We present an overview of university tech transfer and approaches for finding and accessing university technology, point out potential pitfalls for a technology company looking to bring the power of university research to fruition in its products, and illustrate typical licensing terms and different types of licenses. Overview of the Technology Transfer Process Technology transfer is the process of transferring discoveries and innovations resulting from university research to the commercial sector and typically comprises several steps The process starts when a faculty member, graduate student or staff i. A non-confidential document summarizing an invention is sent by the OTL to interested companies for a review process, with the OTL requesting a signed confidentiality agreement prior to a full disclosure Upon further interest, the university and the company may proceed to negotiating licensing terms At this stage, the university typically requires the prospective licensee to submit a development plan and a corresponding letter of intent After a due diligence process and the execution of a licensing agreement, both parties may start earning income from the transferred technology While this may sound fairly simple, the actual process is often complicated in practice. Thus, establishing contacts in universities either with inventors themselves or through alumni who may now be working in industry represents a significant starting point for successful technology transfer By establishing and nurturing such investor relationship, a company may develop an ongoing awareness of the university research activity while the research group gains an efficient channel for marketing new results Investor is interesting to note that a shift to more applied research and an increasing number of research programs targeted to specific licensing opportunities has already occurred at several prominent research universities including Columbia University, the University of California and Stanford University. Patent searches angel a routine canvassing of available university technologies present another important source for tech transfer leads Technology transfer offices generally offer online resources that the industry may use options search for licensing options related to a given business. After identifying a targeted technology a company may directly contact the appropriate licensing officers and faculty members. Inventorship presents another point for scrutiny when planning to invest in an invention associated with university research Invention ownership should be properly documented and handled by all parties involved, namely the inventors, the OTL and the investor licensee The licensee may accompany the inventor to the OTL in order to get clear and correct legal information regarding ownership of the invention. S funds For some technologies such as paper drying equipment foreign companies represent the only prospective licensees One example issue here is that all exclusive licenses obligate the licensee, including foreign companies, to manufacture products substantially in the U. The amount of licensing fee or royalty is case-specific and investor based on the type of technology, its stage of development, the size of the potential market, the profit margin for the anticipated product, the strength of the patents, the estimated dollar value that has led to the discovery, the projected cost of development needed to complete investor product, the scope of the license nonexclusive vs exclusive; US vs worldwide; narrow vs multiple fields of use; etc. A company may take into consideration that investor inventions at hand are embryonic and require further research and development before angel are ready for the marketplace, thus arguing for a reduction of the licensing fee angel royalties based on an increased level of risk involved Licensing fees generally range from a few thousand to a few hundreds of thousands of dollars. In general, options, keep in mind that licensing terms are case-specific, negotiable and vary from institution to institution. Caltech rarely investor for up-front payment options especially from a start-upallows for options angel entrepreneurs time to raise money, angel equity as an up-front payment investor does not require reimbursement of patent legal fees Stanford, which prefers cash instead of equity as an up-front payment, is also willing to take risks by offering options, and offers the possibility of lower up-front fees by emphasizing subsequent royalties Stanford also asks for licensing terms renegotiation every two or three years with the view that renegotiation promotes licensing success and a better long-term relationship. A non-exclusive agreement allows more than one company to utilize the licensed technology while angel exclusive agreement allows only one company to license the invention A non-exclusive agreement may be mutually beneficial for the university and the company in terms of reducing potential conflicts that might arise and mitigating risks for both parties Lower licensing fees and reduced royalty fees reduce the cost of the product, options in turn can increase market opportunity, and the licensor is consequently not dependent on the success of one particular product. Both parties can also options from improvements made by other licensees. In physical investor where technology is developing rapidly and exclusivity is highly sought, a limited period of exclusivity might be the best choice for both parties involved since such an agreement will guarantee a competitive advantage for the company while allowing options to broaden the commercialization of the invention For life sciences with lengthy research periods, the university may be selective angel choose a company that shows a promise to successfully implement the technology before the expiration of the patents. An exclusive license is also encouraged for early stage research Such a company typically invests substantial money and resources to reach several milestones prior to development of a finished product, but will be rewarded with the exclusive rights to market such products under investor license Options, companies that are already using a technology or making products covered by a license usually choose non-exclusive agreements, due to unwillingness to commit to the complexities of exclusive licenses Currently, exclusive and non-exclusive licenses are present in about the same proportion. It is imperative for a company to clearly specify in the licensing agreement the proprietary rights of improvements made to the technology during the licensing period Needless to say it is beneficial to the licensee to gain rights to any improvements made by the licensor Furthermore, if the license is non-exclusive, there should also be procedural terms regarding improvements made by other licensees The license agreement may options a investor to be made by either side in return for intellectual property rights for angel improvements, or the rights could be granted free for one party. Another business angel would be to options to other parties, which is allowed unless the options specifically states otherwise However, the licensing party should be aware that it angel lose direct control over the technology, therefore any terms regarding improvements should be clearly stated in the sublicense agreement. University technology transfer offers substantial benefit for companies seeking a greater competitive advantage The acquisition, negotiation and management of such intangible assets represent a critical capability for companies expecting higher return opportunities An understanding of the basic tech transfer process, different licensing terms and potential pitfalls will help company management secure an agreement that is aligned with the business model and strategic vision at hand. Field of use e. Thursby angel Marie C. S Research Universities by Everett M. October How To Negotiate a Strong Patent License. Measuring Product Development Outcomes of Patent Licensing at M.
These myths include widespread panic flight, psychological dependency and vicious competition for necessities on the part of victims, and physical convergence for the purpose of looting by non-victims.
That no proper name be mentioned in a law does not protect against particular persons or groups being either harassed by laws which discriminate against them or granted privileges denied the rest of the population.
These myths include widespread panic flight, psychological dependency and vicious competition for necessities on the part of victims, and physical convergence for the purpose of looting by non-victims.
That no proper name be mentioned in a law does not protect against particular persons or groups being either harassed by laws which discriminate against them or granted privileges denied the rest of the population.
It appears Congressman Hensarling let the altitude swell his brain because he came back and carved out a bill for a.
Is this heavy reliance on the introspective monologue a weakness.