Once an invention is disclosed, the path to commercialization begins. Critical assessments then determine whether the technology has a market, a market need, and can be patented or otherwise IP-protected, and down the road it goes…

In some cases those assessments return with too many negatives — there may be too little interest among licensees or investors, difficulty in scaling up, competition and regulatory risks, and many other challenges that can be too difficult to overcome despite the TTO’s best efforts.

Rather than having the case files simply gather dust, the intellectual property can be — and in many cases should be — released back to the inventor. But that also has its challenges. For one, you must be very clear on restrictions and rights when doing so because there are many players and factors to consider. There’s also the valuable relationship with the inventor, which should be preserved and even strengthened. A delicate touch is necessary to communicate why the IP is being released, what led to the decision, and what the rights of the university, funding sources, and faculty are in relation to the innovation.

To address these issues, Tech Transfer Central’s Distance Learning Division has teamed with Magdalena K. Morgan, PhD, Director of Licensing at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Innovation Gateway, for this insightful distance learning program: Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What?, scheduled for this Thursday, January 13, 2022. 

For complete program details or to register, click here.  

Also coming soon:

• Direct Billing for Licensee Patent Expenses: Save Time and Gain Efficiency for your TTO| Thursday, January 27, 2022

Once an invention is disclosed, the path to commercialization begins. Critical assessments then determine whether the technology has a market, a market need, and can be patented or otherwise IP-protected, and down the road it goes…

In some cases those assessments return with too many negatives — there may be too little interest among licensees or investors, difficulty in scaling up, competition and regulatory risks, and many other challenges that can be too difficult to overcome despite the TTO’s best efforts.

Rather than having the case files simply gather dust, the intellectual property can be — and in many cases should be — released back to the inventor. But that also has its challenges. For one, you must be very clear on restrictions and rights when doing so because there are many players and factors to consider. There’s also the valuable relationship with the inventor, which should be preserved and even strengthened. A delicate touch is necessary to communicate why the IP is being released, what led to the decision, and what the rights of the university, funding sources, and faculty are in relation to the innovation.

To address these issues, Tech Transfer Central’s Distance Learning Division has teamed with Magdalena K. Morgan, PhD, Director of Licensing at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Innovation Gateway, for this insightful distance learning program: Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What?, scheduled for January 13, 2022. 

For complete program details or to register, click here.  

Also coming soon:

• Direct Billing for Licensee Patent Expenses: Save Time and Gain Efficiency for your TTO| Thursday, January 27, 2022

Industry’s reliance on university collaborations for R&D is no longer just a trend — it has become more like a seismic shift. Innovation-starved corporations are eagerly seeking out university partners, but only those universities that have embraced this shift and prepared their campuses for a new level of integrated industry engagement will reap the benefits.

As part of its mission to support holistic industry engagement and assist universities in attracting more corporate partners, University-Industry Engagement Advisor has produced a distance learning collection featuring four leading universities that have used innovative strategies and proven programs to achieve robust relationships with corporate partners. Kansas State University, Brown University, the University of Georgia, and the University at Buffalo are prime examples of how to foster welcoming and comprehensive industry engagement initiatives that result in research funding, job creation, philanthropic funding, talent pipeline development, and economic development.

Effective Models of University-Industry Engagement: Case Studies in Success features the details behind each of these programs in four in-depth presentations. The collection comes complete with the original program materials and includes on-demand video as well as transcripts — so you can listen and share them with your entire staff at your convenience.

For complete details on this valuable collection, click here.

As most tech transfer leaders can attest, when it comes to TTO metrics university administrators are often looking for a bottom-line return or other hard numbers reflecting year-to-year trends patents, licenses, revenues, and start-ups.

These are certainly important, but the singular focus on monetary metrics risks losing focus on many of the factors that underlie those more tangible results. After all, these numbers don’t come out of thin air, but are built through a host of collaborative platforms and initiatives – and the surrounding culture — that nurture the commercialization outcomes getting so much attention from administrators.

The way these programs and cultural factors impact the bottom line is difficult to quantify, and their contributions often get lost in the shuffle. But one office that measures and showcases these non-monetary metrics is UNeMed, University of Nebraska Medical Center’s TTO. They’ve emphasized these functions as part of their collaborative culture and tied them to specific financial results. And they’re using these metrics to show administrators and other stakeholders a more complete picture of the TTO’s impact.  

To help you learn from their experience and successes, Tech Transfer Central has teamed up with UNeMed’s Michael Dixon, PhD, President & CEO, and Joe Runge, Business Development Manager, to present this detailed, strategy-filled webinar: Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture, scheduled for December 16th. For complete program details or to register, click here.

Also coming soon:

• Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What? | Thursday, January 13, 2022

Landing an industry research partnership is no easy task and can take years to complete, but in many cases the “last mile” — when contracts are negotiated and drafted — is the toughest. It’s also the point at which the long-term value you hope to create with your corporate partner can either be cemented or put in jeopardy. The terms you agree on can set the stage for an incredibly productive and long-lasting relationship, but without proper alignment and careful drafting they can also set the deal up for confusion, conflict and failure.

That’s why we’ve created Drafting and Negotiating Industry-Sponsored Research Agreements, a four-program distance learning collection that’s filled with best practices, expert guidance, and key strategies that will ensure your industry partnership agreements are built to last.

These programs cover some of the most critical and trickiest issues you’ll face, including master research agreements, IP rights, preferential rights, and conflicts of interest – four outstanding

sessions that you can share with staff and keep for future education and training. Here’s what’s included:

• Session 1: Drafting and Negotiating Master Research Agreements
• Session 2: Drafting and Negotiating IP Rights in Sponsored Research Agreements
• Session 3: Drafting and Negotiating Preferential Rights in University IP Licenses and Sponsored Research Agreements
• Session 4: Preserving Sponsored Research Integrity: Fortifying Contractual Language and University Policy to Prevent Bias and COI

For complete details on the collection, click here.

Once an invention is disclosed, the path to commercialization begins. Critical assessments then determine whether the technology has a market, a market need, and can be patented or otherwise IP-protected, and down the road it goes…

In some cases those assessments return with too many negatives — there may be too little interest among licensees or investors, difficulty in scaling up, competition and regulatory risks, and many other challenges that can be too difficult to overcome despite the TTO’s best efforts.

Rather than having the case files simply gather dust, the intellectual property can be — and in many cases should be — released back to the inventor. But that also has its challenges. For one, you must be very clear on restrictions and rights when doing so because there are many players and factors to consider. There’s also the valuable relationship with the inventor, which should be preserved and even strengthened. A delicate touch is necessary to communicate why the IP is being released, what led to the decision, and what the rights of the university, funding sources, and faculty are in relation to the innovation.

To address these issues, Tech Transfer Central’s Distance Learning Division has teamed with Magdalena K. Morgan, PhD, Director of Licensing at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Innovation Gateway, for this insightful distance learning program: Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What?, schedule for January 13, 2022. 

For complete program details or to register, click here.  

Also coming soon:

• Satisfying Written Description and Enablement (Section 112a) Requirements: From Software to Gene Sequences | Thursday, December 9, 2021
• Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture | Thursday, December 16, 2021

Too many TTOs have tunnel vision when it comes to metrics, seeing only licenses, revenues, patents, start-ups and other “hard” measures as important to track. These are certainly important, but the singular focus on monetary metrics risks losing focus on many of the factors that underlie those more tangible results.

After all, these numbers don’t come out of thin air, but are built through a host of collaborative platforms and initiatives — and the surrounding culture — that nurture the commercialization outcomes getting so much attention from administrators.

The way these programs and cultural factors impact the bottom line is difficult to quantify, and their contributions often get lost in the shuffle. But one office that measures and showcases these non-monetary metrics is UNeMed, University of Nebraska Medical Center’s TTO. They’ve emphasized these functions as part of their collaborative culture and tied them to specific financial results.

To help you learn from their experience and successes, Tech Transfer Central has teamed up with UNeMed’s Michael Dixon, PhD, President & CEO, and Joe Runge, Business Development Manager, to present this detailed, strategy-filled webinar: Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture, schedule for December 16th. For complete program details or to register, click here.

Also coming soon:

• Satisfying Written Description and Enablement (Section 112a) Requirements: From Software to Gene Sequences | Thursday, December 9, 2021
• Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What? | Thursday, January 13, 2022

Once an invention is disclosed, the path to commercialization begins. Critical assessments then determine whether the technology has a market, a market need, and can be patented or otherwise IP-protected, and down the road it goes…

In some cases those assessments return with too many negatives, and in other cases the innovation stalls as it hits bumps in the road. There may be too little interest among licensees or investors, difficulty in scaling up, competition and regulatory risks, and many other challenges that can be too difficult to overcome despite the TTO’s best efforts.

Rather than having the case files simply gather dust, the intellectual property can be — and in many cases should be — released back to the inventor. But that also has its challenges. For one, you must be very clear on restrictions and rights when doing so because there are many players and factors to consider. There’s also the valuable relationship with the inventor, which should be preserved and even strengthened. A delicate touch is necessary to communicate why the IP is being released, what led to the decision, and what the rights of the university, funding sources, and faculty are in relation to the innovation.

To address these issues, Tech Transfer Central’s Distance Learning Division has teamed with Magdalena K. Morgan, PhD, Director of Licensing at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Innovation Gateway, for this insightful distance learning program: Returning Intellectual Property to the Inventor: How, Why, When…Then What?, schedule for January 13, 2022. 

For complete program details or to register, click here.  

Also coming soon:

• SPACs and University Start-ups: Understanding and Assessing the Pros and Cons | Tuesday, November 30, 2021
• Satisfying Written Description and Enablement (Section 112a) Requirements: From Software to Gene Sequences | Thursday, December 9, 2021
• Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture | Thursday, December 16, 2021

Too many TTOs have tunnel vision when it comes to metrics, seeing only licenses, revenues, patents, start-ups and other “hard” measures as important to track. These are certainly important, but the singular focus on monetary metrics risks losing focus on many of the factors that underlie those more tangible results.

After all, these numbers don’t come out of thin air, but are built through a host of collaborative platforms and initiatives — and the surrounding culture — that nurture the commercialization outcomes getting so much attention from administrators.

The way these programs and cultural factors impact the bottom line is difficult to quantify, and their contributions often get lost in the shuffle. But one office that measures and showcases these non-monetary metrics is UNeMed, University of Nebraska Medical Center’s TTO. They’ve emphasized these functions as part of their collaborative culture and tied them to specific financial results.  

To help you learn from their experience and successes, Tech Transfer Central has teamed up with UNeMed President and CEO Michael Dixon, PhD, and Joe Runge, Business Development Manager, to present this detailed, strategy-filled webinar: Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture, scheduled for December 16, 2021. For complete program details and to register, click here.

Also coming soon:

• Marketing University Innovations: Strategies to Revitalize and Expand a High-Touch, Low-Tech Approach that Gets Results| Wednesday, November 17, 2021
• SPACs and University Start-ups: Understanding and Assessing the Pros and Cons| Tuesday, November 30, 2021
• Satisfying Written Description and Enablement (Section 112a) Requirements: From Software to Gene Sequences| Thursday, December 9, 2021

When it comes to matters of regulatory compliance in research, there is no room for error. Fortunately, strong education and airtight monitoring systems can prevent the damaging consequences of non-compliance that can result in a black mark on your university’s reputation – as well as its future research funding.

That’s why we’ve created the Best Practices in University Research and Tech Transfer Compliance distance learning collection. The collection consists of three distance learning programs, complete with all original program materials, filled with expert compliance guidance related to the Bayh-Dole Act, reporting guidelines for iEdison, and SBIR/STTR funding regulations.

You’ll receive the recorded programs as both on-demand video and transcript, so you can listen and share them with staff at your convenience in whatever format you choose. It’s a great addition to your training library you can use over and over again.

The three programs included are:

• Bayh-Dole Compliance Check-up: Effectively Address the Challenge of Complacency
• Maintaining Compliance with iEdison: A Practical Guide for Universities
• Avoid SBIR/STTR Fraud and Abuse Allegations in University Research

For complete details, click here.

It has become increasingly clear that technology and research marketing strategies must change to match new ways of working and new ways of communicating. However, in the research commercialization world personal networks and high-touch contact still matter, and chasing the latest technology-driven marketing tools and strategies often just nibbles at the margins. 

The National Cancer Institute’s Invention Development & Marketing Unit (IDMU), which sits within the NCI’s Technology Transfer Center (TTC), is a unique unit with a singular focus: marketing. IDMU is making great strides using an active person-to-person approach to create awareness of technology licensing and collaboration opportunities, and it is expanding that approach by targeting non-traditional entities that often don’t know these opportunities exist.

To help you learn from and tap into their successes, Tech Transfer Central has enlisted Joseph M. Conrad, JD, PhD, Senior Technology Transfer Manager at the National Cancer Institute, to present this detailed, strategy-filled webinar: Marketing University Innovations: Strategies to Revitalize and Expand a High-Touch, Low-Tech Approach that Gets Results, scheduled for next Wednesday, November 17. For complete details and to register, click here.

Also coming soon:

• SPACs and University Start-ups: Understanding and Assessing the Pros and Cons | Tuesday, November 30, 2021
• Satisfying Written Description and Enablement (Section 112a) Requirements: From Software to Gene Sequences | Thursday, December 9, 2021
• Non-Monetary Metrics that Every TTO Should be Tracking: Measuring Your Collaborative Culture | Thursday, December 16, 2021

Universities worldwide are being called upon like never before to promote innovation, entrepreneurship and the commercialization of research — and to demonstrate the results of their efforts in terms of economic impact. Jobs and regional economic growth have become some of the new metrics for tech transfer and industry engagement offices.

But large scale economic development initiatives come with equally large challenges, and that’s why Tech Transfer Central’s Distance Learning Division has compiled best practice advice from six top university-driven economic development efforts in the practical collection Best Practices for Bolstering Economic Development and Building Your University’s Innovation Ecosystem.

In this outstanding distance learning resource, you get these four programs plus more than 50 pages of program materials:

• Session 1: Creating an Accelerator Furnace for University Technology: Arizona State’s Success Story
• Session 2: How to Build and Nurture an Innovation District
• Session 3: Start-Up Accelerator Best Practices: Speed the Launch of Sustainable Businesses
• Session 4: Transform Your TTO Into an Economic Development Engine

Learn how leading universities have made big strides in boosting their regional economies, building out their innovation ecosystems, and getting more research out of the lab and into the marketplace. You get unlimited access for you, your staff and faculty. Click here for complete program and faculty details or to order.