Stanford University Patent And Copyright Agreement

The license`s revenue participation agreement is based on net revenue, which includes a 30% royalty for the financing of Isis. On the basis of this network, the breakdown is as follows: such a provision would be particularly relevant for the creation of MOOCs, where the use of university resources – in particular staff support – tends to be more important. It could be seen, however, that universities generally do not require an actual accounting of the resources used. Patenting is an essential activity that, if necessary, is managed by external patent attorneys. The main questions that arise here are whether the invention can be granted as material property of the research, whether it can be granted as copyright, whether it is capable of being patentable and enforceable, and whether the invention has already been made public. This can be very attractive, as this six-month period often represents a very significant competitive advantage. The university owns all intellectual property (including student property), but will not be entitled to copyright ownership, with the exception of copyright in databases and software of commercial value. Ironically, most academic inventions attract the attention of strategic people in the industry through existing contacts with faculty inventors. When Thursby and his colleagues asked technology transfer officials to describe the procedures for commercializing scientific work, the role of the faculty`s inventors was of utmost importance. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said that the contacts of faculty inventors were useful for the commercialization of academic technologies to industry.

“It is also likely,” the survey authors noted, “that some of the 75 percent of technology transfer managers who listed personal contacts as important, referred to faculty personal contacts.” A companion survey of companies that were licensing university technologies revealed similar results: 46% of respondents in the sector said that personal contact between their research and development members and university faculty members was extremely important in identifying new licensing technologies20. that 56 percent of top leads are for the introduction of university degrees. In the 1,100 licenses studied from faculty members,21 the technology transfer offices, these surveys suggest, could not function effectively without the help of faculty inventors, thanks to their industrial contacts and their in-depth knowledge of invention technologies and applications. According to the authors of the survey on those responsible for technology transfer, “follows the importance of faculty in the search for licensees . . . of the general early stage of university technologies, because for such technologies, it is the faculty that is best able to articulate the value and nature of these technologies. `2. The rights of the university referred to in paragraph 1 in respect of a given intellectual property may be abandoned or modified by written agreement with the data subject.

. . .