The following is a list of the articles that appear in the August 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 8 (pp 113-128) August 2010

• U of New Mexico TTO gets serious about enforcing patent rights. With limited resources and no appetite for courtroom maneuvers, university-based technology transfer offices have traditionally been weak enforcers of patent rights. But that stance may be changing.
• Use this checklist to standardize the royalty audit process. Amid the daily hustle and bustle of a busy TTO, tracking and checking the accuracy of royalty payments is one activity that frequently is shunted aside or, at best, performed on an ad hoc basis.
• MO school taps royalty income to boost prospects for fresh IP. Even if potential licensees or investors show an interest in the IP, they inevitably ask for additional data or a prototype. And that’s where the roadblock commonly referred to as the Valley of Death begins.
• Pocket-sized ‘coaching card’ helps inventors when pitching industry. A collaborative group involving the University of Pittsburgh’s Office of Technology Management and its Office of Enterprise Development has developed a tri-fold reminder the size of a business card designed to be carried by inventors when they go to outside meeting.
• Guest Commentary: Tips for drafting and prosecuting patent applications after Bilski v. Kappos.
• Start-up’s goal is recovering ‘rogue IP’ for patent holders. Some estimates suggest that as much as 30% of university inventions are commercialized through the “back door” by their faculty inventors. It was this IP leakage that led three individuals to co-found the aptly named “Rogue IP” to address the problems.
• Ohio’s statewide master agreement with P&G smooths path to licenses. A master sponsored research agreement hammered out between the University System of Ohio and Proctor & Gamble promises a steadier flow of research dollars and a more efficient means of securing lab funding — while also smoothing a path to licensing deals between the state’s TTOs and the corporate giant.

Posted August 6th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the July 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 7 (pp 97-112) July 2010

• Bilski decision leaves many questions unanswered for TTOs. Technology transfer offices should continue to maintain a “proceed with caution” approach to pursuing and prosecuting business method patents in light of the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision.
• Hard lesson: Keep close tabs on researchers, funding. It’s easy to get so consumed with licensing and start-up formation that details such as record keeping and monitoring take a back seat. However, seemingly small mistakes in oversight can upend commercialization efforts in a big way.
• In-house counsel: From black hole to deal-making asset. Technology transfer professionals often take a “grin and bear it” approach to their own university counsel’s participation in the tech transfer process, regarding in-house counsel as a drag on potential deal-making rather than a valuable asset.
• Licensee trying to ‘squirm’ off the hook? Educate to close the deal. Every TTO professional probably has a long list of terms that make licensees squirm and balk at deals. The problem is that in-house counsel — often with reason — insist on terms that licensees don’t typically come across in private industry.
• Key excerpts from Supreme Court decision in re Bilski. For a ruling that critics say left more unsaid than said, the Bilski verbiage contains some surprisingly strong statements.
  
• Ohio State revamps TTO and seeks dramatic increase in revenues. A major revamp of the TTO is one of several key moves Ohio State University is counting on to significantly brighten its licensing revenue picture.
  
• Negotiation expert shares tips on how to strike a better deal. Perhaps the greatest challenge in negotiating a deal is getting to the number you really want.

Posted July 15th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the June 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 6 (pp 81-96) June 2010

• Express-style licenses gain traction, new wrinkles emerge. The University of North Carolina has attracted considerable attention in the press for its introduction of the Carolina express license. Given the benefits of faster deals and higher throughput, it is perhaps not surprising that other TTOs have looked at similar “express” approaches, and alternative models designed to speed up deal-making process have emerged.
• New Hopkins app broadens TTO’s reach through PDAs, iPhones. A new application developed at Johns Hopkins enables users of iPhones, iPads, and Motorola Droids to instantly access the university’s technology transfer office and search for information about Hopkins inventions and faculty.
• TTO’s off-campus move sends strong message to business community. Earlier this spring, MSU Technologies — the tech transfer office for Michigan State University — took a small step across the street that represented a symbolic leap to the East Lansing business community.
• PA model gives small colleges a shot at commercialization. Most small colleges lack the resources to maintain a dedicated technology transfer office, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to pursue commercialization.
• RIT’s small tech transfer office gets added mileage from students, faculty. Large tech transfer offices often struggle with how to organize their personnel for optimal efficiency and performance, but if those larger TTOs want to complain to colleagues at small-office institutions, they shouldn’t expect much sympathy.
• Guest Commentary: Licensing Probability Model helps derive solid valuation.
• Keep the lid on patent prosecution costs. Though patent prosecution costs can be frustratingly high and represent a large line item in most TTO budgets, the good news is that means it’s also an area rife with opportunities to economize.

Posted June 11th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the May 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 5 (pp 65-80) May 2010

• Myriad gene patent decision adds to steady erosion of IP protection. The recent district court ruling in the Myriad Genetics case is just the latest major test of what is and is not patentable.
• New model seeks to rescue ‘stranded’ biomedical innovations. How to get biotech innovations through the expensive and lengthy proof-of-concept stage is a huge dilemma facing research institutions.
• New financial exchange offers new alternative for IP monetization. Chicago-based Intellectual Property Exchange International is laying the groundwork for a formal launch later this year, allowing owners of IP to monetize their assets, while giving investors access to trading, investment, and arbitrage opportunities.
• U of Kentucky uses federal grant to fund two FTEs who harvest marketable IP. Federal and state legislators are asking tough questions about the fruits of their research funding dollars, and looking for more job growth resulting from university research commercialization efforts.
• Marketing Matters: Is your TTO’s website effectively targeting the right audience?
• Entrepreneur-focused Master’s program to target university’s unlicensed IP. This September, the Univeristy of Rochester will officially launch a Master of Science degree called the Technical Entrepreneurship and Management (TEAM) program. Every TEAM student will create a business plan around a real technology, and will also have an opportunity to commercialize that technology via a start-up company or licensing effort.
• What it takes to be a TEAM player. The Technical Entrepreneurship and Management (TEAM) program at the University of Rochester is currently in a prototype or beta-testing phase involving 4.5 students, but this new Master of Science degree has already generated a lot of interest.
• Lacking strategic vision? Vice provost for technology transfer policy may be the answer.

Posted May 13th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the April 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 4 (pp 49-64) April 2010

• Kauffman controversy continues, future remains uncertain. The title of a jam-packed Debate Forum at the recent AUTM meeting in New Orleans was “Role of Inventors in Negotiating License Transactions,” but all the attendees knew what it was really about.
• Reap the benefits but avoid the pitfalls of provisional patent applications. Legal experts emphasize that shoddily prepared PPAs can come back to haunt TTOs later on in the game.
• Ten steps to fold social media into your TTO’s marketing mix. For the generation old enough to remember, developing a web home page was once the center of debate when technological advances changed how the world communicates. Is it worth the effort? Now the focus is on social networking and web 2.0-facitliated communications opportunities.
• ‘10 keys to enlightenment’ for becoming a skillful contract negotiator. “Negotiating is not a skill,” said Robert S. MacWright, PhD, JD, as he opened up a session at the recent AUTM meeting in New Orleans entitled ‘The Art Form We Call Negotiation.’ “You could read 50 books on negotiating and still not know how to do it, because there is no standard way to negotiate.”
• Economist makes research-based case against Kauffman proposal for “free agent” faculty. Scott Shane, professor of entrepreneurial studies in the Department of Economics at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management, produced a white paper focused on using published research — rather than opinion and anecdote — to inform the U.S. Commerce Department’s current examination of university commercialization activity, and its search for improvements.
• Heard in the Halls: AUTM 2010
• Purdue program matches angel investors with university start-ups. The Purdue University technology commercialization community hopes to match angel investors with at least half of the dozen or so start-ups it launches each year through a new program called the P3 Alliance.
  

Posted April 16th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the March 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 3 (pp 33-48) March 2010

• Stage-gate process provides rational structure for nurturing innovations. It is a common problem in technology transfer offices, where there’s always more technology to manage than managers to shepherd those technologies along. Some innovations get more scrutiny than others, and even those with obvious promise tend to amble down the field in an unpredictable fashion. Deals can get done in this kind of environment, but it’s hardly a blueprint for optimal productivity.
• Distributed partnering model eschews conventional start-up road to commercialization. The ongoing effort to build a better mousetrap for commercializing university IP has taken spawned a new concept its developers have dubbed “The Distributed Partnering Model.”
• Outsourcing gains favor as option for improving productivity, deal flow. Managing the growing volume of disclosures, patent filings, technology licenses, and spinoff activity is prompting some tech transfer managers to consider new tactics to handle more work without adding staff. Outsourcing is gaining interest as an option to shift service line responsibilities or IP portfolios to other entities, which may be located across the university or across the world.
• Contracting Clinic: Don’t assume concessions must be made for withheld indemnifications.
• Use interns, community resources, and teams to rev up your TTO. A familiar refrain among technology transfer personnel is that there are simply not enough hours in the day to work up technologies, reach out to potential licensees, and jump through all the hoops necessary to get deals done.

Posted March 17th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the February 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 2 (pp 17-32) February 2010

• Kauffman proposal for ‘free agent’ faculty draws strong reaction from TTO execs. It was the shot heard round the tech transfer world; in fact, it was interpreted by many tech transfer professionals as a shot across the bow, if not a full-force slap in the face. In a brief one-page treatise in the January/February edition of the Harvard Business Review that the stalwart publication cited as one of the top 10 “breakthrough ideas” of 2009, Robert E. Litan, the Kauffman Foundation’s vice president for research and policy, and Lesa Mitchell, vice president for advancing innovation, set tongues wagging and blood pressures rising.
• Keep your eye on the option pool during initial valuation. Successful negotiation of start-up funding leaves most new entrepreneurs flush with excitement. But investors will almost always slip an option pool into the equation, which means the share value to the founding group can sink in a flash. It can be a throttling experience for the uninitiated.
• Engineering institute’s contract work builds corporate links to aid long-term tech transfer results. Giving engineering students hands-on training in product development techniques and real-world experience working with industry is the core mission of the Institute for Industrial Innovation created by the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The Institute’s ability to do contract engineering research projects for industry isn’t expected to reap immediate technology transfer benefits in terms of expanding or monetizing UWM’s portfolio of intellectual property. However, building industry contacts via the Institute is a vital component in UWM’s long-term efforts to develop a sustained technology transfer strategy.
• Incubators adapt to changing conditions, but remain a solid option for start-ups. Start-up incubators have been hammered by the same economic forces that have buffeted the entire commercialization pipeline, and several have run into severe distress that poses an extra challenge for the fledgling technology start-ups they are designed to nurture. Still, the sector as a whole is in fine shape, and incubators remain a key option for technology transfer offices looking to support new ventures.
• A sign of the times? RPI shuts down campus incubator. In a move that reflects the changing landscape for high-tech incubators as well as the potential hazards for start-ups housed within them, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute announced in early February that it is closing its on-campus business incubation center. Ironically, RPI’s incubator is one of the oldest and most successful, having spawned several major companies over its 30-year existence.
• Pre-incubation program offers fledgling companies an official address and valuable support. Incubators are great for nurturing early-stage companies that are at the point where they need staff and space to fuel growth. However, what about those very early-stage companies that have great ideas and IP, but they need funding and further development before they will be ready to hang out a shingle?

Posted February 17th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the January 2010 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 4, No. 1 (pp 1-16) January 2010

• Don’t panic, but take steps to prepare for Bilski decision. The U.S. Supreme Court’s much-anticipated ruling in the  Bilski case will likely alter the landscape for business method patents and send shockwaves through the tech transfer community. Though no one can predict for certain the outcome, many observers believe the days of business method patents are numbered
• UNC introduces standardized ‘express’ start-up license. Forming a start-up at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill may become easier following the introduction of a standard licensing arrangement that the university is promoting as its “best deal”
• In bold stroke, U of Kentucky brings clinicians into commercialization pipeline. In 2008, only one disclosure came out of the University of Kentucky’s Medical Center in Lexington, and it didn’t go anywhere. But in just the last quarter of 2009, there were 16 disclosures, including two that already have working prototypes
• TTOs face new reality when seeking venture funding. TTOs say they are facing a hard truth when it comes to early-stage financing: Projects that would have been considered “venture ready” a few short years ago are having a much tougher time attracting VC funding today
• Do poster presentations jeopardize your TTO’s commercialization efforts? Go to virtually any innovation showcase or industry meeting and you’re bound to see a collection of poster presentations. They look harmless enough; summaries of ongoing research often created by graduate students. But beneath their innocuous façade, some say, lies a potential threat to the commercialization of the technologies in question
• UMich creates ‘one-stop-shop’ center for start-ups. Having a wide range of services and resources available to faculty entrepreneurs and investors has always been seen as an important goal by the TTO at The University of Michigan, but recently its leadership decided that those services could be provided more effectively and efficiently by creating a central contact point for all interested parties

Posted January 19th, 2010 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the December 2009 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 3, No. 12 (pp 177-192) December 2009

• Best practice tools and strategies for university start-ups. A start-up is by definition lacking in experience. And though a few lucky ones have veteran leaders who’ve been through the process before, that’s the exception rather than the rule when it comes to university spinouts. It stands to reason, then, that start-up managers are in dire need of best practices, and that’s exactly what Georgia Tech’s Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) is delivering. The center has posted a series of best practice documents on its website in an attempt to reach out to more of the region’s start-ups than it can work with directly.
• New push for global access licensing attracts broad support, adds complications. In the latest milestone in a movement that has been gaining steam for at least the last decade, the Association for University Technology Managers (AUTM) and six prominent universities have endorsed a “Statement of Principles and Strategies for the Equitable Dissemination of Medical Technologies.” The statement is a general outline of seven practices designed to ensure that university licensing facilitates, rather than impedes, the delivery of life-saving medicines to the developing world.
• U of Delaware creates IP gateway to boost commercialization. In less than three years, technology transfer at the University of Delaware (UD) in Newark has evolved from an acknowledged bare-bones licensing effort into broad-scale commercialization activity.
• Use patent analytics to ID licensees and get deals done. Finding licensees for your IP is a challenge in any environment, but in a recession it can seem more like waiting for lightning to strike — and about as likely. The key to sniffing out deals in a down economy, according to one IP consultant, is taking a proactive approach and increasing your odds by employing patent analytics.
• TAEUS introducing new ways to attract licensees. TAEUS International Corp., based in Colorado Springs, CO, is on the cusp of launching several software products in early 2010 that could help university TTOs implement standardized systems to describe patented technologies for the IP marketplace and then put those technologies in front of potential licensees, says Matt Troyer, vice president of innovation at the full-service IP firm.
• Patenting partnership makes TTO’s law firm part of the team. As a relatively small technology transfer office, the Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships (OEIP) at the University of Delaware (UD) in Newark “doesn’t have the luxury of being able to personally guide every single invention or patent application that comes into our office,” says Bruce Morrissey, director of technology development at OEIP’s IP Center. “So we developed a team approach with our law firm to get some leverage on that process.”
• Manage expectations of state lawmakers to secure long-term support for tech transfer. Politics and tech transfer make strange bedfellows, but with jobs and revenues evaporating in many states, it’s increasingly difficult for TTOs to avoid turf wars in the halls of their own statehouses. And some of the battles are getting ugly.

Posted December 17th, 2009 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the November 2009 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 3, No. 11 (pp 161-176) November 2009

• Recipients of ARRA funds grapple with onerous reporting requirements. Research institutions that went into overdrive to get a piece of the government’s unprecedented, $787 billion stimulus package, approved in February, are now grappling with onerous reporting requirements they must comply with or risk losing the funds
• Firms springing up to fund patent infringement litigation. Patent holders — including technology transfer offices — don’t have to make the difficult judgment call about whether to spend often-scarce resources on defending their assets in infringement cases. A new option has emerged in which a third-party essentially foots the bill for that litigation, in exchange for a cut of the proceeds
• Measuring economic impact of tech transfer more art than science. What’s the best way to assess the performance of a technology transfer operation? The answer really depends on who wants the information
• Get familiar with new terrain to capitalize on international opportunities. Markets may be down in the U.S., but TTOs can find ample licensing opportunities abroad
• Heard in the Hallways: Last month in San Francisco, more than 1,000 LES members convened for the organization’s annual meeting, and TTT was on-site. Here are some observations and ideas gleaned in both sessions and hallway conversations
• Boot camp plays central role in shaping entrepreneurial culture. When it comes to promoting an environment that’s conducive to research commercialization and innovation, some schools stand out as exemplary in taking an aggressive, active role in shaping an entire culture of entrepreneurialism. The University of Maryland is one of those schools, and its Technology Start-Up Boot Camp plays a critical role in shaping that culture
• Guest Commentary: Consider the strategic implications of trade secrets

Posted November 19th, 2009 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the October 2009 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 3, No. 10 (pp 145-160) October 2009

• TTOs seek to bolster start-up activity with VC type funds. With the dramatic downturn in the economy exacerbating the already challenging problem of generating early stage funding for university start-ups, a number of TTOs have taken the bull by the horns and launched their own VC-type funds. Some say this may be more than just a reaction to a current crisis; it may signal a new tech transfer paradigm. For universities looking to help their startups
• Hospital TTO takes a different path to commercialization with private sale of IP. The Technology Transfer Office at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) is veering off the traditional path to commercialization with a pending sealed-bid private sale of a portfolio of 10 issued U.S. patents and foreign patent application for noninvasive substance detection, including a noninvasive blood glucose monitor. The TTO has hired the IP brokerage firm ICAP Ocean Tomo, LLC, in Chicago to conduct the private sale for the hospital, which is affiliated with the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena. The two institutions have an inter-institutional agreement for CHLA to handle licensing for this IP. CHLA had tried the traditional commercialization route with this particular technology
• When times get tough, TTOs turn to students for extra manpower. Economists say the country is on the verge of a recovery, but businesses and universities are still in cost-cutting mode. They’re slashing budgets, curtailing programs, and implementing hiring freezes. At the same time TTOs are under increasing pressure to bring in fresh revenues. With few if any options for adding staff, many offices are turning to the student body for the help they need
• TTOs report successful faculty outreach with informal “entrepreneur office hours.” Faculty members with novel ideas for inventions or companies are busy people with packed schedules. So as technology transfer professional plan outreach efforts, taking a decidedly informal approach – rather than attempting to cajole researchers into scheduled meetings – may improve your results
• TTO launches entrepreneur-in-residence program without spending a cent. At the University of North Carolina Charlotte, revenues are down, but high unemployment and economic uncertainty are driving students and area business to the schools doors. That puts pressure on the TTO to get more done, but without additional resources to handle the workload
• Legal Q&A. U.S. rules regarding co-ownership of patents don’t apply in other countries
• Get your TTO ready for ‘tech transfer 2.0.’ A number of TTOs in the U.S. have gotten their feet wet in the world of social networking, but what Brian McCaul, ICT, director of commercialization & exploitation in the Enterprise and Innovation Office at the University of Leeds (UK), proposed recently is well beyond what any have attempted and perhaps beyond what many have imagined: a new world of tech transfer – or knowledge transfer in common European parlance – in which social networking forms the foundation for a revolution in the way innovation makes its way into the marketplace

Posted October 22nd, 2009 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

The following is a list of the articles that appear in the September 2009 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics monthly newsletter. If you are already a current subscriber click here to log in and access your issue. Not a subscriber already? Subscribe now and get access to this issue as well as access to our online archive of back issues, industry research reports, sample MTAs, legal opinions, sample forms and contracts, government documents and more!

Technology Transfer Tactics,
Vol. 3, No. 8 (pp 129-144) August 2009

• TTOs reach for new metrics to document their value. Most TTOs continue to dutifully count up and report on licenses, patents, and revenues — and to a large extent, these metrics continue to form the basis of how performance in the technology transfer arena is gauged. But there is a growing drumbeat of dissatisfaction with these traditional measures because they no longer adequately account for the kinds of activities that tech transfer personnel find themselves increasingly engaged in ……… p. 129
• U of Virginia revamps tech transfer model to enhance integration, relationships. The University of Virginia (UVA) and the UVA Patent Foundation in Charlottesville are on a joint mission to re-make the technology transfer process at the university, reports Thomas Skalak, PhD, vice president for research and graduate studies and ex officio representative on the UVA Patent Foundation board ……… p. 129
• Fledgling Boliven patent search site integrates array of tools for TTOs. After getting a tip from one tech transfer professional about a patent search tool that he cited as more useful than most, TTT decided to check it out ……… p. 130
• Legal Q&A: Take these steps to minimize the risks of ‘residual information’ ……… p. 131
• AUTM unveils a draft proposal for new metrics. Recognizing that the mission for many TTOs has broadened well beyond licensing and patenting, the Association of University Technology Managers has been exploring the creation of new measures that do a better job of capturing the many different activities technology transfer professionals typically engage in ……… p. 133
• Learn the signs of a pending reorganization — and how to deal with one. A reorganization may be in the cards for some university TTOs that need to reposition to adapt to the current economic climate ……… p. 136
• UTRF decentralizes to provide more individualized tech transfer. The University of Tennessee Research Foundation has decentralized its technology transfer operations in order to better support its mission of building the university’s research enterprise, managing and commercializing its IP, promoting an entrepreneurial spirit, and boosting the state’s economy ……… p. 137
• Experts offer strategies to strengthen COI process, policies. As relationships between researchers, TTOs, funders, start-ups, corporate sponsors, and licensees get ever more complex, your conflict of interest policies and procedures must keep pace ……… p. 139
• Associations advocate COI compliance by 2010 while NIH contemplates new rules. TTOs can turn to several reports on COI reform to guide their efforts ……… p. 140
• U of Alabama shores up patent policy as fledgling tech transfer program matures. The University of Alabama System recently updated its research commercialization policy in an effort to better secure its IP rights and to specifically claim ownership of all inventions that use school resources ……… p. 143

Posted September 21st, 2009 under Current Issue. [ Comments: none ]

« Previous entries