Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
G. Conti – Politecnico di Milano 2006 © 1/13 CRUI – WIPO 28 marzo 2006 Technology Transfer Office Setting up a license agreement: An Italian University.
Advertisements

Collaborative Intellectual Property
The Federal Technology Transfer Process: Licenses and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements ADVANCED LICENSING INSTITUTE AT.
Protection of Intellectual Property Resulting from STCU Projects STCU/NATO Workshop From Science to Business Kiev, Ukraine October 11, 2006 Judson R. Hightower.
LICENSING AND FRANCHISING; FUNDAMENTALS Tamara Nanayakkara.
Negotiating Technology License Agreements Tamara Nanayakkara.
Managing Intellectual Property Assets in International Business Anil Sinha, Counsellor, SMEs Division World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
What You Need to Know About Biosimilars: Products, Recent Deals, IP Issues and Licensing August 2, 2012 Madison C. Jellins 1.
Basics of Software Licensing The Good, the Bad, and the Dull (but necessary…) Hannah Alphey, September 2010.
IP Issues in Research Jim Baker, Executive Director Innovation, and Industry Engagement.
© 2012 Cooley LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA The content of this packet is an introduction to Cooley LLP’s capabilities.
Fosterswift.com PROTECTING AGAINST THE UNKNOWN : How to Successfully Review IT Contracts to Increase Your Rights and Avoid Potential Liability Samuel Frederick.
Patent Portfolio Management By: Michael A. Leonard II.
LICENSING “One Way of Putting Your I.P. to Work for Your Organization” Inventing and Patenting Seminar May 16, 2001.
. Software Licenses T HE T EXAS A&M U NIVERSITY S YSTEM Nicholas E. Chremos, TAMUS Office of General Counsel November 8, 2012 O FFICE OF T ECHNOLOGY C.
Business of IP Conference Series/Tech Council of Maryland: Technology Licensing Fundamentals Presented by Stephen Candelmo Arent Fox LLP Washington, DC.
Air Force Materiel Command I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Developing, Fielding, and Sustaining America’s Aerospace Force INTELLECTUAL.
Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Ron Huss, Ph.D., Associate Vice President of Research and Technology Transfer Michael Brignati, Ph.D., J.D.,
Technology Transfer at UIC © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Presentation to the Software Commercialization Symposium April.
Successful Technology Licensing Chapter III: Key Terms Cluster 3: Forms of Payment and other Financial Terms Arnaud Michel Gide Loyrette Nouel, Paris (Bogota,
1 Technology Transfer Seminar Series Patent Licensing : A Pathway to Commercialization Karen Hersey Senior Counsel for Intellectual Property, MIT. Ret.
Welcome P&P Topics for GFY 2002 Patent Awards Tech Transfer Cycle: Part III FOOD!!!! PATENTS & PIZZA June 4, 2001.
Introduction to NUS Enterprise © National University of Singapore.
Vilnius Lithuania BSc.: Biochemistry Neuropsychology J.D.: University of Oregon LL.M.:University College London Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Intellectual Property: Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) Director, Office of Intellectual Property.
By, Henry “Hank” Abromson, Esq.. Introduction  Henry “Hank” Abromson  Attorney with Miles & Stockbridge P.C. (Frederick)  Intellectual Property, Corporate,
Management of Intellectual Property at Iowa State University Contributing to Economic Development Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating.
Commercialization of Intellectual Property by Bob Reader Vice President, Licensing National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization.
WIPO Dispute Resolution in International Science & Technology April 25, 2005 Ann M. Hammersla Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Massachusetts Institute.
Tech Launch Arizona Tech Transfer Arizona Rakhi Gibbons, Asst. Director for Biomedical and Life Sciences Licensing.
Constructing the “Price” of the Technology in IP Licensing Negotiations Sub Regional Training Program on IP Valuation Maribor November 5 to 7, 2012.
WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON NEGOTIATING TECHNOLOGY LICENSING AGREEMENTS organized by The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with.
Overview OTL Mission Inventor Responsibility Stanford Royalty Sharing Disclosure Form Patent View Inventor Agreements Patent.
Technology Transfer and Assessment of Intellectual Assets Gerald J. Siuta, Ph.D. President Siuta Consulting, Inc. ( Vice President.
1 Licensing Dissecting a License Agreement Telmo Vilela Telmo Vilela, 2011FD_UNL.
Revenue Enforcement Legal Strategies Lawrence K. Nodine Ballard Spahr December 16, 2009.
1 Knowledge | Innovation | Technology Overview of Risk Management in University Technology Transfer David N. Allen, Ph.D. Associate Vice President for.
Technology-Business-Legal Some Critical Intersections Getting Started Legally IP Protection Licensing Mark J. Sever, Jr., Esquire Deborah A. Hays, Esquire.
Alliance Agreements Business Alliance Mahidol University International College.
Best Practices in Licensing Diane M. Reed Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Rouz Tabaddor Vice President, Chief IP Counsel Corelogic Information Solutions,
Strategic Alliances How to Structure, Negotiate, and Implement Successful Alliances February 11, 2003 Debra J. Dorfman Copyright © 2003 by Hale and Dorr.
Reasonable is in Eye of the Beholder Vendor, Customer, & Litigator Perspectives on Software License Provisions Aaron Brodsky Greg Leibold Peter Gergely.
Jay A. Lefton Senior Partner Common Mistakes That Cause Turmoil in Licensing, Financing and M&A Transactions Common.
Custom Software Development Intellectual Property and Other Key Issues © 2006 Jeffrey W. Nelson and Iowa Department of Justice (Attach G)
Copyright 2008 The Prinz Law Office.1 Getting Started with Drafting a License Agreement: A Brief Guide to the Elements and Key Considerations By Kristie.
How Commercial Firms Protect Intellectual Property In Transactions Daniel J. Mazella Celera Genomics Group, An Applera Corporation Business.
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. | 600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, Massachusetts | | fax | wolfgreenfield.com LEGAL & PATENT.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Philip.
Ignite Technology Transfer NUI Galway Technology Transfer Office Seamus Coyne, Ph.D Neil Ferguson, Ph.D Commercialisation Executives Technology Transfer.
Key Aspects of IP License Agreements Donald M. Cameron The purpose of this document is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not.
Mark Collins © 2015 Mark Collins.  Original, invented, creative, unique  Patents ◦ Protected through registration  Copyright ◦ Protected through litigation.
Intellectual Property And Data Rights Issues Domestic & Global Perspectives Bayh-Dole act -- rights in data Henry N. Wixon Chief Counsel National Institute.
UNECE April 2009 Commercialization of IPR A Business Perspective Jason Bucha, Compliance Counsel April 2, 2009.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE Intellectual Property Policies for Universities and Innovation dr. sc. Vlatka Petrović Head, Technology Transfer Office Acting Head,
1 28 June 2006 © ip21 Limited 2006 Intellectual Property Issues for the Consultant Matthew Dixon, Chartered Patent Attorney, ip21 Limited
ANATOMY OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT. Licensor, Licensee and Licensed Property Title to the Intellectual Property being licensed Written agreement Licensing.
Top 10 Legal Minefields A University Perspective October 8, 2009 Catherine Shea Associate University Counsel University of Colorado.
Lecture 27 Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property simply defined is any form of knowledge or expression created with one's intellect. It includes.
Review of Research-Related Agreements Between Academic Institutions and Other Entities. Manoja Ratnayake Lecamwasam, PhD Intellectual Property and Innovation.
ip4inno Module 4C IP Licensing Name of SpeakerVenue & Date.
1 Successful Technology Licensing: A Practical Guide.
Intellectual Property And Data Rights Issues Domestic & Global Perspectives Bayh-Dole act -- rights in data Henry N. Wixon Chief Counsel National Institute.
Technology Transfer Office
Lecture 28 Intellectual Property(Cont’d)
Technology Transfer 101 An Overview of the Process
Putting Your Ideas to Work:
Protection of Intellectual Property Resulting from STCU Projects
Presentation transcript:

Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

2 Licensing Activity Statistics  University and research institute licensing has remained strong despite economic conditions  According to the Association of University Technology Managers U.S. Licensing Activity Survey for FY2010 (which reflects responses from 183 U.S. institutions): - 4,284 licenses executed - 38,528 active licenses and options - $59.1 billion total sponsored research expenditures - $2.4 billion total license income

3 Overview  Anatomy of a license agreement - Key clauses - What does each side want?  Negotiation of license provisions - University and start-up - University and large company  Questions

4 Anatomy of a License Agreement  License provisions - Non-exclusive vs. exclusive licenses  Reservation of rights to the institution  Sublicensing - Defining the IP - Consideration: royalties, etc. - Improvements - Enforcement / defense - Representations / warranties - Reporting and auditing - Terminating the relationship

5 Non-exclusive vs. Exclusive  University Concerns - Universities want to ensure that technology is actually developed and innovation is advanced - Exclusive licenses cut against universities’ goal of ensuring that research programs result in broad practical applications - Overly broad exclusive licenses may have consequences if the technology is found to have unanticipated utility

6 Non-exclusive vs. Exclusive  Licensee Concerns - Freedom to develop technology without concern of competitor licensees - Licensees, especially early stage companies, invest substantial money and resources to bring a product to market, and usually require time to do so - Sublicensing and transfer

7 Scope of license: negotiation  University hereby grants to Licensee, and Licensee hereby accepts, an [exclusive or non-exclusive], [worldwide or Territory] right to use the Licensed Technology to make, have made, use, reproduce, and otherwise create or distribute Licensed Products in the Field of Use.  Notwithstanding the above, University reserves all right to the Licensed Technology outside of the Field of Use, and University retains the right to use the Licensed Technology free of charge for University’s academic, research purposes.

8 Non-exclusive vs. Exclusive  Considerations for reaching middle ground - Universities will usually reserve the right to practice the licensed invention and allow other non-profit organizations to do so, even with respect to exclusive licenses - “Field-of-use” license - Limited period of exclusivity - Require licensee to achieve development milestones to maintain exclusive license

9 Defining the Intellectual Property  Patents and patent applications - Invention disclosure  Copyrights / software  Trade secrets / confidential information  Know-how

10 Improvements  University Concerns - Don’t want to inextricably link a research program to a particular licensee and preclude funding from or collaboration with other companies - Broad licenses of future improvements may touch inventions and university employees outside of the original invention - Not all improvements are relevant or valuable

11 Improvements  Licensee Concerns - Wants ability to make use of the most up-to- date technology

12 Improvements  Considerations for reaching middle ground - Limit the scope of improvements that are licensed - Restrict licensed improvements to those owned by the university - Limit improvements to those supported by original patent filing and entitled to priority date - License improvements in exchange for additional payment

13 Consideration (royalties, etc.)  University Concerns - Want to share in the financial success of licensed technology - Licensing income is usually put back into research and teaching

14 Consideration  Licensee Concerns - Upfront licensing fees may be impractical for certain licensees - Early stage technology may require significant development before commercialization - High royalties payments may discourage investors - Lower licensing fees and royalties translates to a lower-priced product which increases market opportunity

15 Royalties: negotiation  Licensee shall pay University the nonrefundable sum of dollars ($ ) upon execution of this Agreement.  Licensee shall pay University a royalty of ___% of Net Sales.  Licensee shall pay University a royalty of ___% of Sublicense Fees.  Milestones: - Business plan - Initial funding - FDA approval - Commercial product release - Annual minimum licenses

16 Royalties and Licensing Fees  Considerations for reaching middle ground - Implement a royalty or fee structure that increases over time or that is dependent on the development of the technology - Impose minimum annual royalty payments after a time period or a achievement of a milestone - Balance royalties/licensing fees and patent prosecution costs - Equity arrangements, especially for up-front payments - Renegotiate financial terms every few years

17 Enforcement/Defense  University Concerns - Usually want to avoid the time, resources and cost involved in litigation - Will often permit licensees to enforce/defend infringement claims on their own - Don’t want to alienate licensees of other technology with litigation

18 Enforcement/Defense  Licensee Concerns - Want ability to enforce patent rights against infringers and participate in the defense of infringement claims

19 Enforcement/Defense  Considerations for reaching middle ground - Parties agree to use reasonable efforts to seek resolution of infringement allegations without litigation - Licensee has first right of enforcement in Field of Use  University will be named party if needed - Licensee pays university a royalty on any monetary recovery - Licensee is permitted to withhold a certain percentage of payment to apply to litigation costs and pay withheld amounts to university from recovery

20 Enforcement/Defense  BUT – be mindful of whether licensee has standing - Licensee’s standing depends on whether it possesses “all substantial rights” under the license - license language is not dispositive - Non-exclusive licensee’s do not have standing, even if license conveys such a right - But, an exclusive license in and of itself is not necessarily sufficient to convey standing

21 Enforcement/Defense  Considerations in evaluating standing - Exclusivity - Right to sue - Right to transfer - Rights reserved by university

22 Enforcement: negotiation  Licensee will have the first right and option to enforce any infringement of the Licensed Technology. If Licensee fails to take such action within sixty (60) days of first learning of the infringing activity, university will thereafter have the right and option to do so.  The Party who commences the action shall pay all costs required for the action and retain all proceeds resulting from the action.  The non-enforcing Party shall provide the enforcing Party with such reasonable assistance as the enforcing Party may require, including but not limited to agreeing to be named as a party on any pleadings in the enforcement action.

23 Reps and Warranties  Licensee wants: - Non-infringement - Right to license (title) - Technology will work as advertised  University wants: - Indemnity for third party claims - Diligence in commercialization

24 Reporting and Auditing  Licensee shall provide University with a quarterly written report of all Net Sales and Revenues and Sublicense Fees in each country within the Territory. The report must be provided within 30 days of the end of the quarter.  To the extent that Licensee does not have net sales in any country within the Territory within any calendar year, License shall provide university with an annual written report of Licensee’s efforts toward commercialization in that country.  Licensee shall maintain accurate books and records such that the amounts due and payable under this Agreement can be easily ascertained. Licensee shall make such books and records available for audit by university or its agent, and Licensee shall fully cooperate in any such audit  In the event that any audit reveals a deficiency in payment of more than five percent, then in addition to paying the deficiency Licensee shall also pay the costs of the audit.

25 Term and Termination  By university: - On breach by licensee - Failure to pay royalties - If milestones not met  By Licensee: - At any time upon notice

26 Questions? Jim Singer Brienne Terril