NEWSLETTER

Register to receive ITN Newsletters!

TWEET FEED

Home > Blog > intellectual property

Posts Tagged ‘intellectual property’

The Slippery Slope of Drafting an IP Policy

Posted January 13th, 2010 by admin

Drafting a new Intellectual Property (IP) policy is not for the faint of heart. ITN arranged a conference call this morning between one of our liberal arts colleges and our university partner supporting ITN on IP questions. The Director shared a few items for consideration and potential road blocks for companies, faculty and the universities as they draft new policies. It was interesting to hear the crazy circumstances that creep up in university-based IP development.

Major topics on the call included questions around how to treat students (graduate students vs. undergraduates) as they get involved in  projects. What happens when students move into the lab and begin working on specific research? Are medical and law students treated the same as students involved in research?

The age-old issue of getting agreements in writing appears to be a step people still avoid. It’s a simple step that can eliminate many a sleepless night and large investments in legal battles if parties would simply take the time to document their mutual understanding prior to moving forward. This doesn’t have to invovle the next iteration of search technology either. Issues can be as simple as developing new website designs (created by students) or faculty course design. Laying out who owns the final product in advance can go a long way in saving relationships.

Joint ownership of IP, and assigning patents to companies or back to faculty, are additional tricky and potentially time consuming endeavours. If ownership of IP is between multiple parties (either people or people/colleges/universities), there are specific items to discuss on how those parties can move forward on development. And if outside funding has occurred to support IP development, meaning an NSF or NIH grant for example, then approval for assigning IP becomes more involved - and takes longer.

When faculty members want to pursue starting a company and integrate their IP into the start-up, things get really interesting.  Is the role of the faculty member as company owner or as a key management team member? Will the university take an equity stake to license the technology or not? Will a specific faculty member’s skills translate to strong start-up company leadership? (Most investors say no.) These were all part of the dialogue. 

For colleges and universities looking into a new IP policy, tapping into a qualified IP resource for Q&A early in the process can be a big help, and time-saver.  You might also want to take a look at Wendy Kennedy’s “So What? Who Cares? Why You?” It’s a reader-friendly, colorful workbook for those seriously considering launching a company - whether faculty or not - and can be a valuable handout. The more access everyone has to simple, easy-to-read guidelines and forms, the smoother the process can be for all parties involved.

Taking an Idea from Lab to Market

Posted November 16th, 2009 by admin

On Friday, Dr Stephen Fonash spoke to a group of entrepreneurs and faculty in Harrisburg about the challenges of taking an idea from the lab to market. This is an area where he has significant experience as co-founder of two companies, NanoHorizons and Solarity, and as a key player for Penn State’s nanotechnology and materials research in “Happy Valley.”

As anyone who’s been around the start-up process knows, there are many issues. It can be even more tricky when you’re an active faculty member. The three charactor traits Fonash emphasized for survival were being tenacious, realistic, and flexible.  Tenacity gets you through the challenges and being realistic comes in handy when negotiating with investors on a company’s valuation. Flexibility enters the picture when a mangement team is hired around you, as the company grows and a founder’s percentage of ownership decreases with outside capital investment. The handling of intellectual property (IP) was another hot topic, and getting a good lawyer was a point he made more than once.

When asked about his tenure and direct involvement in NanoHorizons, Fonash shared that the level of his day-to-day involvement decreased as it became more of a product-focused company and less of an early stage, idea-generation company. For him, this equated to approximately fours years of intense engagement.

Safe to say there was a lot more to his experience than time would allow.  His battle scars are evident. Both faculty and those eyeing business ownership have much to learn from Dr Fonash. No grass grows under his feet as he continues his involvement with education, writing books, and starting other companies. As for NanoHorizons, he told us at lunch, ”Now I’m just watching my stock.”