getting to “yes” in university ip licensing: mock negotiation workshop october 25, 2012...

26
Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

Upload: kory-sanders

Post on 20-Jan-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop

October 25, 2012

Presented by

Jim Singer

Brienne Terril

Page 2: 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

Page 3: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 4: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 5: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 6: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 7: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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.

Page 8: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 9: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

9

Defining the Intellectual Property

Patents and patent applications- Invention disclosure

Copyrights / software Trade secrets / confidential information Know-how

Page 10: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 11: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

11

Improvements

Licensee Concerns- Wants ability to make use of the most up-to-

date technology

Page 12: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 13: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 14: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 15: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 16: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 17: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 18: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

18

Enforcement/Defense

Licensee Concerns- Want ability to enforce patent rights against

infringers and participate in the defense of infringement claims

Page 19: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 20: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 21: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

21

Enforcement/Defense

Considerations in evaluating standing- Exclusivity- Right to sue- Right to transfer- Rights reserved by university

Page 22: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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.

Page 23: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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

Page 24: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

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.

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

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

Page 26: Getting to “Yes” in University IP Licensing: Mock Negotiation Workshop October 25, 2012 Presented by Jim Singer Brienne Terril

26

Questions?

Jim Singer412.391.2486

[email protected]://ipspotlight.com

Brienne Terril412.391.2404

[email protected]