ࡱ> +.-,<( / 0DTimes New Romanv 0( 0DArialNew Romanv 0( 0 " DWingdingsRomanv 0( 0  ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` tl@     !  * <AA@8  uʚ;2Nʚ;g4GdGdv 0ppp@ <4!d!d` 0LԬ<4dddd` 0LԬ<4BdBd` 0LԬ0___PPT10 H___PPT9*z* X  P*DD? %2$Patenting& or not ?0$Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008@% A recent issue For Universities and not for profit organizations protection of Intellectual Property was not an issue until the late 70s 1980 :The Turning Point : The Baye-Dole Act. { |    The turning pointThe Baye-Dole Act (1980) A Major change in I.P.rights in the U.S. Before : No interest from public institutions (Patenting was even a bad point for academic scientists) After : I.P. is a source of revenues X> &$) $(= $$!The turning point : WHY ?Late 70s in the U.S. : The perception of Science is changing Inflation is very high Unemployment is increasing Competitiveness is decreasing ? Zvq q$~6:   "A Radical changeBefore : I.P. is owned by U.S. Gvt. After : Univ. can own I.P. rights (Gvt has some preferential rights to license) I.P. becomes a profit centerN/A recent issueU.S. Baye-Bole Act 1980 Europe More recently (90s) A political issue Over regulation (90s) Recent trend all over the world: To make legislations more flexibleqdPqdPqdPeP$Pc #         HGovernments and I.P.R.(f Numerous incentives to encourage researchers to protect (and  exploit ) their R&D results Legal incentives to patent their inventions Financial incentives Assistance to patent r]qUVqdZ V Two Very basic questions(4 Is it patentable ? Is it worth patenting ?>q4qd$4(Is it worth patenting ?Who will exploit the patent ? An industrial licensee A start up created to do it The RDI itself & & Will the owner be able to ? : Technically detect counterfeiters Financially sue counterfeiters Two majorquestions?qdEdqdBdqdqdEB $ Patent writingWho should write the patent ? A patent is a legal document A scientist usually does not have the legal expertise. when a scientist writes a patent it is usually : Too technical Too detailed Too narrow & & A specialist of patent law qd.dd .   J      Patent ownership*Who should own the patent ? Writing, filing, extending abroad, and maintaining a patent is expensive. Few patents generate significant royalties Usually scientists do not have the financial capability to support these costs. The owner is usually a Gvt. Organization BUT& .ZwqdZqdZPqdZZ*ZZ( K + P)  ,Patent ownershipz& .If a patent generates financial revenues& . The inventor(s) should be financially rewarded (financial reward is a strong incentive) Many organizations have a : Royalty sharing policyT}7]*7$ Royalties sharing,Subtract Patent cost + Subtract administrative cost Beneficiaries : Inventor for personal use Inventor s laboratory For R&D University or RDI for R&DqdqdqdqKRqd R Royalties sharing : Stanford U.  Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting protects an idea having some potential for applications BUT Patenting itself does not generates revenue Few patents from public R&D do reach the market and generates income lCqqqqC(rPatenting and licensingHaving a patent is& & USELESS ! Unless it is successfully licensed AND& it does generates financial revenuesdx   $&Ex.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labs 1997: Strong incentives to patent A large increase in Nb. of Patents It almost doubled within 10 years BUT No increase in royalties revenues Royalties revenues are almost constant Approximately 150M /year $qdZEdZqdZqdZ"qdZ@dZZZ$E   ("@ Patenting and LicensingHow to generate revenues from a patent ? To create a start up To license the invention to an industrialist + To sue counterfeitersv)CqdidqdlExclusive license ?HExclusive Or Non exclusive An important question (Licensing Know how)  qqqq,q  $ P       DRoyalties, Royalties, Royalties& .!##(Learned from experience : During the negotiation of a licensing agreement the most discussed topic is : the level of Royalties. This is only one of the issues& and it may not be the most important one ! Also learned from experience : Making money from licensing takes time Very successful licenses are not very numerous &ZqdZ"ZVZZZ  f J  V         An example : The French C.N.R.S.(!((FThe French basic research institute : 25000 employees 12000 Scientists 3000 M annual budget More than 1200 patents More than 500 Licenses 47.5 M Royalties (2003)H&~qd&w  Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S. Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.$An example : American U.A slow learning process 10 years before the first significant revenues were collected Today IPR is a revenue center for many U. qdqdqdqd  #A slow learning process Conclusion p1980 the Baye-Dole Act A radical change in IPR policy Spreading all over the world An irreversible trend ,ii  ` f3f3` ff̙` ___` ff` 3ff3f>?" dd@,?lPd@   Z l<@ d`"  n?" dd@   @@``@n?" dd@  @@``PR    @ ` ` p>>  (  ^N y   "yZ  S B7 C DEHFPv @?q 6 6 n(dx  G b q %(@"B y2   `G1?"  Tgֳgֳ ?"P  i1Cliquez pour modifier le style du titre du masque22   T(gֳgֳ ?"``  T*   Tgֳgֳ ?"`   V*    Tgֳgֳ ?"`   V* L   0 "  vCliquez pour modifier les styles du texte du masque Deuxime niveau Troisime niveau Quatrime niveau Cinquime niveau4w `  Hd޽h? ? f3f3  Essori     @ m(   N t   "tZ   S BsC5 DEHFPv @?3 r4 rv$[I_l3HxF 3 %(@" "2   C CRENGCJRQ1? `TO`TR`TO`TRR`TRR"t  T$gֳgֳ ?"/O  i1Cliquez pour modifier le style du titre du masque22   T`Qgֳgֳ ?"pp   p8Cliquez pour modifier le style des sous-titres du masque99   Tegֳgֳ ?"``  T*   T0egֳgֳ ?"`   V*   Tmgֳgֳ ?"`   V* `  Hd޽h? ?  f3f3 P(    0D, P    X*   0     Z*   6<3 `P   X*   66 `   Z* H  0޽h ? ̙3380___PPT10.j 0p$(  pr p S v   r p S w     H p 0޽h ? f3f3  `$(  r  S hP   r  S l?   H  0޽h ? f3f3  p$(  r  S FP   r  S G   H  0޽h ? f3f3  $(  r  S SP   r  S \T   H  0޽h ? f3f3  $(  r  S YP   r  S |Z   H  0޽h ? f3f3  $(  r  S iP   r  S ҝRWYC[/]_\p *%A>(Oh+'0<8 px   @ L X dpxPrsentation PowerPoint GNicolaononKD:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Templates\Presentation Designs\Essor.pot GNicolaon F47cMicrosoft PowerPointoso@@+$$@@d@0:UG6g  V:& &&#TNPP2OMi & TNPP &&TNPP    &&--- $  $   $- $(( $(22( $2<<2- $<FF<- $FPPF $PZZP- $ZddZ $dnnd- $nxxn- $xx- $ $- $- $- $- $- $ $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $""- $",,"- $,66,- $6@@6- $@JJ@- $JTTJ- $T^^T- $^hh^- $hrrh- $r||r- $||- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $&&- $&00&- $0::0- $:DD:- $DNND- $NXXN- $XbbX- $bllb- $lvvl~- $vvz- $w- $s- $o- $l- $h- $d- $a- $]- $Y- $W- $S- $O- $L- $  H- $  D- $  B- $ ** >- $*44*:- $4>>48- $>HH>4- $HRRH0- $R\\R.- $\ff\*- $fppf&- $pzzp#- $zz- $- $- $- $ - $- $---&&&&W&--&&/v- $WaaW/w- $akka/x- $kuuk0y- $uu0z- $1{- $1}- $2- $3- $4- $4- $5- $6- $7- $9- $:- $;- $<- $  =- $  ?- $@- $)) B- $)33)!C- $3==3"D- $=GG="F- $GQQG#G- $Q[[Q$H- $[ee[%J- $eooe%L- $oyyo&M- $yy'N- $'P- $(Q- $)R- $)T- $*U- $+V- $+W- $,Y- $,Z- $-[- $-\- $.]- $.^- $/^- $/_- $##0`- $#--#0`- $-77-0a- $7AA71b- $AKKA1b- $KUUK1c- $U__U1c- $_ii_1c- $issi2d- $s}}s2d- $}}2d- $2e- $ $2e- $ $3f- $&&&- &($UWr0AVm&5(AJIfPSU&&-&& &&-&&($UWr0AVm&5(AJIfPSU&&/v- $WaaW/w- $akka/x- $kuuk0y- $uu0z- $1{- $1}- $2- $3- $4- $4- $5- $6- $7- $9- $:- $;- $<- $  =- $  ?- $@- $)) B- $)33)!C- $3==3"D- $=GG="F- $GQQG#G- $Q[[Q$H- $[ee[%J- $eooe%L- $oyyo&M- $yy'N- $'P- $(Q- $)R- $)T- $*U- $+V- $+W- $,Y- $,Z- $-[- $-\- $.]- $.^- $/^- $/_- $##0`- $#--#0`- $-77-0a- $7AA71b- $AKKA1b- $KUUK1c- $U__U1c- $_ii_1c- $issi2d- $s}}s2d- $}}2d- $2e- $ $2e- $ $3f- $&- --&&&X3f--:%4Sp/^!Bfy* 4$<<DSJlORTU--&&&G&wk@ 7$- 0- &Gy& --)P-- @"Arial@ $- 0- ."2 Patentingor not ?+$$'''@''''. ."2 Patentingor not ?+$$'''@''''.--H-- @"Arial@ ;$- 0- .2 7sGilbert Nicolaon . . 2 tKiev. .2 ~ June 10, 2008  .--"System !&-&TNPP &orsiva|dv 0|( 0 B ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` A   !     * <AA@8  uʚ;2Nʚ;g4GdGdv 0pppp@ <4!d!d` 0,4<4dddd` 0,4<4BdBd` 0,40___PPT10 H___PPT9*z* X  P*DD? %X4$Patenting& or not ?0$Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008@%A recent issue For Universities and not for profit organizations protection of Intellectual Property was not an issue until the late 70s 1980 :The Turning Point : The Baye-Dole Act. { |    The turning pointThe Baye-Dole Act (1980) A Major change in I.P.rights in the U.S. Before : No interest from public institutions (Patenting was even a bad point for academic scientists) After : I.P. is a source of revenues X> &$) $(= $$!The turning point : WHY ?Late 70s in the U.S. : The perception of Science is changing Inflation is very high Unemployment is increasing Competitiveness is decreasing ? Zvq q$~66   "A Radical changeBefore : I.P. is owned by U.S. Gvt. After : Univ. can own I.P. rights (Gvt has some preferential rights to license) I.P. becomes a profit centerN/A recent issueU.S. Baye-Bole Act 1980 Europe More recently (90s) A political issue Over regulation (90s) Recent trend all over the world: To make legislations more flexibleqdPqdPqdPeP$Pc #         HGovernments and I.P.R.(f Numerous incentives to encourage researchers to protect (and  exploit ) their R&D results Legal incentives to patent their inventions Financial incentives Assistance to patent r]qUVqdZ V Two Very basic questions(4 Is it patentable ? Is it worth patenting ?>q4qd$4(Is it worth patenting ?Who will exploit the patent ? An industrial licensee A start up created to do it The RDI itself & & Will the owner be able to ? : Technically detect counterfeiters Financially sue counterfeiters Two majorquestions?qdEdqdBdqdqdEB $ Patent writingWho should write the patent ? A patent is a legal document A scientist usually does not have the legal expertise. when a scientist writes a patent it is usually : Too technical Too detailed Too narrow & & A specialist of patent law qd.dd .   F      Patent ownership*Who should own the patent ? Writing, filing, extending abroad, and maintaining a patent is expensive. Few patents generate significant royalties Usually scientists do not have the financial capability to support these costs. The owner is usually a Gvt. Organization BUT& .Zwqd  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root EntrydO)@_Current User;SummaryInformation(l8PowerPoint Document(DocumentSummaryInformation80 / 00DTimes New RomanH|dv 0|( 0DArialNew RomanH|dv 0|( 0" DWingdingsRomanH|dv 0|( 00DMonotype Corsiva|dv 0|( 0B ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` A   !     * <AA@8  uʚ;2Nʚ;g4GdGdv 0pppp@ <4!d!d` 0,4<4dddd` 0,4<4BdBd` 0,40___PPT10 H___PPT9*z* X  P*DD? %V4$Patenting& or not ?0$Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008@% A recent issue For Universities and not for profit organizations protection of Intellectual Property was not an issue until the late 70s 1980 :The Turning Point : The Baye-Dole Act. { |    The turning pointThe Baye-Dole Act (1980) A Major change in I.P.rights in the U.S. Before : No interest from public institutions (Patenting was even a bad point for academic scientists) After : I.P. is a source of revenues X> &$) $(= $$!The turning point : WHY ?Late 70s in the U.S. : The perception of Science is changing Inflation is very high Unemployment is increasing Competitiveness is decreasing ? Zvq q$~66   "A Radical changeBefore : I.P. is owned by U.S. Gvt. After : Univ. can own I.P. rights (Gvt has some preferential rights to license) I.P. becomes a profit centerN/A recent issueU.S. Baye-Bole Act 1980 Europe More recently (90s) A political issue Over regulation (90s) Recent trend all over the world: To make legislations more flexibleqdPqdPqdPeP$Pc #         HGovernments and I.P.R.(f Numerous incentives to encourage researchers to protect (and  exploit ) their R&D results Legal incentives to patent their inventions Financial incentives Assistance to patent r]qUVqdZ V Two Very basic questions(4 Is it patentable ? Is it worth patenting ?>q4qd$4(Is it worth patenting ?Who will exploit the patent ? An industrial licensee A start up created to do it The RDI itself & & Will the owner be able to ? : Technically detect counterfeiters Financially sue counterfeiters Two majorquestions?qdEdqdBdqdqdEB $ Patent writingWho should write the patent ? A patent is a legal document A scientist usually does not have the legal expertise. when a scientist writes a patent it is usually : Too technical Too detailed Too narrow & & A specialist of patent law qd.dd .   F      Patent ownership*Who should own the patent ? Writing, filing, extending abroad, and maintaining a patent is expensive. Few patents generate significant royalties Usually scientists do not have the financial capability to support these costs. The owner is usually a Gvt. Organization BUT& .ZwqdZqdZPqdZZ*ZZ( K + P)  ,Patent ownershipz& .If a patent generates financial revenues& . The inventor(s) should be financially rewarded (financial reward is a strong incentive) Many organizations have a : Royalty sharing policyT}7]*7$ Royalties sharing,Subtract Patent cost + Subtract administrative cost Beneficiaries : Inventor for personal use Inventor s laboratory For R&D University or RDI for R&DqdqdqdqKRqd R Royalties sharing : Stanford U.  Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting protects an idea having some potential for applications BUT Patenting itself does not generates revenue Few patents from public R&D do reach the market and generates income lCqqqqC(rPatenting and licensingHaving a patent is& & USELESS ! Unless it is successfully licensed AND& it does generates financial revenuesdx   $&Ex.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labs 1997: Strong incentives to patent A large increase in Nb. of Patents It almost doubled within 10 years BUT No increase in royalties revenues Royalties revenues are almost constant Approximately 150M /year $qdZEdZqdZqdZ"qdZ@dZZZ$E   ("@ Patenting and LicensingHow to generate revenues from a patent ? To create a start up To license the invention to an industrialist + To sue counterfeitersv)CqdidqdlExclusive license ?HExclusive Or Non exclusive An important question (Licensing Know how)  qqqq,q  $ L       DRoyalties, Royalties, Royalties& .!##(Learned from experience : During the negotiation of a licensing agreement the most discussed topic is : the level of Royalties. This is only one of the issues& and it may not be the most important one ! Also learned from experience : Making money from licensing takes time Very successful licenses are not very numerous &ZqdZ"ZVZZZ  f J  V         An example : The French C.N.R.S.(!((FThe French basic research institute : 25000 employees 12000 Scientists 3000 M annual budget More than 1200 patents More than 500 Licenses 47.5 M Royalties (2003)H&~qd&w  Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S. Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.$An example : American U.A slow learning process 10 years before the first significant revenues were collected Today IPR is a revenue center for many U. qdqdqdqd  #A slow learning process Conclusion p1980 the Baye-Dole Act A radical change in IPR policy Spreading all over the world An irreversible trend ,ii& L Thank you for your attention Gilbert Nicolaon Win.tech@club-internet.frt,$($              $(  r S `   r  S    H  0޽h ? f3f3r&}@ iB&A>( / 00DTimes New RomanH|dv 0|( 0 DArialNew RomanH|dv 0|( 0 " DWingdingsRomanH|dv 0|( 0 0DMonotype C ՜.+,0     Affichage l'cranEurekag "Times New RomanArial WingdingsMonotype CorsivaEssorPatentingor not ?A recent issueThe turning pointThe turning point : WHY ?A Radical changeA recent issueGovernments and I.P.R.Two Very basic questionsIs it worth patenting ?Patent writingPatent ownershipPatent ownershipRoyalties sharing Royalties sharing : Stanford U.Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting and licensingEx.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labsPatenting and LicensingExclusive license ?#Royalties, Royalties, Royalties.!!An example : The French C.N.R.S.Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.An example : American U.A slow learning process ConclusionPrsentation PowerPoint Polices utilisesModle de conceptionTitres des diapositives!_ GNicolaonGNicolaonZqdZPqdZZ*ZZ( K + P)  ,Patent ownershipz& .If a patent generates financial revenues& . The inventor(s) should be financially rewarded (financial reward is a strong incentive) Many organizations have a : Royalty sharing policyT}7]*7$ Royalties sharing,Subtract Patent cost + Subtract administrative cost Beneficiaries : Inventor for personal use Inventor s laboratory For R&D University or RDI for R&DqdqdqdqKRqd R Royalties sharing : Stanford U.  Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting protects an idea having some potential for applications BUT Patenting itself does not generates revenue Few patents from public R&D do reach the market and generates income lCqqqqC(rPatenting and licensingHaving a patent is& & USELESS ! Unless it is successfully licensed AND& it does generates financial revenuesdx   $&Ex.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labs 1997: Strong incentives to patent A large increase in Nb. of Patents It almost doubled within 10 years BUT No increase in royalties revenues Royalties revenues are almost constant Approximately 150M /year $qdZEdZqdZqdZ"qdZ@dZZZ$E   ("@ Patenting and LicensingHow to generate revenues from a patent ? To create a start up To license the invention to an industrialist + To sue counterfeitersv)CqdidqdlExclusive license ?HExclusive Or Non exclusive An important question (Licensing Know how)  qqqq,q  $ L       DRoyalties, Royalties, Royalties& .!##(Learned from experience : During the negotiation of a licensing agreement the most discussed topic is : the level of Royalties. This is only one of the issues& and it may not be the most important one ! Also learned from experience : Making money from licensing takes time Very successful licenses are not very numerous &ZqdZ"ZVZZZ  f J  V         An example : The French C.N.R.S.(!((FThe French basic research institute : 25000 employees 12000 Scientists 3000 M annual budget More than 1200 patents More than 500 Licenses 47.5 M Royalties (2003)H&~qd&w  Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S. Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.$An example : American U.A slow learning process 10 years before the first significant revenues were collected Today IPR is a revenue center for many U. qdqdqdqd  #A slow learning process Conclusion p1980 the Baye-Dole Act A radical change in IPR policy Spreading all over the world An irreversible trend ,ii& L Thank you for your attention Gilbert Nicolaon Win.tech@club-internet.frt,$($             0p$(  pr p S l   r p S (    H p 0޽h ? f3f3rB> B*&A>( / 00DTimes New RomanH|dv 0|( 0 DArialNew RomanH|dv 0|( 0 " DWingdingsRomanH|dv 0|( 0 0DMonotype Corsiva|dv 0|( 0 B ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` A   !     * <AA@8  uʚ;2Nʚ;g4GdGdv 0pppp@ <4!d!d` 0,4<4dddd` 0,4<4BdBd` 0,40___PPT10 H___PPT9*z* X  P*DD? %e4$Patenting& or not ?0$Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008@%A recent issue For Universities and not for profit organizations protection of Intellectual Property was not an issue until the late 70s 1980 :The Turning Point : The Baye-Dole Act. { |    The turning pointThe Baye-Dole Act (1980) A Major change in I.P.rights in the U.S. Before : No interest from public institutions (Patenting was even a bad point for academic scientists) After : I.P. is a source of revenues X> &$) $(= $$!The turning point : WHY ?Late 70s in the U.S. : The perception of Science is changing Inflation is very high Unemployment is increasing Competitiveness is decreasing ? Zvq q$~66   "A Radical changeBefore : I.P. is owned by U.S. Gvt. After : Univ. can own I.P. rights (Gvt has some preferential rights to license) I.P. becomes a profit center^v/A recent issueU.S. Baye-Bole Act 1980 Europe More recently (90s) A political issue Over regulation (90s) Recent trend all over the world: To make legislations more flexibleqdPqdPqdPeP$Pc #         HGovernments and I.P.R.(f Numerous incentives to encourage researchers to protect (and  exploit ) their R&D results Legal incentives to patent their inventions Financial incentives Assistance to patent r]qUVqdZ V Two Very basic questions(4 Is it patentable ? Is it worth patenting ?>q4qd$4(Is it worth patenting ?Who will exploit the patent ? An industrial licensee A start up created to do it The RDI itself & & Will the owner be able to ? : Technically detect counterfeiters Financially sue counterfeiters Two majorquestions?qdEdqdBdqdqdEB $ Patent writingWho should write the patent ? A patent is a legal document A scientist usually does not have the legal expertise. when a scientist writes a patent it is usually : Too technical Too detailed Too narrow & & A specialist of patent law qd.dd .   F      Patent ownership*Who should own the patent ? Writing, filing, extending abroad, and maintaining a patent is expensive. Few patents generate significant royalties Usually scientists do not have the financial capability to support these costs. The owner is usually a Gvt. Organization BUT& .ZwqdZqdZPqdZZ*ZZ( K + P)  ,Patent ownershipz& .If a patent generates financial revenues& . The inventor(s) should be financially rewarded (financial reward is a strong incentive) Many organizations have a : Royalty sharing policyT}7]*7$ Royalties sharing,Subtract Patent cost + Subtract administrative cost Beneficiaries : Inventor for personal use Inventor s laboratory For R&D University or RDI for R&DqdqdqdqKRqd R Royalties sharing : Stanford U.  Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting protects an idea having some potential for applications BUT Patenting itself does not generates revenue Few patents from public R&D do reach the market and generate income lCqqpqC(qPatenting and licensingHaving a patent is& & USELESS ! Unless it is successfully licensed AND& it does generate financial revenuesdw   $%Ex.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labs 1997: Strong incentives to patent A large increase in Nb. of Patents It almost doubled within 10 years BUT No increase in royalties revenues Royalties revenues are almost constant Approximately 150M /year $qdZEdZqdZqdZ"qdZ@dZZZ$E   ("@ Patenting and LicensingHow to generate revenues from a patent ? To create a start up To license the invention to an industrialist + To sue counterfeitersv)Cqdidqdl      !"#$%&'()*Exclusive license ?HExclusive Or Non exclusive An important question (Licensing Know how)  qqqq,q  $ L       DRoyalties, Royalties, Royalties& .!##(Learned from experience : During the negotiation of a licensing agreement the most discussed topic is : the level of Royalties. This is only one of the issues& and it may not be the most important one ! Also learned from experience : Making money from licensing takes time Very successful licenses are not very numerous &ZqdZ"ZVZZZ  f J  V         An example : The French C.N.R.S.(!((FThe French basic research institute : 25000 employees 12000 Scientists 3000 M annual budget More than 1200 patents More than 500 Licenses 47.5 M Royalties (2003)H&~qd&w  Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S. Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.$An example : American U.A slow learning process 10 years before the first significant revenues were collected Today IPR is a revenue center for many U. qdqdqdqd  #A slow learning process Conclusion p1980 the Baye-Dole Act A radical change in IPR policy Spreading all over the world An irreversible trend ,ii& L Thank you for your attention Gilbert Nicolaon Win.tech@club-internet.frt,$($              $(  r  S P   r  S ԑ   H  0޽h ? f3f3  $(  r  S (P   r  S Н   H  0޽h ? f3f3  @$(  r  S jP  j r  S j  j H  0޽h ? f3f3  P$(  r  S jP  j r  S j ` j H  0޽h ? f3f3r$f "  B&A>( / 00DTimes New RomanH|dv 0|( 0 DArialNew RomanH|dv 0|( 0 " DWingdingsRomanH|dv 0|( 0 0DMonotype Corsiva|dv 0|( 0 B ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` A   !     * <AA@8  uʚ;2Nʚ;g4GdGdv 0pppp@ <4!d!d` 0,4<4dddd` 0,4<4BdBd` 0,40___PPT10 H___PPT9*z* X  P*DD? %e4$Patenting& or not ?0$Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008@%A recent issue For Universities and not for profit organizations protection of Intellectual Property was not an issue until the late 70s 1980 :The Turning Point : The Baye-Dole Act. { |    The turning pointThe Baye-Dole Act (1980) A Major change in I.P.rights in the U.S. Before : No interest from public institutions (Patenting was even a bad point for academic scientists) After : I.P. is a source of revenues X> &$) $(= $$!The turning point : WHY ?Late 70s in the U.S. : The perception of Science is changing Inflation is very high Unemployment is increasing Competitiveness is decreasing ? Zvq q$~66   "A Radical changeBefore : I.P. is owned by U.S. Gvt. After : Univ. can own I.P. rights (Gvt has some preferential rights to license) I.P. becomes a profit center^v/A recent issueU.S. Baye-Bole Act 1980 Europe More recently (90s) A political issue Over regulation (90s) Recent trend all over the world: To make legislations more flexibleqdPqdPqdPeP$Pc #         HGovernments and I.P.R.(f Numerous incentives to encourage researchers to protect (and  exploit ) their R&D results Legal incentives to patent their inventions Financial incentives Assistance to patent r]qUVqdZ V Two Very basic questions(4 Is it patentable ? Is it worth patenting ?>q4qd$4(Is it worth patenting ?Who will exploit the patent ? An industrial licensee A start up created to do it The RDI itself & & Will the owner be able to ? : Technically detect counterfeiters Financially sue counterfeiters Two majorquestions?qdEdqdBdqdqdEB $ Patent writingWho should write the patent ? A patent is a legal document A scientist usually does not have the legal expertise. when a scientist writes a patent it is usually : Too technical Too detailed Too narrow & & A specialist of patent law qd.dd .   F      Patent ownership*Who should own the patent ? Writing, filing, extending abroad, and maintaining a patent is expensive. Few patents generate significant royalties Usually scientists do not have the financial capability to support these costs. The owner is usually a Gvt. Organization BUT& .ZwqdZqdZPqdZZ*ZZ( K + P)  ,Patent ownershipz& .If a patent generates financial revenues& . The inventor(s) should be financially rewarded (financial reward is a strong incentive) Many organizations have a : Royalty sharing policyT}7]*7$ Royalties sharing,Subtract Patent cost + Subtract administrative cost Beneficiaries : Inventor for personal use Inventor s laboratory For R&D University or RDI for R&DqdqdqdqKRqd R Royalties sharing : Stanford U.  Royalties sharing : Harvard U.Patenting and licensingPatenting protects an idea having some potential for applications BUT Patenting itself does not generates revenue Few patents from public R&D do reach the market and generate income lCqqpqC(qPatenting and licensingHaving a patent is& & USELESS ! Unless it is successfully licensed AND& it does generate financial revenuesdw   $%Ex.: The French public labsEx.: The French public labs 1997: Strong incentives to patent A large increase in Nb. of Patents It almost doubled within 10 years BUT No increase in royalties revenues Royalties revenues are almost constant Approximately 150M /year $qdZEdZqdZqdZ"qdZ@dZZZ$E   ("@ Patenting and LicensingHow to generate revenues from a patent ? To create a start up To license the invention to an industrialist + To sue counterfeitersv)CqdidqdlExclusive license ?HExclusive Or Non exclusive An important question (Licensing Know how)  qqqq,q  $ L       DRoyalties, Royalties, Royalties& .!##(Learned from experience : During the negotiation of a licensing agreement the most discussed topic is : the level of Royalties. This is only one of the issues& and it may not be the most important one ! Also learned from experience : Making money from licensing takes time Very successful licenses are not very numerous &ZqdZ"ZVZZZ  f J  V         An example : The French C.N.R.S.(!((FThe French basic research institute : 25000 employees 12000 Scientists 3000 M annual budget More than 1200 patents More than 500 Licenses 47.5 M Royalties (2003)H&~qd&w  Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S. Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.$An example : American U.A slow learning process 10 years before the first significant revenues were collected Today IPR is a revenue center for many U. qdqdqdqd  #A slow learning process Conclusion p1980 the Baye-Dole Act A radical change in IPR policy Spreading all over the world An irreversible trend ,ii& L Thank you for your attention Gilbert Nicolaon Win.tech@club-internet.frt,$($            r  &ARoot EntrydO)@`Current UserDSummaryInformation(l8PowerPoint Document(      !"#$%&'()*/ mple : The French C.N.R.S.Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.Royalties 2003 C.N.R.S.An example : American U.A slow learning process ConclusionPrsentation PowerPoint Polices utilisesModle de conceptionTitres des diapositives$_ Overwhelmed Overwhelmed