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
© 2024 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 All2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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