Search
advanced search
search help
ipHandbook Blog
Your source for expert commentary on IP management issues.
Go to the blog
In ipHandbook Forums
See recent topics
About
Editor-in-Chief, Anatole Krattiger
Editorial Board
Concept Foundation
PIPRA
Fiocruz, Brazil
bioDevelopments- Institute
|
Why This Topic Is Important
This section addresses the crucial step of determining what, if anything, the commercial use and value of
a piece of IP-protected technology or genetics might be. The primary lessons of this section are that such
value is highly uncertain and difficult to assess. Yet, an understanding of the issues and methods involved
provides central insight into the nature of the problem of transferring technology from a scientific
laboratory to the market.
Key Implications and Best Practices: Section 9
Given that IP management is heavily context specific, these Key Implications and Best Practices are intended as starting points to be adapted to specific needs and circumstances.
- Determining how to translate an invention into an innovation that makes a difference in people’s lives (economically or socially or both) is one of the principal reasons technology transfer offices exist.
- It can be challenging to negotiate licensing agreements that are fair to everyone and conducive to “moving” inventions to innovations. It is far better generally to make an imperfect deal than no deal at all. People do not benefit until technology is developed and distributed.
- Institutions need to assess whether or not patenting is the most effective way to ensure high economic and/or humanitarian impact of their technologies.
- A public institution’s decision with regard to patenting should depend on (1) whether such patenting would be socially responsible, (2) whether there is public interest in the technology, and (3) whether patenting would help the local economy (where applicable).
- Putting a “price tag” on an invention early on is difficult, if not impossible. Fortunately, the full value of an invention need not be determined when the invention is transferred or licensed, as value can be realized later through the use of running royalties, fixed payments, common stock (equity), R&D funding, lab equipment, consulting services, grant backs, or access to other proprietary resources. For public sector organizations, in-kind contributions may sometimes be particularly appealing.
- Evaluating a new technology is difficult and the evaluation will necessarily be imprecise. It is better to encourage a TTO to make deals creatively and expeditiously, without the imposition of minimum royalties and other restrictive terms. The important thing is to find a price that is acceptable to both parties and that encourages the licensee to invest in the development of the technology.
- Senior management should be supportive of the overall deal making of its technology transfer officers rather than be critical of individual deals. Naturally, TTO officers need to follow procedures, apply policies, and be well trained and experienced in deal making.
- Putting pressure on TTO officers to break even or to generate revenues can constitute a perverse incentive, almost forcing a TTO to go with up-front payments. This may drain a startup of critical financial resources and thus reduce the level of investment that is allocated to making the invention work.
- Probabilistic modeling software can aid pricing efforts. The most effective software is expensive and may not be a good investment if fewer than 100 deals are made per year. Quite often the best approach is to get as many licenses as possible completed in a short period of time, even if an individual license does not provide the maximum possible income. The more licenses, the higher the probability that one, or a few, will generate returns.
Abstract
Evaluating Inventions from Research Institutions
by Lita Nelsen
Abstract:
The patenting strategies of research institutions are based on three key decisions. The first involves whether or not to file a patent. This decision must be based on sound information about the market, the uniqueness and usefulness of the invention and/or technology, the likelihood of being able to obtain patent protection, factors related to the inventor, and the potentially paradoxical impact of patenting on the institution’s social and humanitarian responsibilities. The second decision involves whether to market the invention to established companies or to develop a spinout business. The third involves how much to charge for a license. Related to all of these decisions is the key question of whether patenting is the most effective route to global access. Negotiating licensing agreements that are fair to the research institution, the private company, and developing countries can be challenging because research institutions may have difficulty determining fair market values. In addition to outlining a process for obtaining these values, this chapter offers some rough numbers for guidance. In general, the author concludes that it is far better to conclude a deal than to wait for the best agreement while fighting interminably for perfect financial terms.
Abstract
Pricing the Intellectual Property of Early-Stage Technologies: A Primer of Basic Valuation Tools and Considerations
by Richard Razgaitis
Abstract:
This chapter introduces technology managers to certain key issues and to six methods of valuation and pricing. The value of a technology to a buyer (licensee) depends upon how it is to be commercially employed, taking into account the cost of development, the time the technology takes to generate returns, the extent of such financial returns, and the risk involved in the process. At the time of a licensing/sale transaction of an early-stage technology many, perhaps all, of such factors need to be assessed and quantified by making judgments about how the future will unfold with respect to the technology being developed. This assessment and forecast assessment are the essence of all pro forma business models. Valuing license rights for early-stage technologies is in this sense no different than making other future business forecasts, though the details may differ because the forecast time horizon may be longer, the uncertainties may be greater as to the market size and profitability, the operating performance of the technology as it will be used in commercial operation may be less well defined, and other factors. The price paid for a technology transferred between parties is the amount of money (present and future) and/or the financial value of noncash assets given in exchange for the transfer of the technology, which can only occur if both the seller (licensor) and buyer (licensee) have by some process reached a common, present understanding of value that makes agreement possible.
Abstract
Technology Valuation: An Introduction
by Robert H. Potter
Abstract:
This chapter explains the basics of the various ways of estimating value of a new technology, focusing on the importance of agreeing on the value before finalizing a technology transfer deal. Indeed, value is simply the negotiated amount arrived at between two parties. Although there are many ways to place a value on a technology, most licensing deals focus on royalty amount, since it spreads the risk between the technology provider and the developer. The percentage assigned to royalty has to be negotiated. Several factors will affect royalty value: level of market demand, the improvement the technology can bring to the final product, whether or not other investments will be needed to develop the final product, and, most importantly, the predicted rate of uptake in the marketplace. Some understanding of these factors, or at least the procedures used to estimate them, will enhance one’s ability to negotiate a deal that will both help bring the technology to market and nurture the relationship between the parties, thus facilitating any future technology transfer deals.
Abstract
Valuation of Bioprospecting Samples: Approaches, Calculations, and Implications for Policy-Makers
by William H. Lesser, Anatole Krattiger
Abstract:
In this chapter, the revenue consequences of varying collection fees and royalties with regard to germplasm prospecting contracts are demonstrated. Principal factors are the uncertainty of finding marketable products and the value of these products. Negotiation factors are finding a good balance between collection (initial) fees as opposed to royalty (delayed) payments. Emphasizing collection fees reduces total payments except when national interest rates are very high. Reducing the risk of failure through in-country screening, including the use of indigenous knowledge, is a potentially valuable activity. Issues for contract negotiators are outlined and the implications for biodiversity conservation discussed. Conceptually, the highest valuation approach, royalties, will most encourage conservation, but as the future is typically heavily discounted, collection payments may get more attention and be most effective. Policy considerations for national governments, nongovernmental organization (NGOs), and development agencies are reviewed and it is concluded that grants/loans and training/equipment for in-country screening should be given a high priority as a potentially viable activity in the long term.
It should be noted that the figures and calculations in this chapter are merely for illustration. The valuation of samples, and by extension a country’s biodiversity, is a negotiation and will depend on many factors, including alternative investment options by a company, alternative technologies that could be used for lead compounds, interest rates, and a range of risk factors, such as the political situation in a given country surrounding the national debate on bioprospecting. The latter point is a key factor: valuation is always a calculation that has important political consequences. Another complicating factor is the need for confidentiality with which a country and company will hold its overall business estimates. Neither a company nor a country will be likely to share their valuation basis purely for negotiation purposes and because neither want to tip off other entities about the opportunity. It is therefore concluded that, from a practical perspective, the proper valuation is the one that (1) provides the country with compensation and other benefits such that it does not feel taken advantage of and can withstand criticism from its constituents and (2) provides the licensee (typically a company) with a reasonable cost of obtaining the crucial raw or semifinished goods it requires as an input to its business.
|
|