IP: University-industry transactions becoming more prominent
The significance of a relationship between a university and an industry partner has never been more important for both academia and industry.
December 04, 2012 at 05:58 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The significance of a relationship between a university and an industry partner has never been more important for both academia and industry. Universities have seen cuts in government funding and increasingly look to corporations for funding. The bioscience industry increasingly looks to universities for new technologies. It is therefore important to understand how university deals may differ from relationships between industry partners. The following provides a basis for understanding these arrangements.
1. The university has more than one goal in the transaction
A deal with industry isn't all about money to a university. The average major research university has an operating budget of more than $1 billion. Licensing dollars are increasingly significant, but in the overall scheme of things hardly worth a university doing something that is going to impact its reputation and adversely affect state or federal funding sources, corporate research sponsorships or donations. Also, universities are increasingly looked to by state funding sources for impacts on the community and jobs as a return on the state's education dollars, and these impacts can also exceed licensing revenue.
2. The university does not always speak with one mind
A major university has been described as a fiefdom—where control is in significant part decentralized and various VPs, deans, department chairs and the principal investigators (PIs) may all have influence over a deal, in addition to the technology transfer professionals who are negotiating it. New proposals or retractions from previous terms are sometimes the result. At the same time, going around or over the technology transfer office to get to these individuals directly is usually not fruitful and can damage the relationship with the technology transfer office, so a better approach is to ask first and to offer to meet these other players in the presence of the technology transfer professional who is negotiating the deal.
3. The university will value research sponsorship
Most research universities greatly value their responsibility to teach and do research. Given that government funding sources have been shrinking, the university (and especially the PI who made the invention) will value research dollars that will fund the PI's lab. The company can get research sometimes for a fraction of what it would cost the company to do the research itself, and with the involvement of the person most familiar with the technology—the PI/inventor. In a difficult negotiation over licensing terms, milestone payments or royalty rates, the company may wish to offer some form of sponsorship in return for some concessions by the university on these issues.
4. The university will generally not want to take on significant risks
The university will try to minimize risk, and while business also does so, the university threshold is much lower. The use of public and donated funds, the academic standing and reputation of the university, the need to keep a sometimes diverse set of players at the university comfortable with the deal, and perhaps also to some extent the academic mindset of many of the players weigh against the assumption of risk to the extent possible. The “we're in this together” argument for the assumption of significant risk by the university just doesn't work in many cases. Some universities are now more willing to take on equity, but such deals are given much scrutiny before and after signing and financial risk is sometimes not the primary risk of concern.
University and industry have had a long and successful relationship that is increasingly looked upon as a key ingredient of global economic success. Like all deals, understanding and appreciating where the other side is coming from can foster such successful relationships.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250