| versión para imprimir - envía este articulo por e-mail |
Criminal report against CONICET for failure to report sale of patents
Por Eduardo R. Saguier -
Saturday, Apr. 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar
Criminal report against the Board of Directors of CONICET for failure to report inappropriate use and sale of patents
Report filed against CONICET’s Board of Directors for failure to control patent registration
10/6//10 | Eduardo R. Saguier, researcher from the CONICET, reports that some researchers from such entity file on their behalf patent applications on discoveries made by the team and sell them abroad.
Eduardo R. Saguier
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar
Criminal report against the Board of Director of the CONICET for failure to report inappropriate use and sale of patents, filed with Court Clerk’s Office No. 1 of the Federal Criminal Court in charge of Judge María Romilda Servini de Cubria, under No. 12812/10, dated October 4th, 2010.
REPORT
Your Honor,
Eduardo R. Saguier, Professional Researcher from the CONICET, legally counseled by Jorge E. Marenco, Esq., setting legal address at Juan F.Segui 3955, 2nd floor, Apt. E -1425, City of Buenos Aires, appears and says:
I.- PURPOSE.-
I.1.- I hereby report facts regarding disposal of State property that may constitute a crime, which would involve the Board of Directors of the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET, in Spanish) and researchers and collaborators from such entity.
II.- FACTS.-
II. 1- The Board of Directors of the CONICET would be involved in the alleged unlawful acts (notwithstanding that the Directors of the National Agency for Science and Technological Promotion (ANPCyT, in Spanish) and of the CONEAU) may be accomplices, for failure to apply the relevant controls and file the legal actions necessary to prevent these facts, and also for hiding them during the Chairmanships’ of Eduardo Charreau (2002-2008) and Marta G. Rovira (2008-2010). The former should have informed the aforementioned unlawful acts to the former Science and Technological Secretariat, and the latter should have informed them to the Ministry of Science, and/or otherwise directly to surveillance bodies and/or Criminal Justice’s authorities. The alleged unlawful acts would be related to the administration and/or disposal of scientific product or procedure patents that Argentine researchers would have registered abroad on their own behalf, but that would be the result of discoveries mainly made in our country by researchers from the CONICET, using subsidies from the ANPCyT, with evaluation and accreditation by the CONEAU, with facilities, laboratories and workplaces provided by the Universidad Nacional Rosario.
II.2.- The first results of the research conducted by molecular biologist, Lead Researcher of the CONICET, Néstor José Carrillo, PhD., and his scientific team (Adriana Kapp and Anabella Lodeyro, PhDs), during the years 2001, 2002 and 2004, at the Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Rosario (IBR, in Spanish) (shared by the CONICET and the Universidad Nacional de Rosario from 1999), http://www.ibr.gov.ar/ibr/investigacion/investigacion_ind.php?linea=12 showed “…a breakthrough in seeds (soy, wheat, linen and corn, etc.). Resorting to flavodoxin, plants could normally grow in water stressed areas, i.e., with very low or very high levels of water, which was then successfully proved in several states of USA.
II.3.- IBR researchers, who filed said patent applications disregarding Decree Law No. 20464/73 and its Regulation, would have appropriated the rights on their discoveries on October 24th, 2001 (as per the Resume of the Spanish research, Maria Francisca Fillat Castejón), assigning them, for a symbolic amount of money, to a British biotechnology company named Plant Bioscience Limited or PBL TECHNOLOGY (Reg. No. 02896390), which “funds projects and turns inventions into formally patentable applications that can be scientifically validated and regionally benchmarked.”
http://www.pbltechnology.com/cms.php?pageid=348#RootHair
II.4.- The first patent application of Carrillo, PhD., was submitted with the European Union on October 24th, 2001, during the time of the “frozen funds” at banks and economic-political crisis in Argentina. Although this patent application date is disclosed in the Resume of researcher Fillat Castejón (Biochemical Department of the Universidad de Zaragoza), Carrillo’s resume sets forth that this patent application, with the same code number, was submitted a year later, in 2002.
II.5.- In turn, PBL TECHNOLOGY, which had priority to submit the patent application from 10/24/01, would have resold this patent, at a date not specified yet, for several millions of Euros to the German chemical company, BASF, http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/, in a transaction made as an operation triangulation, where Argentine Researchers appear as “blood donors” to the benefit of multinational companies. Indeed, the investment made by the Argentine government in Researcher Carrillo, from his elementary, high-school and university education to his scientific research work, through the CONICET, the Agency or ANPCyT and the CONEAU, would have returned only one US dollar to the Argentine people!!! However, as paradoxical as it may seem, what Argentine researchers sold in the past as their own property, eventually brings revenues to different laboratories and private entities, which sell the product to the world, including us.
II.6.- Based on information included in their own resumes, Carrillo et al from the IBR (Adriana R. Krapp and Anabella F. Lodeyro) had, in addition to several subsidies from the Agency and multiple accreditations from the CONEAU, broad experience in patenting their discoveries abroad without the institutional involvement of the Argentine government, the CONICET, the Agency, the CONEAU, and naturally, the WIPO.
While the CONICET is not mentioned in any patent registry as the invention owner, Carrillo et al would have jointly patented their findings with IBR Researchers Javier F. Palatnik, Estela Marta Valle, Vanesa B. Tognetti (interns from 2006 at the University of Bielefeld, Germany) and Maria Fillat Castejón. This group made important discoveries entitled: “Stress Tolerant Plants,” in 2002, under UE patent code No. ; and another discovery in 2004 under the same title and with US patent code No. (see Exhibit I). Carrillo, PhD, also filed three (3) more patent applications, with unknown results and dates, under the following codes: AU (Australia); EP (European Parliament); and GB (Great Britain).
II.7.- Before Resolution (D) No. 3249 dated December 26th, 2007, currently effective, the CONICET was governed by Resolution (D) No. 243/89. With the application of the latter resolution in the IBR, the following CONICET’s researchers, subsidized by the Agency, would have not been entitled to collect patent revenues: postgraduate fellows, Mariana Giró and Matías Zurbriggen, PhDs; graduate fellows Lic Romina Ceccoli, María Laura Delprato and Juan José Pierella Karlusich; dissertators Martin Leonardo Mayta, María Betina Comba, and Luisina Palos Mangione; and technician or support staff, Hugo Poli.
II.8.- Resolution (D) No. 3249/07 was issued on December 26th, 2007. Sections 7 and 8 thereof show the patterns of intent, reliance and decision-making powers prevailing at the CONICET’s Board of Directors. The patent applications filed by Carrillo, PhD., and his team with the EU and USA, from 2001 to 2007, show that they appropriated the result of patent developments in three (3) opportunities, since: a) The Board of the CONICET had not approved, retroactive to year 2001, and was not able to authorize, the agreements Carrillo may have entered with PBL Technology; b) the CONICET had no intellectual property rights on the results; and c) the fellows and the supporting staff, and even the CONICET itself, were not timely compensated for with additional payments for the assignment of their rights.
II.9.- Following the chronological order of facts, five (5) months after Resolution (D) No. 3249/07, in May 2008, the report on Carrillo’s assignment to PBL Technology was formalized with the CONICET through a summary proceeding (File 1894/08). The Board of Directors resolved to dismiss and file said report, thus becoming involved in the alleged facts.
II.10.- The minutes of the Board meetings were also filed with the CONICET, and the summary proceedings resulting from the reports were marked as “reserved,” because, in 2008 and 2009, the right to take note of files had been denied to a petitioner.
II.11.- More than a year later, in 2009, and after almost eight (8) years from the date Carrillo entered into an agreement with PBL Technology, the CONICET’s Board started negotiations to enter into an agreement with this British company but, this time, with the Universidad Nacional del Litoral (UNL). This agreement was intended to hide the misconducts of the past, and it was finally executed on July 31st, 2010.
http://infoalternativa.com.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1
899:avance-cientifico-de-la-unl-y-el-conicet-beneficia-a-los-productores-rur
ales&catid=37:argentina&Itemid=57
By means of said agreement, the CONICET authorized PBL to use and exploit technology owned by the CONICET, whether patented or not, in consideration for an unknown fixed amount of money or royalty to be paid to the CONICET. In turn, the latter, pursuant to Section 9, Resolution (D) 3249 dated December 26th, 2007, should share up to 50% of patent benefits with the staff of Argentine Institutes involved in the approved scientific development (the IBR of Universidad de Rosario, created in 1999 by means of a Resolution passed by the CONICET’s Board during the offices of Eng. Armando Bertranou and Charreau; and the IAL of Universidad del Litoral, created by means of an agreement entered into with the CONICET in 2008, during the office of Marta Rovira, former Agency’s Coordinator). These efforts were fruitless as the CONICET’s By-Laws were mocked at.
II.12.- But these were not the only alleged unlawful acts committed in the CONICET. On April 10th, 2004 a report was filed with said institution against the behavior of geologists from the Universidad Nacional del Sur and Universidad Nacional de La Plata, affiliated to the CONICET (one of them, Carlos Rapela, PhD., was a member of the Board), http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3554, stating that they would have sold the geological research detected with instruments borrowed from the institutes of the relevant National Universities and funded by the CONICET, to the benefit of private mining companies.
The subpoena to start the relevant summary proceedings and the ratification of the report were issued five (5) months later, on September 10th, 2004. The first deposition took place on September 17th, 2004, with an extension thereof on October 9th, 2004; and in 2005, almost a year after the report was filed, it was about to be observed. This administrative delay is extremely rare, along with the suspicious slack attitude of not having served notice thereof to the former National Science and Technology Secretariat, the Prosecutor’s Office of Administrative Investigations and/or Federal Criminal Courts.
III.- LAW
For illustration purposes, I hereby quote Section 10 of Decree Law 20464/73 (CONICET’s By-Laws of Scientific and Technological Professional Researchers), which states that scientific inventions developed during an employment relationship belong to the employer;” and Section 19 of the same Decree sets forth that “…they will be jointly owned by the staff, the Board [CONICET] and the staff’s Institution;”
IV.- CONSEQUENCES – DUTIES OF THE STATE.
Note that we ignore whether these acts, except for the sale of geological research, have been repeated or not in our academic environment, corrupting the ethics of scientist’s responsibility, thus broadening and fostering brain drain –being Argentina the most affected country in the entire continent.
The facts stated herein are serious, because, corruption would be making pointless any such investments, debts, public budgets and R&D evaluation and accreditation systems used by the Agency – ANPCyT; almost a billion dollars from the IDB spent in thirteen (13) years, around one hundred million dollars a year; or by the CONICET along with several universities and research sites from the country and abroad, with a budget of 200 million dollars per year; or by the CONEAU with multiple evaluations and accreditations.
V.- EVIDENCE:
V.1.- Documentary evidence. Case File 1894/08, which should be requested through official letter to the CONICET and all other files above mentioned and those related to the report.-
V.2.- Exhibit I. Web site:
http://www.fbioyf.unr.edu.ar/academica/cv-docentes/c/carrillo_nestor.html
V.3.- Be the persons mentioned in item II summoned to make a deposition. 7.
VI.- REQUEST. I hereby request Your Honor
1. That this report be deemed filed,
2. That the relevant specific investigation of the facts reported herein be set and ordered;
Requested,
IN FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE.-
Eduardo R. Saguier Jorge E. Marenco, Esq.
ID 4394.928 Volume 22 Folio 628 CPACF
Exhibit 1
b. Invention Patents and Models
V. B. Tognetti, J. F. Palatnik, M. F. Fillat, E. M. Valle, N. Carrillo
(2002) Stress tolerant plants. EU patent No 02801941.2-2405-GB0204612.
J. F. Palatnik, M. F. Fillat, N. Carrillo, E. M. Valle, V. B. Tognetti
(2004) Stress tolerant plants. US patent No 6,781,034 B2.
(Source: Resume of Néstor José Carrillo, PhD) http://www.fbioyf.unr.edu.ar/academica/cv-docentes/c/carrillo_nestor.ht