CambridgeIP Chevening Lecture: The Economics of Climate Change - Taking the Lead in IP Ownership

CambridgeIP

The Economics of Climate
Change: Taking the lead, IP
Ownership
Extracts from Chevening Fellows Lecture
Wolfson College, Cambridge

28 January 2010

Quentin Tannock, LLB (Hons), LLM (Cantab)
CambridgeIP: Chairman, Co-founder

© 2010 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved

Lecture Introduction – The Economics of Climate Change:
IP Ownership, taking the lead (1)

•  This presentation contains extracts from Quentin Tannock’s 28
January 2010 Chevening Lecture at the University of Cambridge,
arranged by the Programme for Sustainability Leadership
  Considering the research and conclusions presented in the
Chatham House & CambridgeIP report ‘Who Owns our Low
Carbon Future’. To download this report, click here
  Presenting Case Studies of the impact on patent activity of the
Montreal Protocol on CFCs, and of Feed In Tarrifs in relation
to PV and Wind in some countries.
  Discussing options for technology transfer in CleanTech –
including options drawn from successful existing cross-
licensing, patent-pooling and standards regimes.

© 20010 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved
2

Lecture Summary – The Economics of Climate Change &
IP, taking the lead

  Much applicable technology exists, and the drivers & mechanisms
for technology owners to deploy their technologies can be identified.
o  Significant challenges remain - in particular with respect to valuation of, payment
for and deployment of applicable technologies.
o  Policymakers need to develop ‘smart’ technology and IP policies that consider the
large diversity in technologies, markets & players; and that draw lessons from
past experiences of technology deployments
  Much can be done to improve the transparency and efficiency of the
current Intellectual Property (IP) system without radical overhaul –
we should urgently address these ‘low energy’ improvements
  The over 50 million patents filed globally represent a global
technology library of prior inventions. Many of these patents have
expired or have been abandoned, rendering them freely available
for use. We should invest in improving access to this wealth of
information on existing technologies.

3

Contents

•  Context: Technology, IP & Technology Transfer
•  Diversity: IP ownership of Low Carbon technologies
•  Impact: Policy interventions & international deals
•  Case study: Wind
•  Discussion: Conclusions, Questions, Options
•  Case Study: Licensing Regime Options for a commercial
client
•  Conclusions
•  Acknowledgements
•  Appendix
–  Relevant UNFCCC provisions
–  WTO and TRIPS
–  Extracts from Stern Review
–  CambridgeIP approach © 2010 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved
4
–  Contact us

December 2009 protest against climate change

5

Context: Technology

“The problem of climate change is solvable – many
of the technologies required are available today
while others can be developed if the right
incentives are in place.”

UNFCC secretariat report on Technology Needs
Assessments (TNAs) 2009 lists:
•  Mitigation technologies
–  Energy; Agriculture & Forestry; Transport; Industry; Waste
Management
•  Adaptation technologies
–  Agriculture and Forestry; Costal Zone; Systematic monitoring;
Health; Natural disasters
6

Context: IP regime – challenges & opportunities
“The intellectual property regime can act as an incentive to the innovator, but the
granting of the property right can also slow the dissemination of technological
progress and prohibit others from building on this innovation. Managing this balance
is an important challenge for policymakers.”
The Stern Review, Chapter 16, page 369

Valuing IP – how do we decide what the IP is worth?
-  Costs approach (using anticipated costs of maintenance & defense of IP over its lifetime as basis for
calculations of the value of that IP); Econometric approaches (including Productivity; Profitability/Market
Value; Employment & Wage levels)

Patenting rates are significant with over 50 Million patents and patent applications
worldwide
–  Relative patenting rates vary from industry to industry
–  Not all technology is patented: There are other forms of IP protection
–  Many patents never result in commercially successful products, and a relatively high proportion of patents
are abandoned before their term expires: Sound business models and good commercial returns can be more
important than patented IP

The patent system is over-loaded
–  Anecdotally we glean that there are up to 800,000 patent applications outstanding in the USA, with Japan
and the EPO additionally having a backlog of several hundred thousand patent applications each (see our
blog)
7

Context: IP & Low Carbon Tech Transfer – incentives &
disincentives
At the international level there is an expectation that developing
countries will undertake mass technology transfer…
–  Questions include: Who owns the technology? Who pays? What price? Will
transfer be effective? (e.g. Does the infrastructure exist in transferee states or
with transferee companies / entities to take full advantage of the transfer? IP
systems, capabilities. Will transferors be motivated to ensure effective
transfer?)

International IP related issues are considered by the UNFCCC’s Expert
working group on technology transfer (EGTT)
•  Established under COP7 (2001) to implement Article 4.5

At the national level specific measures exist to improve performance of
the patent system in CleanTech
–  USA
•  USPTO ‘accelerated examination’
•  Bayle-Dole Act to encourage commercialisatoin of publically funded R&D
–  UK IPO ‘Green Fast-Track’ (GFT)
–  China adoption of the GFT (see our blog)
8

A wealth of technical knowledge

The patent system represents a significant
global technological library

•  Patents as data are:
–  Structured
–  Comparable
–  Objective
–  Information rich

•  Multiple patent data sources are available (an opportunity and
a challenge!), e.g:
–  USPTO
–  Espace.net
–  Google Patents
–  Specialists like CambridgeIP
9

A wealth of knowledge about technology R&D

•  Patents provide
–  Specifications of technologies, and their uses, with technical diagrams
–  Information on the relationships between technologies, and the R&D
relationships underpinning developments and their intensity
•  Many patents are freely available for immediate use (e.g. expired
patents may represent ‘white space’ in which there is freedom to
operate)

Linkages of Boeing in Concentrated Solar Power – data An example patent diagram, showing an actuation system
extracted from patent analysis by CambridgeIP for a medical inhalation device

10

Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  CambridgeIP approach
–  Contact us

11

CambrigeIP’s Diverse Low Carbon & Energy
Focus Areas

Wind Energy Nano Devices
Fuel Cells
Systems & Materials

Advanced
GeoThermal
Biomass Refrigeration
Energy
Clean Coal Systems
Photovoltaic & Carbon Capture
Component CO2-EOR Refineries,
Technologies Power Gen,
Marine
Co-Gen.
Concentrated Transport
Consortia &
Solar & Other
Smart Research
Energy Storage
Grid Alliances
Systems © 2010 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved
12

Chatham House and CambridgeIP have developed a patent
database focused on six Low Carbon energy technologies
A recently completed patent landscaping research effort by CambridgeIP and
Chatham House has sought to identify:
Facts on the ground – to move beyond myths and to practical solutions
Building blocks for technology transfer practices in the low-carbon energy space

1.  Biomass to Electricity
Chatham House and CambridgeIP
have developed a unique collection 2.  Carbon Capture
of 57,000 patents and related 3.  Cleaner Coal
analyses focused on 6 areas of 4.  Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST)
energy technology 5.  Solar PV
6.  Wind

Following the patent landscaping exercise, Ilien Iliev of CambridgeIP
co-authored a report with Bernice Lee and Felix Preston of Chatham
House: Who Owns Our Low Carbon Future?
Full report available for download at Chatham House’s website:
www.chathamhouse.org.uk

13

Apart from wind and solar PV, patenting activities growth in other
cleaner energy sectors are surprisingly sluggish

Patent applications may be unpublished for 18+ months. Therefore the number of
reported patents for the last 2 years may be under-represented.
14

Geographical origins of assignees indicate innovation
strengths & capacities

•  Aside from China, patent assignees are predominantly from
OECD economies

15

Patent families indicate the commercial value of inventions

•  Most commercial value is concentrated in a relatively small
number of patent families

In each technology field there’s 250-500
patent families with >10 members

16

High-carbon companies control some of the key knowledge
assets underpinning the low carbon economy

17

The public sector is also a key actor, and its role is likely to
expand
•  Public-institution owned IP may be the easiest point at which we
can implement innovative licensing practices

Universities own directly a relatively small proportion
of total patents
The ‘expanded patent footprint’ is likely to be much
higher: licensed tech & spin-offs

18

Patent related barriers to technology transfer – some
questions

•  Relative concentration rates of IP ownership?
–  Relative volume of IP owned by ‘aggressive’ entities?
–  In which part of the value chain does this IP lie?
–  What proportion of IP generation comes from University or
public-funded/owned R&D?
•  Do Patent thickets exist?
•  How to value IP?
•  Are national patent offices over-loaded?
–  Can ‘green’ patents be ‘fast tracked’ as in the UK and China?
•  Informational overload & information access difficulties?
(Over 50 million patents in 100’s of patent offices around
the world)
•  Other patent related barriers?
19

Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  Contact us

20

Impact of Montreal Protocol on medical inhaler industry

•  Aside from Kyoto, the Montreal Protocol on CFCs was
probably the highest impact international climate change
deal
•  There was massive industry impact & behavioral change
–  To choose just one example in the Health Sector, the CFC ban
impacted many of the inhaler industry’s key players
–  We identified two broad strategies for ‘inhaler industry’ adaptation
to the Montreal Protocol
•  pMDI space innovations: innovation in propellant formulations leading to
increased propellants-focused pMDI patents
•  Moving out of pMDIs: A move into Dry Powder Inhalers, essentially
‘substituting’ the need for a propellant
–  See the next slide for patent trends in these 2 areas

© 2010 CambridgeIP Ltd. All rights reserved.
21

Strategic Analysis of Industry Technology Trends post
Montreal
•  The 1987 Montreal Protocol introduced a range of control measures
for the production and use of CFCs
•  This had a major impact on the inhaler industry overall, and pMDI
manufacturers in particular
•  Two strategies emerged to deal with this market development,
resulting in accelerated patenting

pMDI space innovations in propellants based on Moving out of pMDIs: A number of companies moved
the 2 HFAs that were allowed to be used (HFA 134a & out of pMDIs and into Dry Powder Inhalers
227)

22

Policy Impacts: Patenting has generally grown with
deployment rate

Wind Solar PV

23

Low-Carbon Technology – Some specific considerations

•  Public public awareness… & public expectation… is unusually high
•  Technologies, Market Sectors, Players and Geographical location are
extremely diverse – and this is reflected in the patent data
–  Focus is required: Are the ‘Low Carbon’, ‘Green’, ‘CleanTech’ categories too broad
and too inclusive?
•  International ‘deals’ have a huge impact
–  Aside from Kyoto, the Monreal protocol on CFCs was probably the largest
relevant deal done, and teaches that there will be a real, and possibly
significant, impact on innovation, IP & tech transfer after any deal
•  Young and insecure: Technologies, and business models, are ‘young’
and consequently relatively fragile in some sub-spaces
–  Commercial confidence is lacking: Increases the ‘positive impact’ of public
procurements & market guarantees (like Feed In Tariffs). If the market has sector
confidence there will be massive private investment, however beware of unintended
consequences & ‘negative impacts’ (e.g. the current patent thicket in inhalers)
–  Technology transfer ‘leading practice’ and standard terms are often not yet
established (what is ‘fair and reasonable’ is not yet known)
•  Others?
© 2010 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved.
24

Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  Contact us

25

Wind Energy: A Detailed Look

Wind turbines are
complex
technology
systems

26

Wind Energy: Key Components & Applications

Components or
application level
analysis can help
us identify core
areas of
innovation, or
where new
activities are
emerging

There are significant overlaps between
some of these sub-spaces: revealing
patents with multiple or systems-level
claims

27

Wind Energy comprises many overlapping technological fields

An overlap analysis reveals
•  A very close relationship between ‘energy storage’ solutions and ‘generator’ (65.8% of
‘energy storage’ solutions are associated with ‘generator’ solutions)
•  The most ‘independent’ components from the Wind Energy technology system are
“energy storage” and “Software/control systems”
•  The majority of offshore-related patents are associated with the blades and generator

28

Top Assignees: Overall and by Technology Component

It is of interest to understand the extent to which the value chain is ‘owned’ or controlled by the top
organisations overall: are there areas where new entrants are making an impact?

2
9

Wind Energy Case Study: Enercon

Founded in 1984 by Aloys Webben,
Enercon is a privately owned
German company that has become
a key player in the Wind Energy
sector with revenues of $2.5bln
•  A key innovation of Enercon is the direct
drive wind turbine: arguably a more reliable
alternative to gear-driven turbines
•  Recently Enercon has extended its activity
downstream into desalination and combined
wind-diesel systems

Enercon has been actively pursuing its IP position:
•  Enercon vs. ITC & Zond Energy Systems (1998)
•  Possible cross-licensing deal with another Top 5 Wind Energy player

30

Suzlon case study: India
•  Indian wind turbine manufacturer
–  Established in 1995 with 20 people
–  Now employs 14,000 in 21 countries
–  Market leader in India (which is 5th globally in installed Wind), 3rd
largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world

•  Strategy of acquiring leading European technology companies (and
their IP) in the space…
–  Rotor-blade design house: AE Roter Techniek (2000)
–  Gear-transmission systems: Hansen International (2006)
•  Subsequently sold a large stake in Hansen International (2009) but retained IP rights
–  Turbine manufacturer: RePower (2009)
–  Now has 12.3% of global wind turbine market globally
•  … and then manufacturing in India from a low-cost base

31

Low-Carbon Technology – Some specific considerations

•  ‘Multiplier effect’: High degree of cross-over from
technology in once space to another
–  Plane wing materials become Wind blades; Biotech becomes
Biofuels
•  There is an increasing risk of IP related litigation as
markets mature (e.g. Wind, PV)
•  Enormous opportunities for developed and developing
countries to develop world leadership & own key IP,
especially in emerging spaces
–  E.g. Suzlon in India (Wind); Suntech in China (PV)

© 2010 Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd. All rights reserved.
32

Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  Contact us

33

Diverse Low Carbon Solutions & IP: Research conclusions (1)

•  Innovation predominantly arises within the OECD & China,
India is also a strong player
•  Patent ownership is concentrated with incumbents in
established spaces (such as CCS, Super Critical Coal) and is
more dispersed in emerging spaces (such as Wind)
•  There is huge diversity across sectors, players and
technologies; coupled with relatively large amounts of ‘cross-
over’ between technologies and sectors
•  Enormous opportunities exist for developed and developing
countries to develop world leadership in emerging spaces
–  E.g. PetroBas in Brazil
•  Time to mass deployment is far too long: Our research shows
that it takes between 19 to 30 years for top cited low carbon
technologies to reach the mass adoption phase

34

Diverse Low Carbon Solutions & IP: Research conclusions (2)

•  Many Low Carbon market and technology sectors are
young & relatively fragile
•  Policies have a large impact on technology development
and diffusion
–  Support to nascent Wind & PV sectors has resulted in ‘hockey
stick’ innovation growth rates in some geographies
–  Banning CFCs resulted in high rates of innovation in inhalers…
and a patent thicket
•  There is an increasing risk of IP related litigation as
markets mature (e.g. Wind, PV)
•  National level patent offices appear to be overloaded:
Are there measures that can accelerate the consideration
of ‘green’ patent applications?

35

Measures proposed by UNFCC member states

•  Global technology pool for climate change
•  Mandatorily exclude from patenting climate-friendly technologies
held by Annex II countries which can be used to adapt to or
mitigate climate change
•  ‘Any international agreement on IP shall not be interpreted or
implemented in a manner that limits or prevents any party from
taking any measures to address adaptation or mitigation of climate
change...’
•  ...ensure sharing of publicly funded technologies and related know-
how
•  ...exclude from IPR protection and revoke existing IPR protection in
developing countries and least developed countries on
environmentally sound technologies…
•  Developing countries have the right to make use of the full
flexibilities contained in TRIPS, including compulsory licensing
36

Measures proposed elsewhere

•  Business as usual
•  Establish R&D and tech transfer incentives for low carbon
technology (e.g. tax rebates/reductions, investment incentives,
grants)
•  Establish price incentives to give the private sector the confidence to
invest (e.g. PV Feed In Tariffs in Germany)
•  Encourage commercial cross-licensing & standards regimes
–  Support voluntary pooling / cross-licensing efforts
•  Leave it to markets to decide prices & terms OR Subsidise licenses OR Ensure special
access terms for certain types of players (LDCs, SMEs)
–  Establish compulsory pooling / licensing (like TRIPS)
•  Pool all ‘green’ technology OR Pool publically funded technologies (Making them freely
available OR available at reduced cost)

•  Engage in patent buy-outs of key technologies
•  Additional limits on IPR ownership in some sectors e.g. by profits
realised (i.e. once sufficient profits are realised, the relevant patent
lapses)
37

Some of my suggestions – ‘low hanging fruit’

•  Develop model contracts for R&D collaboration, IP acquisition and IP
license deals
–  Transactional costs are reduced when parties can work from standard model templates,
negotiations start from a fair and well-understood basis
–  A good example are the ‘Lambert’ Agreements implemented by the UK government for
University/Industry R&D collaborations
•  Establish a global database on licensing terms & leading practice in
relevant sector(s)
–  Establish benchmarks, encourage transparency & standardisation, share leading practices
–  Organisations like WIPO might play a role, and countries could support the initiative through
legislation
–  Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR*) measures to set ‘fair and
reasonable’ (FRAND) license terms *(e.g. Mediation, Expert Determination, Arbitration)
•  Manage commercial risk through the establishment of specialist
insurance mechanisms
–  e.g. insurance to manage IP litigation risk in particular technology sectors
•  Capitalize on the existing, massive, global technology library
represented by over 50 million patent documents – it’s currently
under-utilised
–  Sectoral mapping & multi-ontology database creation
–  Technology mapping: IP Landscapes ®
38

What are our options?

•  What options exist in relation to Low
Carbon IP?

•  What ideas do you have to facilitate
technology development and adoption in
Low Carbon Energy spaces?

39

Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  Contact us

40

Case Study: Licensing Regime Options for commercial client

Client Profile
A Fortune 500 medical devices company asked us to help identify a transition strategy to help move an industry with a highly
proprietary and litigious culture toward a more open cross-licensing approach

Business Situation
•  The client was concerned that R&D resources were invested into inventing around other incumbents, rather than on innovations to meet end-
user needs. As a result key market niches remain unexplored, whilst regulatory pressure increased
•  Key questions posed by our client were:
•  evidence that the industry is ripe for change?
•  What are the Pro’s and con’s for moving to a cross-licensing approach, based on other industry experience?
•  What scenarios can be identified, resulting from a move to a cross-licensing regime?
•  How to initiate change toward a cross-licensing regime?

Our Approach Results and Benefits
•  We analysed patent related activity in the client industry and a
comparator industry to reveal innovation trends, providing empirical
evidence of the gap in innovativeness and increasing litigation risk
in the client’s space.
•  A series of interviews with experts and senior executives from the
client’s and comparator industries helped relate the risks and •  Our results showed the take-off in innovation rates in the
benefits of moving to a cross-licensing approach. comparator industry after the introduction of industry-wide licensing
agreements.
•  We developed a ‘checklist’ of indicators for pressures of change, as
well as strategic considerations that support a move towards a •  We also compared patent citation rates and showed an increasing
cross-licensing & standardisation regime. inter-relatedness of technology in the clients space relative to the
comparator space: increasing litigation risk in the absence of
•  We also developed a sequencing strategy aimed at preserving our licensing agreements
clients industry leadership and protect traditional revenue sources
during transition to the new regime. •  Our client is using our outputs to build internal and external
stakeholder support for the proposed cross-licensing regime


Contents

client
•  Conclusions
•  Appendix
–  Contact us

42

My conclusions: Low Carbon IP & Tech Transfer

•  Much applicable technology exists, and we can identify
drivers & mechanisms for technology owners to
undertake technology deployment
•  There are many pressures, and much can be done to
improve the transparency and efficiency of the current
IP system without radical overhaul
•  The technology world is complex, and we should develop
‘smart’ technology and IP policies that consider the
diversity of technologies, markets & players
•  We should work to urgently improve access to the global
technology library represented by over 50 million patent
documents, this global resource is currently under-
utilized
43

Acknowledgements

•  CambridgeIP
–  The entire team but especially contributions by my
colleagues, Ilian Iliev (Energy) and Arthur
Lallement (Inhaler Devices)

•  Chatham House
–  Bernice Lee and Felix Preston
•  Read the Chatham House / CambridgeIP report: Who Owns
Our Low Carbon Future? Intellectual Property and Energy
Technologies (download from www.chathamhouse.org.uk)

•  University
–  Programme for Sustainability Leadership
44

Contents

•  Appendix
–  CambridgeIP team
–  Contact us

45

CambridgeIP Fact-based IP Strategy Consulting

•  Competitive Intelligence: Database-driven analysis and The CambridgeIP
custom reporting on who the competitors are, where they are located,
when they became active and who they are partnered with – extracted Advantage:
from science literature
-  Proprietary Tools &
•  Prospective Partners: Information on top corporate, university Methodologies
and governmental partner candidates operating in your area of interest –
informed by data from patents and other science literature -  Multifaceted Team
•  Technology Roadmapping: Unpacking technology components -  Deep Technical
and ‘value chains’; Using published facts to verify and augment expert Expertise
opinion on drivers, trends, milestones, barriers
-  Global IP Coverage
•  Benchmarking innovation & competitiveness: -  Fact-based Advice
Identification of key trends and geographical hot-spots, together with key
players and their R&D relationships; Using literature to measure innovation -  Extensive Network
outputs
-  Referrals &
•  IP Landscape & FTO Input: Our global IP databases, Introductions
proprietary methodologies and consulting provide unique patent landscape
coverage, highlighting technology gaps, “white space”, and informing due -  Rapid turnaround
diligence efforts

46 © 2010 CambridgeIP. All rights reserved

CambridgeIP Expertise

Our tools & methods are applicable to the full spectrum of
high-technology developments
Our work experience in 70+ projects per year has given us particular
expertise in the following fields:
• Energy
–  Wind Energy, Biomass, Fuel Cells, Advanced Refrigeration, Photo Voltaics,
Clean Coal / Carbon Capture, Concentrated Solar, Marine Transport, Waste
Reduction

• Health & Life Sciences
–  Drug delivery; Medical devices; Medical imaging; Nanotechnology;
Pharmaceutical formulations; Aerosols; Stem Cells & Regenerative
medicine; Surgical materials; Wound healing

• Nanotechnology
–  Measurement innovations, Nanocomposite materials, Pharmaceuticals,
Photonics, Photo Voltaics, Sensors


Cambridge IP’s approach

Fact-based
•  Our technology platform enables us to gather and analyse a huge
volume of published facts, informing your strategies
Comprehensive
•  Integration of data sources (e.g. market & financial data) with data
from science literature informs understanding of markets and risks
Transparent and thorough methodology
•  Ensures repeatability and improves stakeholder confidence in and
understanding of results
•  Improves uptake of results across your departments
More than text
•  Graphical and statistical analysis aids your rapid understanding of
spaces, and improves accessibility for non-technical stakeholders

48

Selected team members

Sir Walter Herriot
Quentin Tannock IlianIliev Dr. Andrey Shigaev
Advisor
Chairman & co-founder CEO & co-founder Senior Associate

Dr. Daryl Boudreaux
Senior Associate

Karishma Jain
Associate

Angus Fox
Technical Director
Dr. PhumzileLudidi Miranda Weston-Smith
Eren Ore
Senior Associate
Life Sciences Manager Dr. Phil Coldrick Associate
Senior Associate

49

Our contact details

Ilian Iliev
Quentin Tannock
(CEO and Founder)
(Chairman and Founder)
ilian.iliev@cambridgeip.com
quentin.tannock@cambridgeip.com
GSM: +44-077-863-73965
GSM: +44-077-8621-0305

Corporate Office Internet Resources
Cambridge Intellectual Property Ltd Website: www.cambridgeip.com
Sheraton House, Castle Park Blog: www.cambridgeip.com/blog
Cambridge CB3 OAX UK Sign-up for our Free Newsletter
UK: +44 (0) 1223 370 098 on our Home Page
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 370 040


CambridgeIP Chevening Lecture: The Economics of Climate Change - Taking the Lead in IP Ownership

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à CambridgeIP Chevening Lecture: The Economics of Climate Change - Taking the Lead in IP Ownership

Similaire à CambridgeIP Chevening Lecture: The Economics of Climate Change - Taking the Lead in IP Ownership (20)

Plus de CambridgeIP Ltd

Plus de CambridgeIP Ltd (9)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

CambridgeIP Chevening Lecture: The Economics of Climate Change - Taking the Lead in IP Ownership