ASTP training course fundamentals of technology transfer 27 – 29 January 2010, Leuven - Belgium
Course team: Ana Daniel (course director, University of Aveiro, Portugal), Henric Rhedin (Chalmers Industrial Technologies, Sweden), Anders Haugland (BTO, Norway) Wednesday 27 January Course Introduction
09.00 - 09.15
Ana Daniel, executive director TTO CICECO lab, University of Aveiro, Portugal 09.15 - 10.15
Evaluating Technology Opportunities
Very few of the disclosures we receive are likely to form the basis of a good patent – fewer still (maybe 1 in 10) have any commercial potential. Moreover, we simply don’t have the time to manage too many projects at once. How then should we evaluate and rank the disclosures we get and how should we reject the ones that we decide not to pursue. Penny Attridge, investment director, Spark Ventures, United Kingdom
10.15 - 10.45 COFFEE BREAK Case Study Exercise 10.45 - 11.30 Case Study Feedback Penny Attridge , investment director, Spark Ventures, United Kingdom 11.30 – 12.30
Dealing with the TTO – from a business and researchers perspective
Thursday 28 January 08.45 - 10.15
Anatomy of a Licence Agreement – its purpose structure and essential terms. A session that aims to break down the whole process of creating a license agreement with the issues that should be addressed in the contract. The session will be put to practice with a case study to identify common mistakes done while drafting terms for a contract. Mark Anderson, solicitor, Anderson & Company, United Kingdom
SPIN OUT creation
09.00 - 10.30
Business plan, market research, what they need to see in order to promote spin off development Marc Lambrechts, senior investment manager, Capricorn Venture Partners, Belgium
10.15 - 10.30
Intro on Peter Rabbit Case study Course Introduction
Ana Daniel, executive director TTO CICECO lab, University of Aveiro, Portugal Henric Rhedin, commercial research & development, Chalmers Industrial Technologies, Sweden 10.30 - 11.00 COFFEE BREAK 11.00 - 12.15
Case Study – ‘Peter Rabbit goes licensing’ – illustrating the mistakes that the innocent can make when negotiating agreements. Case Study Exercise Ana Daniel Henric Rhedin
How is the TTO viewed by the research community? Do we provide the services and information level needed for the researchers to collaborate with us in a constructive way? An entrepreneurial professor with years of “TTO experience” will share with us his experiences, good and bad, in dealing with the TTO. Paul Lagasse, Professor, Ghent University, Belgium 12.30 – 13.30 Lunch
Friday 29 January
12.15 - 13.30
Lunch
10.30 - 11.00 COFFEE BREAK 11.00 - 12.30
Case Study – The Photon counting Detector
This is a semi-fictional tech transfer case which we take right the way from invention disclosure to a negotiated deal. The aim of the session is to integrate and apply all the elements of the course. A highly interactive discussion-based session. Jeff Skinner, London Business School, UK
12.30 - 13.30 Sandwich lunch
13.30 – 14.30
Research Grants and Contracts - Our role in protecting foreground and background IP A great deal of IP results from research collaborations with industry and other PROs. This session identifies ways to take these technologies to society and to manage both the financial and intellectual property issues that arises from the contracts. Anette Miltoft, special legal adviser, patent - & contracts, University of Arhus, Denmark 14.30– 15.30
IP Primer: Patents – patent law and process – when to seek patent protection, patent strength, patent agents and patent costs. All about the path to patent filing and the key decision (and investment) points along the way. Mark Anderson, solicitor, Anderson & Company, United Kingdom 15.30 – 16.00 Case Study – Kill or not to kill a patent TTO's at Universities receive on regular basis invention disclosures from researchers with the expectation on the part of the inventor that the invention is a "block buster" or a really new and breathtaking technology. For the TTO staff there is always the question whether on not to proceed with commercialising the invention. The case study looks ways to decide if it's worthwhile with regard to time, effort and possible payback to try to commercialize the invention. Ana Daniel & Mark Anderson 16.00 – 16.30 COFFEE BREAK 16.30 – 17.00 Case Study – Kill or not to kill a patent Case Study Feedback 17.00 – 18.00
Marketing Technology to Industry - finding and communicating with potential licensees. - the Industry perspective (what industry wants)
In this session we try to identify ways of finding, marketing to and communicating with potential licensees. Penny Attridge Dominic De Groote, business developer, Ghent University, Belgium 18.30 / 19.00 SOCIAL PROGRAM (Dinner)
13.30 – 14.30
What you can license and what you can’t – deals you shouldn’t do. Not every deal (license) is a good deal for the university. We are more restricted than businesses as a result of our public mission and the relationship between academic staff and the university (their employer). Deals that often backfire ….. on you! Mark Anderson, solicitor, Anderson & Company, United Kingdom 14:30 - 15.45 Negotiation tactics: theory and practice In this session we discuss the essential theory behind negotiations and some basic tools for planning and carrying out negotiations in order to make negotiations less daunting and more effective. Robert Marshall, negotiation and conflict resolution, Robert Marshall & Associates, UK
15.45 - 16.15 COFFEE BREAK 16.15 - 17.30 Negotiation case study Robert Marshall
14.00 COURSE ENDS