The following is a list of the articles that appear in the February 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. 2 (pp 17-32) February 2009

• Take these steps to limit the impact of licensees’ economic woes. Most university TTOs license a sizable percentage of their early-stage technologies to small companies, so dealing with cash-strapped licensees isn’t a new phenomenon, says Daniel Burns, president of Daniel Burns & Associates, Inc., in San Francisco. However, the U.S. economy’s recent nosedive into a hard recession has definitely exacerbated the problem, he stresses ……… p. 17
• Draw lines carefully when licensing technology to sponsored research partners. What appear to be sweet licensing deals with sponsored research partners could turn very sour if they tread the same ground as a little-known but important 1996 case in which researchers successfully argued they were cut out of royalties, which were “mischaracterized as research funds” ……… p. 17
• Vanderbilt’s TTO takes advantage of e-commerce opportunities. VU e-Innovations automates the licensing process by offering up digital or downloadable IP assets to interested users who gain access to the innovations by simply clicking “yes” to the terms of a standard license agreement, and then paying for such rights with a credit card ……… p. 18
• TTOs debate the pros and perils of dealing with patent aggregators. If you’re itching for a lively debate, few topics set off as many sparks in tech transfer circles as the relative merits of patent aggregators — companies that acquire huge numbers of patents, sometimes with mysterious intentions. Many TTOs are concerned that aggregators — sometime referred to as “trolls” or non-practicing entities — will simply use the patents to litigate and that doing business with such an organization could compromise their underlying mission to promote development of their technologies. On the other hand, such deals can bring in revenue for innovations that would otherwise go begging ……… p. 19
• Guest Column: Save time and money by implementing software IP management best practices. A key question for TTOs — which in many cases does not get asked let alone answered — is this: How should software IP management be handled in order to streamline the transfer process, especially in today’s world of open-sourced, out-sourced, easily searched, and easily copied software? ……… p. 27
• UC-San Diego uses MTA process to “seed” technology and prove its market appeal. One of the keys to successful technology transfer is recognizing an opportunity to maximize your commercialization options when you see it. And that’s exactly what the University of California at San Diego did when it used the school’s materials transfer program to ship working samples of a wireless technology called “CalRadio” straight to potential buyers before a licensing deal was contemplated ……… p. 29
• Legal Q&A: Communication is best weapon to fight IP leakage in faculty consulting arrangements ……… p. 31

Posted February 2nd, 2009 under Current Issue