Blogs

Update on Debate format at AUTM AM

By Alan Bentley posted 06-11-2009 07:23

  
Quick update on the debate format for AUTM workshops at the Annual Meeting:

Two debates have been selected by the Program Committee.  One debate will focus on inventors' involvement in negotiations/re-negotiations.  Questions ranging from 'should inventors be involved in negotiations' to 'should academic institutions allow inventors to control IP and negotiations' will be explored, as well as related policy and legal issues (should policies/statutes be modified?).   

The second debate topic will focus on genomic inventions.  Potential topics for debate will be the patenting of genomic inventions, exclusive vs non-exclusive licensing of such inventions, the SACGHS report, NIH guidelines, and the Myriad lawsuit, to name a few. 

Both debates should provide fertile ground for in-depth discussion of these contemporary topics.  The exact format for the debate has not been discussed in any detail, but I could imagine several participants from opposing camps, comprised of a mix of academic researchers, academic licensing professionals, and industry representatives. 

In the upcoming weeks, we will post information about changes to the AUTM Annual Meeting, including new programs for beginners, specific tracks designed for seasoned TT professionals, expanded CLE program, new networking opportunities, etc.

Regards,
Alan
8 comments
190 views

Related Content

Permalink

Comments

Guven Yalcintas, MD, Ph.D., MBA
07-09-2009 16:51

In your second comment, you mentioned keeping inventor in the background changes the entire discussion. That, you must do because you don’t want to play scientist. You must get all the scientific information from your inventor when ever you want to. That does not mean however that inventor will be on the same table during your negotiation.

Alan Bentley
06-10-2009 16:08

By the way, Mike Szarka had a great post on this issue May 21st on Techno-L giving the Canadian system perspective. It is certainly different than most people follow in the US.

Alan Bentley
06-10-2009 15:45

Considering the Canadian system, as well as Sean's comments below and Mike Szarka's comments on Techno-L, it may be prudent to have the Canadian perspective represented in the debate at the AUTM AM. Besides, perhaps this is a chance to see Sean in a tie!

Sean Flanigan
06-10-2009 15:08

As a Canadian we are naturally inclined towards debating and our Parliamentary system, while more often sinking to the lowest common denominator of the sound bite, can be a place for healthy debate as opposed to mere speech giving. At the last AUTM Canadian Regional Meeting there was a healthy debate over the question: Inventor owned or Institution owned IP, which is better? The debate was well received, well attended and highly relevant to the audience which is the goal of any good debate. In my opinion, sometimes the form of the question under debate has to be put starkly in order to mobilize opinions and then generate good debate. That being in mind perhaps I can suggest the polarized sides of this unique question: Inventors should be actively involved in license negotiations. & Inventors should never be involved in license negotiations. Good luck and good debating.

Arundeep Pradhan
06-10-2009 15:00

Hi:
From my perspective, the less the faculty know the worse the situation. We keep our faculty aware of the negotiations and they have at times provided valuable feedback on the the science that the company is pursuing, which may or may not effect the value of the deal. Most companies also want a relationship with the faculty after the license is done, so if we don't at least have the faculty aware of and comfortable with the terms, the likelihood of a long term relationship is greatly reduced. The other side is also true as mentioned by Guven - you don't want the faculty to control or hold the negotiations hostage.

Brian Laden
06-10-2009 14:35

Guven: As VP for the Annual Meeting I'm probably biased, but I agree that the topic as Alan stated below should make for a good debate session if the right people are involved in the discussion. That is critical for any of the debate format sessions. Also for what it's worth, on the other topic, I actually prefer to have inventors closely involved in license negotiations. I find that is often where a great deal of leverage can be gained in the negotiation. It's also educational for the inventor, which can turn into excellent internal marketing for the TLO. That being said, I do understand there are some cases (and have experienced a few) where having the inventor deeply involved can create more problems than it solves. My default condition though, unless there are reasons to the contrary, is to have the inventor more, not less, involved in negotiating licenses. Brian

Alan Bentley
06-10-2009 13:37

Guven, fair point. I was perhaps not as clear as I should have been. I believe the topic will touch upon some of the issues raised on Techno-l, namely should universities give inventors the right to choose to use the TT office or not, or the right to own inventions they invent - clearly from Techno-L, there are 2 sides to this. Further from Techno-L, the issue was raised regarding involving inventors in negotiations, or in the UGA case, involving inventors in re-negotiations. Bringing inventors to the negotiating table is one thing, but how informed and involved should they be (perhaps in the background) is a different subject. I have heard some interesting perspectives on this recently that I would hope people would be intesting in appreciating. Alan

Guven Yalcintas, MD, Ph.D., MBA
06-10-2009 12:35

'should inventors be involved in negotiations' or 'should academic institutions allow inventors to control IP and negotiations'
What is your point? Have you ever involved inventor to negotiate his/her technology? You will not close the deal.
Let me ask you again, what is the question? Even to bring that idea to the table is terrifyiing and unproductive. I dont know what can be accomplished with that discussion.