Would You Rather Invent or Innovate?
by Toni Tarver
The scientific session “Intellectual Property: Principles and Practices” offered three perspectives on intellectual property management and the applications specific to the food industry. Three presenters provided information and recommendations for recognizing and protecting intellectual property in the realm of product development, covering practical terms, litigation, innovation, and competition.
John Church, a private practice attorney, opened the session by giving an overview of the intellectual property terms. Church explained that the distinctions between patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights are as follows: A patent protects a technological invention (i.e., a product); a trademark protects the name or symbol for the invention; a trade secret is the formula or pattern to develop the invention; and a copyright protects the expression of an idea in a fixed format (e.g., book, artwork, record, etc.). In the food industry, these terms are relevant in the description and protection of innovations such as new flavors and ingredients or trade-secret recipes.
Next, Doug Taylor, counsel for General Mills Corporation, imparted insight into the intellectual property process at General Mills. Taylor began with an over view of which intellectual property protection tool is most common in three industries, suggesting that patents have more predominance and effectiveness in the pharmaceutical industry and less usefulness—with respect to food and ingredients—in the food industry. He alluded to GRAS as the reason for the disparity. After advising that it is better to be the plaintiff in an intellectual property suit than the defendant, Taylor disclosed General Mills’ philosophy for new product development: The company strives to obtain 50% of its innovation from external sources. Their motto has evolved from “the lab is my world” to “the world is my lab”—a clear endorsement of open innovation.
Final presenter Erin Bender, technology licensing associate with Ohio State University, compared and contrasted the intellectual property strategy of an academic setting and that of a business setting. According to Bender, universities value intellectual property because it drives job creation, supports economic development, enhances the university’s academic mission, and obtains recognition for both the university as well as the inventors. Funding for innovation research comes from a variety of sources, but internal funding is preferable because it provides universities with the greatest control over the property. Perhaps the most obvious distinction between academia and businesses in the intellectual property arena lies in the terminology: Academics use the term “honoraria” instead of the business term “payment,” “grant” instead of “income,” “funds” instead of “money,” “agreement” instead of “contract,” and “invention” instead of “innovation.”
Indeed, it appears that inventing is more collegial, more inviting, and less stressful than innovating.