The Intellectual Properties Committee at the University of Kentucky Bruce Webb IPC Chair.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MAIN COMMITTEE OFFICERS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Advertisements

A Office of Legal Counsel Intellectual Property Basics at the University of Kentucky February 26, 2014 Katherine A. Adams Associate General Counsel for.
Cambridge Enterprise Commercialisation of technology out of University of Cambridge Sénat Delegation 14 March 2006 Boris Bouqueniaux.
1 UMass Dartmouth Conflicts of Interest Policies UMass Dartmouth Liz Rodriguez February 17, 2011.
Policies and Issues Regarding Intellectual Property Developed at Iowa State University Presentation to Energy Center Grantees/ BECON Users 12/12/03 Kenneth.
Department of Computer Science Faculty of Science Research Methods Supervision.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
Administrative Procedures for Allegations of Research Misconduct Executive Summary (see WSU Policy 2101 for Details)
Role of the Executive Secretary Gail Dapolito Advisory Committee Coordinator Div. Scientific Advisors and Consultants Center for Biologics Evaluation and.
Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
So you’ve invented something? A Guide for UMass Faculty, Researchers and Students.
Intellectual Property March 4, 2015 Don Keach Director, Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office Copyright University of Kentucky.
Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Ron Huss, Ph.D., Associate Vice President of Research and Technology Transfer Michael Brignati, Ph.D., J.D.,
The Catholic University of America Office of Technology Transfer Office of Technology Transfer Commercialization of CUA-Developed Technologies February.
History 2002 – Director of research and sponsored program develops IP policy Fall 2002 – Referral to review the policy February 2003 – Faculty affairs.
N Intellectual Property Rights and Research in the Digital Age CRASSH 2 February 2011 Dr Richard Jennings, Deputy Director Cambridge Enterprise Limited,
Developing operational policies Click to add your name Pacific Sexual Diversity Network Leadership Development Suva, 23 – 25 February 2009.
An Introduction to MSU Technologies Presentation to the College of Engineering Oct. 7 th, 2008.
Policy On Intellectual Property. Differences With Senate Approved Version Format and structure Definition page is added Consolidates copyright and patent.
UNIFORM GUIDANCE OVERVIEW. OMB Circulars Before and After A-21 Cost principles for Educational Institutions A-21 Cost principles for Educational Institutions.
February 25, 2014 SERIES 4, SESSION 2 OF AAPLS APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Material Transfer and Confidentiality Agreements.
Cochran Law Offices, LLC Patent Procedures Presented by William W. Cochran.
Intellectual Property: Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) Director, Office of Intellectual Property.
Intellectual Property and Senior Design Projects.
Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. (ISURF) and the Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (OIPTT) Kenneth Kirkland, Executive.
CAMPUT 2015 Energy Regulation Course Donald Gordon Conference Centre Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario Role of Tribunal Staff, Interveners and Independent.
By Taver Chong, SFSU Associate Internal Auditor –
Technology Transfer at Rice
The Catholic University of America Office of Technology Transfer Discovery, Patenting and Commercialization of CUA- Developed Technologies January 9, 2003.
Patent Boards for Selecting Disclosures for Filing and Patents for Maintenance Presenters: Theresa Baus, Navy Jack James, NASA Gail Poulos, USDA Donald.
10/19/2011F. B. Bramwell1.  Thanks to conversations with: ◦ HU Office of General Counsel  John Gloster  Dan McCabe ◦ University of Kentucky Intellectual.
Consultation Responses A Volunteer Guide For further information please contact:
Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.
Invention Disclosure FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
Josiah Hernandez UPR Policy on IP. Whose Property is it? Under UPR’s policy (Cert. 132, ) the University owns IP that is generated through research.
Intellectual Property and the Graduate Student Presentation to Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering March 28, 2003 Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive.
Organizing a Technology Licensing Office (TLO) Jon Sandelin Senior Associate Emeritus
Introduction to the Offices of Biotechnology & Business Development John L. Harb Director, Office of Biotechnology __________________________________ October.
Intellectual Property and Senior Design Projects.
1 CCR Volunteer Council A Quick Overview of Mission, Intent, and Key Provisions.
Intellectual Property and Senior Design Projects.
2015 ASCCC Curriculum Institute Doubletree Anaheim-Orange County July 9-11 Training Curriculum Committees: Efficiency and Standards.
University of Rochester Technology Development Fund OTT F.I.R.E. Series - March 10, Michael G. Rusnak, Fund Manager Deputy Director New Ventures.
Work of the Faculty Leadership Team An Overview. Our Charge Serving to recommend process Serving to set up a strategic plan.
Tech Launch Arizona Tech Transfer Arizona David Allen, PhD, VP Tech Launch Arizona Rakhi Gibbons, Asst. Director for Biomedical and Life Sciences Licensing.
UMBC POLICY ON ESH MANAGEMENT & ENFORCEMENT UMBC Policy #VI
Partners Conflict of Interest Policy and Reporting October 11, 2012.
Copyright © Harvard Medical School. All Rights Reserved. Outside Activity Report: What Do I Need to Report?
General Guidelines for Institutional IP Policies: What Should be There Franco G. Teves, Ph.D., Dipl. PAM Director of Research MSU-IIT.
RP&A Report March 8, 2012 Streamlining Committees K. M. Isaac, Daniel Tauritz and Jennifer Leopold are on a subcommittee to study streamlining Faculty.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration N A S A G o d d a r d S p a c e F l i g h t C e n t e r 1 p r e s e n t e d a t.
1 New Patent Law Changes UTEP’s Plans to Implement February 5, 2013 Susan Avena Jeni Clark Gary Williams.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE Intellectual Property Policies for Universities and Innovation dr. sc. Vlatka Petrović Head, Technology Transfer Office Acting Head,
Intellectual Property at USC October 27, 2003 Dr. Michael Muthig.
Santa Clara Valley PACE Professional Activities Committees for Engineers.
ANSI/Shared Assessments PHI Project – Organizational Structure Presented By: Jim McCabe Senior Director, Standards Facilitation American National Standards.
PREPARING FOR THE RENEWAL AND TENURE PROCESSES Michael Smith Department of Sociology.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990 What Teachers Should know about Title II – Public Educational Institutions. Presented by Janie Beverley.
Open Meetings, Public Records, Conflicts of Interest, EMC Bylaws, and Penalty Remissions* Jennie Wilhelm Hauser Special Deputy Attorney General Presentation.
OTC FELLOWS PROGRAM INFORMATION SESSION Fall 2016.
Technology Transfer Office
Principles of Good Governance
Understanding SUNY’s New Patents and Inventions Policy
Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC)
ARP, New Faculty Orientation August 22, 2008 Simran Trana Director
Proposal Routing Overview
Erosion of Senate Authority Over Curriculum?
The Role of Tribunal Counsel
Responsibility for assessment at Brooklyn college – a distributed leadership model OFFICE OF Institutional effectiveness September 9, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

The Intellectual Properties Committee at the University of Kentucky Bruce Webb IPC Chair

Who/what is the IPC? – A faculty committee from Colleges producing most IP disclosures at UK – Members identified in consultation with college Deans of Research – Ex Officio: Don Keach, Katherine Adams, Taunya Phillips – Supporting Staff: Mariam Gorjian, Sabrina Darnell, Natasha Jones,

Current IPC Members (voting) Czar Grofcheck – Biosystems and Agricultural Eng. Todd Hastings – Electrical Engineering Eric Munson –Pharmaceutical Sciences Brian Rymond - Biology Peter Spielman – Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry Bruce Walcott – Electrical and Computer Engineering Karyn Esser – Physiology Craig Vander Kooi – Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry Bruce Webb – Entomology, Chair

Why do we have an IPC? The University’s administrative regulations provide for the IPC To protect the University’s interest in IP To serve inventors and facilitate IP development

What does the IPC do? Authorize UK Intellectual Properties Development Office (IPDO:Don Keach) to spend funds to protect UK IP Decision based on patentability, commercial potential and UK ownership The IPC provides periodic advice to the University administration in IP matters and a faculty voice in this area

IPC process - Assessment Inventor discloses technology through Inventor Portal – triggers assessment meeting Inventor contacted to schedule assessment meeting (Mariam Gorjian and IPC member) Objectives of assessment meeting are to: – Develop an understanding of the technology – prepare a ‘lean assessment’ – Explore commercialization potential and inventor plans to commercialize – Answer inventor questions

IPC Process: Administrative Action Administrative Action used when a clear decision is evident Positive recommendation 1.IP related to IP already being protected by the University 2.IP protection that is being funded by another party Negative recommendation 1.IP has been disclosed by inventor and cannot be protected under current law. 2.IP that does not belong to the University

IP Process: Committee Review IPC Chair contacts inventors to schedule presentations (~1 week before meeting) and provide a ‘presentation template’ Inventor presentations scheduled at 20 minute intervals – 15 minute inventor presentation and Q&A; 5 minute deliberation and vote – Committee votes to – Protect IP – Motion A – Release IP – Motion B – Come Back – Motion C

IPC Process: Motions Motion A. Protect. University has ownership and should seek appropriate IP protection (68%) Motion B. Release. University has ownership but should not protect IP; University does not have ownership; IP cannot be protected (28%) Motion C. University has ownership but the technology is not sufficiently developed to protect (4%)

IPC Process: the meaning of appropriate. It depends – Develop and file a patent – Seek a patentability opinion and then decide whether or not to file – Provisional patent Immediate filing Delay filing provisional File and let provisional expire

IPC Process: Factors in IPC Decisions Patentability as perceived by the committee Potential for cost recovery – Commitment of inventors to commercialization – Engagement of potential sponsors – External funds to cover patent costs – Market size and significance of IP Value to the University and/or faculty inventors

IPC: Post Meeting – Letter sent to inventors informing of committee decision – Letter contains standard language that protects any future IP by specifically stating that: Inventor designation has a particular meaning If released, the release applies only to the disclosed technology Informs the inventors that they will be contacted by a patent attorney who will assist them with preparing the patent – This normally marks the end of IPC role

The IPC has a dual role IPC members are sympathetic to inventors and supportive of commercialization of University IP The IPC serves the University interests by – Providing technical expertise to University IP decisions – Protecting the University’s IP interests – Serving as stewards of University resources

Limitations of the IPC Administrative charge is to authorize University expenditures to protect IP – The IPC has no role in commercialization Faculty volunteers Administrative engagement Resources – Von Allman Center (Mariam Gorjian) – Intellectual Property Development Office

Questions? Contact information Bruce Webb IPC Chair Mariam Gorjian Commercialization Specialist

IPC Process Inventor Disclosure Assessment Administrative Action or Committee Review Protect (A) Release (B) Do More Work (C) (IPDO) (IPDO) (come back to IPC) Communicate Decision to Inventor Contact Bruce Webb Mariam Gorjian