Open Faculty Meeting: Report of the Rensselaer Intellectual Property Policy Task Force - Progress and Plans

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Open Faculty Meeting: Report of the Rensselaer Intellectual Property Policy Task Force - Progress and Plans"

Annabella Washington
6 years ago
Views:

1 Open Faculty Meeting: Report of the Rensselaer Intellectual Property Policy Task Force - Progress and Plans May 9, Intellectual Property Policy Task Force Task Force Charged in January 2005 Task Force Membership! Charles F. Carletta, Secretary of the Institute and General Counsel, Task Force Co-Chair! Denise J. Clark, Director, Research Administration & Finance! Ronald Kudla, Executive Director of the Office of Intellectual Property, Technology Transfer & New Ventures! Robert E. Palazzo, Chair of Biology, Director of the Biotechnology & Interdisciplinary Studies Center! G.P. Bud Peterson, Provost! Richard Siegel, Hunt Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Director of the Nanotechnology Center! Mark S. Shephard, Johnson Professor of Eng., Task Force Co-Chair! Wolf W. Von Maltzahn, Associate Vice President for Research Task Force Staff! Jeffrey R. Armstrong, Attorney and Consultant to the General Counsel! Tammy Cousins, Consultant to the General Counsel 2

2 Intellectual Property Policy Task Force Task Force Charge! Review and revise IP policy! Review and assess legal and compliance issues as well as consider specific programs (NSF ERC, NSF IUCRC and NYS CATS)! Interact with colleagues to gain feedback and input on improvements and special cases! Benchmark against peer and aspirant research universities! Develop standard templates/agreements for research centers! Review processes for sign-offs, deviations from standard policy, etc., develop guidelines associated with these processes! Define key elements for inclusion in web-based IP training procedures 3 Intellectual Property Policy Task Force Status Task Force Status! Review and revise IP policy " Draft of the Rensselaer Intellectual Property Policy prepared; policy standards consistent with CMU, Cornell, MIT and Stanford " Rensselaer Intellectual Property Procedures manual being developed! Review legal and compliance issues as well as consider specific programs (NSF ERC, NSF IUCRC and NYS CATS) " Legal and compliance issues reviewed with respect to the draft policy " Draft policy is compliant with legal and compliance issues! Interact with colleagues " Faculty Senate IP Committee (twice) " Key faculty group " Senior Chaired faculty " Students " Deans, department chairs " Open faculty meeting " 4

3 Intellectual Property Policy Task Force Status Task Force Status! Benchmark against peer and aspirant research universities " Draft IP policy benchmarked against 10 universities " Tables comparing to CMU, Cornell, MIT, and Stanford prepared " Benchmarking of licensing processes is underway " Extensive discussions held with key universities " Data on licensing incomes reviewed! Develop standard templates/agreements for research centers " Working on matrix of guidelines for memberships, consortium, etc. " Working on agreements for the two ERC proposals that have been invited for submission - One set through institute approval process " Recent example membership and consortium agreements collected 5 Intellectual Property Policy Task Force Status Task Force Charge and Status! Review processes for sign-offs, deviations from standard policy, etc., develop guidelines for these processes " Draft document reviewing relevant policy considerations and the process of negotiating research projects initiated! Define key elements for web-based IP training procedures " IP procedures document to parallel the IP policy " Web-based training procedures to build off the procedures document 6

4 Benchmarking Universities included in benchmarking process! CalTech! Carnegie Mellon! Cornell! Duke! Harvard! MIT! Princeton! Rensselaer (current policy developed in 1988)! Stanford! UPenn! Yale 7 Policy Benchmarking 8

5 Policy Benchmarking 9 Principles Guiding Development of the IP Procedures (Provided by the Faculty Senate IP Subcommittee)! Lack of bias relating to campus constituents " Example: Multiple levels of campus involvement as we proceed! Lack of bias relating to revenue mechanism! Competitive, market-sensitive views " Example: Matrix of possible interaction mechanism and associated rights being defined! Timely responses " Example: Provisional patents upon request! Efficiency of implementation! Enabling collaboration " Example: Extensive benchmarking with including collaboration issues! Facilitating sponsored research! Open door policy with respect to considering alternative possibilities to work with potential sponsors! Transparent, timely, and fair mechanisms for resolving grievances " Example: Mechanisms being defined and document. " Example: Process includes a review panel for requesting exceptions 10

6 Next Steps Complete policy! Continue to collect input and revise (on Web this summer)! Should be in place in the Fall Work on the IP procedures manual! Take advantage of input already gained! Continue benchmarking! Target early fall for taking to the campus to input! Put in place later in the year Standard Agreements! Complete matrix of options! Provide information to campus Processes for sign-offs, deviations from standard policy, etc.! Follows as part of procedures development Define key elements for web-based IP training procedures! Work with appropriate web developers to make policy and procedures available if an easy to use form 11

Untying the Gordian Knot:

Untying the Gordian Knot: Providing Order in the Invention Disclosure Process Workshop Topics 1. Inventor Relations 2. Technology Scouting 3. Crafting Disclosures Processes 4. Disclosure Evaluation and