry companies. Of the twenty questionnaires which were distributed, the Team received eight answers back; five from research government istitutions and three from the private sectors.

The Team drafted the Manual and discussed it with the Director of CPFRD. To test the practicality of the Manual, a researcher from CPFRD, with some experience on drafting patent applications, was assigned to prepare a patent application for a selected research result using the Manual and then submitted it to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia.

The IPR Forum

The IPR Forum started with a workshop, held in Bogor and attended by representatives from various organizations such as private companies, state owned companies, research institutions, government agencies, universities and NGOs. During the workshop the Team also distributed an evaluation form to collect ideas for the development of the Forum.

Summary of the case study approach is presented in Figure 1.


6

Figure 1. Case study approach

3.2 Methods of data collection and analysis

Data was collected and analyzed through three main methods: (i) an assessment of the existing literature; (ii) interviews to scientists and staff; and (iii) Focus Discussion Groups (FGDs). The literature assessment was supposed to provide basic information on the Manual. The Team collected and assessed research material that included research publications, technical guidance, and other research outputs produced by the CPFRD within the last four years. The assessment was made to identify the most potential research findings that needed IPR protection. The criteria applied for the assessment of the research finding were: (i) originality/novelty; (ii) simplicity in the techniques to be used to apply the finding; and (iii) previous publications and guidelines on the area of the new findings. Identification of potential intellectual assets was carried out on the research results. The results identified through this analysis were then discussed with the scientists to get more detailed information.

The FGDs were used in collecting ideas and in the consultation process. Within the Team, FGDs were conducted to determine those research findings that could most likely be protected by IPRs. Three meetings were completed for this purpose. Also FGDs provided feedback on the initial draft of the Manual and assisted in reviewing the final draft before being submitted to the Director of the CPFRD for his/her legal approval. In relation to the IPR Forum, FGDs were also used to collect ideas on how the Forum should work.


7

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Some constraints and potential research products for IPR application

As already mentioned above, IP is a new area within the CPFRD. Currently in Indonesia only one research finding has been protected, i.e. the Plant Variety Protection (“PVP”) certificate of a fast growing species, Eucalyptus pellita that have been granted to a private forest plantation company. The certificate gives the exclusive right to the company to license the use of the plant to other entities for commercial purposes or to protect it from duplication by other entities.

Based on the assessment on the available references, there are some constraints that hinder the application of IPRs on research findings within the CPFRD. These constraints were revealed from the interviews with some selected scientists.

These constraints can be categorized as follow:

a. most of the staff within the CPFRD has very limited knowledge of IPRs. Although they may understand the potential benefits of IPRs, they do not know how to protect their research findings and where they can get the services for such IP protection. On the management level, IPRs have not become yet a priority;

b. there is a wide understanding among the staff, both scientists and managers, that most research findings produced by the center belong to the public domain. The main reason is that most research is funded by the government. Only few of the research products were seen as potentially attracting IP protection. These products were categorized as innovation in terms of silviculture, and pest and diseases techniques;

c. in relation to the characteristics of research products, most of the CPFRD staff see research findings produced by the centre mostly related to policy issues that are designed to improve government’s policies, and therefore IP protection would not be appropriate. Some research findings could attract IP protection but most of them are considered incomplete, and therefore in need of further development and research;

d. from an economical point of view, there is lack of incentives for scientists or the innovators to commercialize their research findings. The current national tax system does not allow the center to use directly the additional income received from the commercialization of the research products as an economic incentive tools to award innovations.

The assessment process used by the Team however identified some potential research products from the CPFRD that may be protected under IPRs, in particular by patents, copyright and PVP schemes. These potential products relate to research on pest and diseases control, propagation, nursery and silviculture technologies. At FORDA, the Team identified more opportunities to attract IP protection.


8

4.2 Developing the manual of procedures for applying Forestry IPR

The assessment of possibilities and constraints on the use of IPRs over research findings within the center has shed some light on IPR priorities that should be developed at the initial stage. The Team identified two IPR priorities for the center: (i) copyright; and (ii) patent protection. These two types of IPRs are the most relevant to the type of research that the centre carries out. PVPs have detailed procedure guidelines which the Ministry of Agriculture has adopted and in this way the centre too.

Several materials were used as background documents in the drafting of the Manual. These materials were:

a. the Indonesian Intellectual Property Directory (Sati, 2008);

b. a compilation of Laws of the Republic Indonesia on Intellectual Property Rights (Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights, 2006).

c. manuals on the procedure to use for PVP (Centre of PVP, 2009);

d. a Manual on the Procedure to Apply for Copyright (Centre of Innovation-Indonesia Science Institute, 2006).

Discussions with scientists and the management staff within the center were conducted during the finalization of the draft. As the team members have limited experience on the processes for the application of IP, the Team decided to take a test case by applying one patent and copyright to the DGIP respectively using the Manual. A member of the staff who had been previously trained in patent application was helping in this process.

The Manual (see annexure 1) consists mainly of procedures on how scientis can apply for IP protection, and how services should be provided by the management to support the application. The team set up a plan of activities to introduce the Manual within the center as well as within FORDA research institutes.

4.3 Establishing the Forestry IPR Forum

The Forestry IPR Forum started from a workshop held in Bogor on 20 August 2009. The workshop was attended by 35 participants (see Annexure 2), representing some forestry companies (4 private companies and 1 state owned company), research institutions (5 institutions), government agencies (3 agencies), universities (2 universities) and an NGO. Also, some team members visited several forestry institutions to share their experience on IPRs, namely the Arara Abadi Corporation, the Centre for PVP, the Centre of Inovation and the DGIP.

The workshop was organized to discuss three main topics, namely (i) to share with the participants their specific IPR problems and experiences; (ii) to provide participants with relevant IPR information from some invited IPR resource persons; and (iii) to share some experiences on IPR application processes. Some relevant information about IPRs was provided to the resource persons by the Directorate General of the Intellectual Property Rights (DGIPR) and the Centre for Plant Variety Protection (PVP), of the Ministry of Agriculture. The DGIP is an institution which issues IPR certificates in Indonesia. All types of IPRs, such as patents, copyright, trademarks,


9

trade secrets and geographic indicators are issued by this agency. The Centre for PVP specifically is in charge with the certification of plant varieties. Two participants shared their experiences on the use of IPRs, namely the Centre of Inovation, Indonesia Science Institute, which presented its experience on applying patents and copyrights, and the Arara Abadi Corporation (a private pulp and paper company) which presented its experience on applying PVP for Eucalyptus pellita (EP 05).

During the workshop many IPR issues were discussed. Some lessons learnt from the workshop are:

a. there are various levels of awareness, knowledge and experience among forestry institutions on IPR issues and practices;

b. such levels of knowledge among participants influence the topic to be discussed. Participants who have a basic knowledge of IPR ask very basic questions and clarifications such as the kind of protections and ownerships of IPRs whether owned by individuals or groups of people (“community”). On the other hand, participants who have more advance knowledge asked about the possibility for exceptional criteria of PVP to forest trees, benefit sharing, IPRs ownership in contracts, the possibility of offering licences from Government Research Institution to private companies;

c. in Indonesia, the provisions that regulate geographic indicators are included in the Trade Mark Act(s), an aspect which has been discussed valuating pros and cons, considering that geographical indications apply in the context of trade marks, so much that it is often related to trade marks;

d. participants to the workshop strongly recommended to address traditional community rights in the current IPR system. The current system seems to give little attention to these types of rights and the risk is that the decision-makers have complete ignorance on the resources for forestry sustainability.

In the workshop evaluation sheet, participants provided some useful feedback for further Forum’s activities. These feedbacks are summarized as follow:

a. the Forum is a good learning tool for improving knowledge on IPRs and its management practices;

b. the Forum should have at least an annual meeting date;

c. the Forum meeting could be designed around specific themes. Patents, their importance and their application procedures were suggested as a possible topic for the next Forum meeting.

5. GENERAL LESSONS LEARNT

The case study has provided some lessons that could be useful for any research organization that is in the process of developing its IPR unit. In particular for FORDA, the case study provided useful experiences on the evaluation process of its research program. From the


10

IPR point of view, FORDA may allocate its limited resources towards more fruitful research products in a better way. The lessons learnt are summarized below:

1. an important step on bringing the IPR mindset onto the agenda of a research organization is to build the awareness of staff, in particular of scientists and managers, showing the benefits of IPRs in the research system. Building awareness needs continuous support from the management and interaction between scientists and managers. Clear benefits and risks of the use of IPRs on research products is crucial to attract staff participations. Real incentives for staff who is involved in the research process could be an effective driving force to accelerate the adoption of IPRs principles in the research agenda;

2. policy guidelines on the application of IPRs on research products play an important role on the clarification of benefits, risks and procedures of applying IPRs. As these guidelines (such as organization regulations and manual on procedures) will determine the rules of distribution of the benefits derived from any kind of research products, the guidelines should be developed through participatory processes, involving the main actors of the research system of the respective organizations;

3. implementation of IPRs policy and guidelines should also be seen as a learning process for the organization. This means that the policies may be changed or improved following the experience gained from the practices on implementing these guidelines. Continuous and mutual communication between the main actors of the research system is important to maintain the effectiveness of these guidelines;

4. an IPR forum among the forestry-related organizations could be an effective learning tool for improving knowledge on IPRs, its management and best practices. Realizing that the level of understanding on IPRs of different organizations varies considerably, the forum should find effective common interests to maintain members’ participation;

5. regarding the specific issue of PVP, there is a big challenge for developing PVP rights in the forestry sector in Indonesia. According to Law No. 29/2000, the centre of PVP provides protection for crops, trees and specific local varieties. Based on this legal aspect, it is believed that there is no urgent need to establish a PVP center that works specifically on forestry issues. However, the current PVP center is very much dominated by agricultural crops. Forest tree species, on the other hand, have very different characteristics to which the application of current PVP procedures will raise many problems. The specific characteristics of forest tree species as compared to agricultural crops that need to be considered among others are:

a. most research activities of forest tree improvement programs are aimed to increase productivity of a specific tree species and not at improving or modifying particular characteristics of the species. The current PVP system only grants the certificate to species which have different characteristics, even only one characteristic. One particular example is the PVP right that was given to the Eucalyptus pellita (EP 05) based on its higher productivity and faster growth than other Eucalyptus species. Most research findings in other species have not reached the level of variety, and hence are not eligible for PVP rights.


11

b. by nature, the forest tree species require a very long time to produce a new variety, which is very different from agricultural crops. Current procedures on the assessment of PVP rights require uniformity and stability, which is very difficult to accomodate by the forest tree species. The current procedures therefore are not attractive to provide incentives for the innovation on tree improvement in forestry sector;

c. as compared to agricultural crops, the tree improvement program in forestry is relatively new and government support is still required as an incentive to innovations. Different mechanism for assessing IPRs on forest tree species may be required to stimulate research and new innovations in the forestry sector.

Considering these different characteristics, the options for PVP in forestry could be either the development of a new set of criteria for assessing PVP for forest tree species within the current PVP center, or the establishment of a new PVP center which works specifically on forest tree species. These options would be one among the interesting issues to be debated at future IPR Forums.

6. CONCLUSIONS

IPRs are relatively new to the forestry sector in Indonesia, in particular at the CPFRD. IPRs could be used as an effective driving factor to stimulate research innovation in the centre. Improving staff awareness is a prerequisite for the adoption of IPRs on the research agenda. More communication on IPRs issues is required to improve staff understanding of the benefits and risks of IP application over their research products. Clarity on the incentives for applying IPRs on research products is important to stimulate a better participation from research staff within the CPFRD.

The case study has provided some useful experiences for CPFRD to initiate the development of IPR application in the research agenda. The established Policy Guidelines, including the Manual, could be used further as a learning tool for developing the IP mindset within the research agenda. Continuous communication and discussion on IPR issues between scientists and managers within the centre are important to evaluate the applicability of the new guidelines.

At a broader level, the CPFRD could play an important role on maintaining the IP networks within the forestry and its related institutions. Through the new established Forestry IPR Forum, scientists and forestry practitioners could improve their IP knowledge from information sharing and exchange of experiences on managing IPR. The Forum could be an effective tool for discussing some controversial issues on IPRs, such as PVP in the forestry sector.


12

7. REFERENCES

Centre of PVP, 2009. Manuals procedure to apply for PVP, Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia

Centre of Innovation, 2006.A Manual Procedure to Apply for Copy Right, Indonesia Science Institute

Directorate General of DG Intellectual Property Rights, 2006. A compilation of Laws of the Republic Indonesia on Intellectual Property Rights, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia in collaboration with JICA

Sati Y R (2008) Indonesian Intellectual Property Directory, 2008 (www.indonesiaipd.info), Iman Sjahputra&Partners Law Firm, in the Occasion of Commemorating 100 years of the National Awakening Day of Indonesia.

The individual case studies and the compilation are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Recommended citation: C Nugroho Sulistyo Priyono, Dede Rohadi. 2010. Improving services on intellectual property rights and developing their forum for research innovations on forestry in Indonesia. In: CAS-IP NPI. 2010. Institutionalization of Intellectual Property Management: Case Studies from five Agricultural Research Institutions in Developing Countries. CAS-IP, Rome, Italy.

Annexure 1


13

GUIDELINE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

IN THE CENTRE FOR PLANTATION FOREST RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

I. INTRODUCTION The Centre for Plantation Forest Research and Development as a research

institution will produce research outputs and development which considered being an Intellectual Property. As a research institution, The Centre for Plantation Forest will also interact with other government institutions, industries, and also NGOs. The interactions conducted can either be in the form of consultancy, research agreement contract, license commercialization, innovations and other research outputs. Those intellectual properties must be managed according to the regulations and laws in order to protect the rights attached.

The Intellectual Property Management is required in order for the related operatives to be aware of their rights and obligations. The intellectual property management will also allows the commercialization of the research and development outputs as well as the innovations so that research operatives will be able to gain incentives according to the rules and policies. Based on that particular consideration, therefore it is necessary to compose an Intellectual Property Management Guideline in the Centre for Plantation Forest in order to be guidance for either all components conducting innovations, technology and consultancy providers, or the users of the research outputs and working partners.

II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Intellectual Property Management Guideline in the Centre of Plantation Forest were composed to give clear guidance over the rights and obligations of all research operative components, so that the research outputs which are Intellectual Properties can be well managed in line with the laws and regulations.

The purpose of the intellectual property management is to ensure the coordination of the intellectual property affairs according to the government’s policy and the commercialization of science properties, for the benefit of the Centre of Plantation Forest and also the researchers.

III. LEGAL FOUNDATION

The regulations related to the Intellectual Property management: 1. Act No. 20/2000 on the protection of plant varieties 2. Act No. 14/2001 on Patent 3. Act No. 15/2001 on Trade Marks 4. Act No. 18/2002 on the national system of research, development, and the

implementation of science and technology. 5. Act no. 19/2002 on Property Rights 6. Government regulations no. 20/2005 on Intellectual Property Technology and

Research and Development Outcome Takeover by Universities and Research and Develpoment Institutions.

7. Government regulations no. 23/2005 on Public Service Financial Management

Annexure 1


14

8. The Presidential Policy No. 177/M year 2000 on The Forestry Department’s Structure and Duties.

9. The Secretary of Forestry’s regulations No. P 13/Menhut II/2005 on the Structure of the Departement of Forestry which has been revised several times and had the last revision by the Secretary of Forestry’s regulation no. P 15/Menhut – II/2008

10. The Head of Research and Development Division of The Department of Forestry’s regulation no P.01/VIII/Set/2009 dated 21st of April 2009 on the Guideline for Partnership on Research and Development of the Department of Forestry.

IV. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

Several definitions that underlie the descriptions on the intellectual property management

can be mentioned below:

1. Intellectual properties are properties that emerged from the intellectual abilities of mankind through the ability of creation, feeling, and will which can be presented in the form of technology, science, arts, and literature.

2. Technology handover is the handover of abilities to benefit and control from science and technology between institutions, organizations or individuals, either in the domestic scope or as well as in the international scope.

3. Research is an activity which conducted systematically according to scientific principals and methods to obtain information, data, and other findings related to the understanding and the proving of facts on certain assumptions and hypothesis in science and technology and also to draw a scientific conclusion for the benefit of the development of science and technology.

4. Development is a scientific and technological activity which aims to benefit the principals and theories of science which has been proven valid to improve the functions, benefits, and the implementations of available science and technology, or to produce new technologies.

V. THE SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT The scope of intellectual property management in the Centre of Plantation Forest covers the rights attached to several forms of intellectual properties: 1. Copyrights 2. Patent rights 3. Geographical Indicators 4. The protection of varieties/species of plants

5.1. Copyrights

a. Copyrights are exclusive rights for inventors or rights recipients to announce or to duplicate their inventions or to give permits for that without minimizing boundaries according to the laws and regulations

b. Inventors are individuals or groups who together by their own inspirations created an invention based on their ability of mind, imagination, effectiveness, skill, and specialty which put together in a specific and personal form.

c. Inventions are every outcome of creation processes which express their originality in the field of science, arts, or literature.

d. The respective rights holders are the inventors as the copyright owners, or those who receive the rights from the inventors, or others who afterwards receive the rights from previous holders who also receive those rights.

Annexure 1


15

e. The copyright holders are able to prohibit or to present the power to: • Reproduce the inventions in various forms, including publications in the form of

printing • Recordings over the inventions, i.e. in the form of compact discs, cassettes, and

video tapes • Spreading the inventions • Translating the inventions in other languages or to transform the inventions, i.e. in

the forms of books into films 5.2. Patent Rights

a. Patent is an exclusive rights given by the State to inventors for their inventions in the field of technology, who in certain range of time conducted their own invention process or to have agreements with other individual/group to conduct them.

b. Inventions are ideas of the inventors which produced in an activity of problem solving specifically in the field of technology which can be in the form of products or process, or a revision and development of a product or process.

c. Inventors are individuals or groups that together transform their ideas into an activity which created the invention.

d. With the presence of patent protection, in invention cannot be made, used, distributed or sold commercially without the permission from the respective patent owners.

e. Patent is not only rights for their owners to use the inventions related, but also to determine those who are allowed to use the inventions as long as the inventions are still protected.

f. If the patent expires, and so is the protection, and the particular invention will soon be a public domain. The owner of the patent will no longer hold exclusive rights and other parties can exploit the invention commercially without any charges.

5.3. Geographical Indicators In Indonesia, the protection on Geographical Indicators is not given in the form of special law/act, but it is included in the Act no. 5/2001 on Trademarks in section VII about Geographical Indications and Origin Indications.

a. Geographical Indications are protected as markings to show the origin of certain goods, which because of the geographical environment are including the natural factors, human factors, or a combination of both, gives certain specification and quality of the produced goods.

b. Geographical indications will be given protection after registered based on the application proposed by: 1. Organizations which represents the local community in the area of the production,

which consists of: • Parties which gathers the natural goods • Farm goods producers • Craftsmen • Merchants

2. Authorized institutions 3. Customers of the goods

Annexure 1


16

c. Registered geographical indications will be given legal protection as long as the specifications and/or the quality which is the basis for the protection given, remains the same.

d. If before or at the moment of application, an indicator has been used on good will by other party which is not authorized to apply as explained in point b, the good willed party can use that indicator for 2 (two) years since the indicator has been registered.

5.4. The protection of varieties/species of plants

a. The protection of varieties and/or species of plants is the right given to plant developers if the variety and/or the species produced is a new, different, and a stable one.

b. By given the particular right, before conducting various activities related to the development of varieties and/or species of protected plants, permission from the competent plant developers is required on that particular variety and/or species.

c. Exceptions are given if the usage of protected varieties and/or species of plants is to fulfill the daily needs. Protected varieties and/or species can also be obtained without the developer’s permission for the purpose of research and development.

VI. PRINCIPALS OF MANAGEMENT

6.1. Contract of Cooperation

a. The assessment on the possibility of cooperation can be conducted by functional officials and/or structural officials according to the laws and regulations

b. The cooperation negotiation can be conducted by structural officials together with functional officials of the Centre of Plantation Forest.

c. The contract of cooperation will be facilitated by the Division of Research Program Planning, in accordance with the Head of Research and Development policy on the cooperation between forestry research institutions no. P.01/VIII/Set/2009 dated 21st of April, 2009.

d. Points that required to be ruled by the contract of cooperation covers: • The management of intellectual property, including each party’s portions in

the ownership of the intellectual property rights. • The status of the usage of plant materials owned by third parties. • Plant materials from the material transfer agreement.

6.2. The Ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights

a. All of the Intellectual Property Rights given to the research activities which are conducted by the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development will be a property of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development.

b. Intellectual Property Rights given to the scientists of the Centre of Plantation Research and Development during their study with the scholarship from the Department of Forestry, the ownership will be based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Research and Development Division of the Department of Forestry and the University attended.

c. Intellectual Property Rights given to the scientists of the Centre of Plantation Research and Development during their study with the scholarship from third parties, the ownership will be based on the MOU between the Research and Development Division of the Department of Forestry and the University attended and also the third party.

d. Intellectual Property Rights for the research outcome between the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development and third parties, the ownership will be based on

Annexure 1


17

the MOU between the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development and the third party.

e. Particularly for point b, c, and d, if there management of intellectual property rights ownership has not been regulated in the MOU then it will require a new MOU which will regulate the rights and obligations according to each of their contributions.

6.3. Disclosure

a. Disclosure is the early formal step to obtain the right intellectual property protection. Inventors are advised to submit the disclosure of the invention as soon as possible.

b. Researchers are prohibited to conduct disclosure, protect or commercialize the findings of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development which considered to be an intellectual property before officially reported to the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development and until given an approval on things related to the finding including the authenticity of the finding.

c. The report on the finding must be able to explain the details which covers: • The title of the finding • The duration of the research until the discovery of the finding • The identity of the researcher and technicians involved in the research • The description of the invention • The date of publication conducted or planned • Information on other intellectual properties or other findings used until the

discovery of the finding • Other parties outside the inventors who claimed the finding • Facilities and resources used by the researchers to conduct the research

which discovers the finding • The usage or commercial potentials of the particular intellectual property

d. The disclosure report by the researcher will be submitted to the Head of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development. Afterwards, the Head of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development will form an Intellectual Property Rights Service Team which consists of the Division of Research Service and Evaluations and other related experts.

e. During the assessment, related information can be exposed outside the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development but must be supported by a Secrecy Disclosure Agreement, so that the disclosure conducted will not be categorized as a public disclosure.

6.4. Intellectual Property Rights Service Team

• The team is formed based on the decision by the Head of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development

• The main objective of the team is to facilitate the researchers or the team of researchers in the process on obtaining the Intellectual Property Rights from the Intellectual Property Rights Directorate-General of the Department of the Law and Human Rights or to register for the plant varieties protection from the Centre of Plant Variety Protection of the Department of Farming.

• Conducting negotiations and agreements related to the use of the intellectual property rights obtained.

Annexure 1


18

6.5. The Procedure on Obtaining the Intellectual Property Rights

a. As soon as the Intellectual Property Rights Service Team decided that the finding has met all of the requirements to obtain an Intellectual Property Right, the Division of Research Program Planning must propose a budget for the process to obtain the intellectual property right, because afterwards it will be owned by the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development.

b. Every related researcher must submit all documents to the intellectual property rights service team for further process.

c. If the team considers that the finding hasn’t met all of the requirements, the further process to the Intellectual Property Rights Directorate-General or the Centre of Plant Variety Protection will not be preceded.

6.6. Share of Rewards The share of rewards from the intellectual property management will be regulated below:

a. Consultancy Reward • For part-time consultancy, the proportion of the reward will be 30% for the

researcher and 70% for the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development

• For full-time consultancy, the proportion of the reward will be 70% for the researcher and 30% for the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development

b. Royalty The proportion of royalty for the researcher is 50% and another 50% for the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development from the Nett-income after tax and other expenses.

VII. ENDING

Points included in this guideline are still in general. Other details will be regulated further on in the form of operational instructions especially related the application of intellectual property rights based on the laws and regulations.

Bogor, Juli 2009

Head of the Centre of Plantation Forest Research and Development

Dr.Ir. HARRY SANTOSO NIP. 19520523.198102.1.001

Annexure 2


19

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

1 st FORESTRY IP FORUM WORKSHOP 20 AGUSTUS 2009

NO NAME INSTITUTIONS OFFICE ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS

1 Wahyu Edi. K , S.Hut

Arara Abadi Forest Company

Jl. Teuku Umar No. 51 Pekanbaru Riau [email protected]

2 Isno Wahno Arara Abadi Forest Company

Jl. Teuku Umar No. 51 Pekanbaru Riau -

3 Tjipta Purwita Musi Hutan Persada Forest Company

Jl. Raya PT TEL Kec. Rembang Dar, Muara Enim Sumsel

[email protected]

4 Nina Agusti PVP Centre Kampus Deptan Gd. E lt. 3 Ragunan Jaksel [email protected]

5 Hindarwati Director of PVP Centre Kampus Deptan Gd. E lt. 3 Ragunan Jaksel [email protected]

6 Imam Suyudono Inhutani State owned Forest Company

Jl. Tebet Timur Raya No. 7 Jaksel [email protected]

7 Dr. Endang Savitri

Centre of Biotechnology and Tree Improvement

Jl. Palagan Tentara Pelajar Km 15 Purwobinangun Sleman

[email protected]

8 DR. Budi Tjahjono

Riau Andalam Pulp and Paper

Pangkalan Kerinci, Pelalawan Riau budi_tjahjono@aprilasia

9 Dra. Budiati Darjotmo Dj, MM

Plantation Research Institutea

Jl. Salak No. 1 A Bogor 16151 [email protected]

10 Sulistyo AS Centre for Forest Conservation Jl. Gunung Batu No 5 [email protected]

11 Dr. Rufi’ie Director of Centre of Biotechnology and Tree Improvement

Jl. Palagan Tentara Pelajar Km 15 Purwobinangun Sleman

[email protected]

12 Sutomo, ST, MM Centre for Forest Coordination

Manggala Wanabakti Blok 7 Lt. 14 Jakarta [email protected]

13 Dr. Prabianto MW

Centre for Forest standardization

Manggala Wanabakti Blok IV Lt. 7 Jakarta [email protected]

14 Putri Tjatur B ITCIKU Forest Company

Jl. RM Harsono No. 54 Ragunan Jaksel [email protected]

15 Adelyna, STP Research and Strategic Study, Bogor Agriculture University

Gd. Rektorat A.H. Nasoetion Lt. 5 Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680

[email protected]

Annexure 2


20

16 M. Hendra Wibowo, STP

Research and Strategic Study, Bogor Agriculture University

Gd. Rektorat A.H. Nasoetion Lt. 5 Kampus IPB Darmaga, Bogor 16680

[email protected]

17 Basuki Rahmad Kehati Foundation (NGO) Jl. Bangka 8/38 [email protected]

18 Puji Sumedi Kehati Foundation (NGO) Jl. Bangka 8/38

19 Awad Said Indonesia Association on Publisher Jl. Kali Pasir 32 Jakpus [email protected]

20 Uus Faizal Biotechnology Research Centre, Indonesia Science Institute

Jl. Raya Bogor Km. 46 Cibinong Science Center [email protected]

21 Angga Wijaya HF

Biotechnology Research Centre, Indonesia Science Institute

Jl. Raya Bogor Km. 46 Cibinong Science Center [email protected]

22 Dr.Subiyatno Inovation Centre, Indonesia Science Institute

Jl. Gatot Subroto 10 Jakarta [email protected]

23 Ir. Arif Syamsudin, SH, M.Si

DG of IP Jl. Daan Mogot Km. 24 Tangerang [email protected]

24 Sofwan Bustomi CPFRD Jl. Gunung Batu No. 5 [email protected]

25 Dr. T. Waryono Indonesia University, Faculty of Science

Dep. Geografi FMIPA UI Depok [email protected]

26 Dr. Bambang Trihartono Director of CPFRD Jl. Gunung Batu No. 5 [email protected]

Documents

Improving services on intellectual property rights and developing their forum for research innovations on forestry in Indonesia