Toolbox Financial Incentives   Income Distribution Final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Toolbox Financial Incentives Income Distribution Final

on

  • 373 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
373
Views on SlideShare
370
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://87.106.10.192 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Toolbox Financial Incentives   Income Distribution Final Toolbox Financial Incentives Income Distribution Final Presentation Transcript

  • FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
  • Practice in general
      • The income distribution rule is a distribution key of the revenue resulting from technology transfers.
      • In other words, it is a reward given to researchers and laboratories in the case of a technology transfer.
      • It consists in granting all major actors of the University involved in a technology transfer a fair revenue share in order to keep them involved and motivated, if not during the whole lifetime of a technology transfer project, at least during the first critical steps.
      • Moreover, this fair revenue is also supposed to incent all actors to launch and achieve more technology transfer projects.
  • Parts of the Practice
    • Definitions :
      • The gross income is defined as the amount paid to the University for a licence or a know-how:
        • a down payment and/or royalties (if licence or know-how),
        • dividend, (if spin-off)
        • etc.
      • Licence income distribution is done after deducing :
        • the cost of the patent (patent filing, patent agents, consulting, audit, translation)
        • the overheads (either at real cost, or at least a fee from 10 to 25 % depending on the University)
        • NB: Inria does not deduce any overhead from the gross income. However some french universities (with distinct transfer office) can deduce such a fee, between 10 and 15 %.
  • Parts of the Practice
    • Income distribution key in LIEU
      • The net income is distributed among:
        • 1/3 for University
        • 1/3 for the laboratory
        • 1/3 for the inventors
      • Repartition among the inventors is defined by the laboratory director regarding the contribution of each inventor.
  • Parts of the Practice
    • INRIA
      • The net income is distributed :
        • 50% for the inventors
        • 50% for the INRIA (INRIA does not have the “notion” of laboratory)
      • If the 50% for the inventor is superior to the annual salary
        • => amount perceived is reduced by 25%
      • Mutual agreement on the contribution percentage. If conflict, solved by INRIA research centre director
  • Parts of the Practice
      • Are there different steps included?
      • Identify what asset is really transferable
      • Identify who are the “Inventors”, regarding the contributions
      • Signature of the income distribution sheet by all parties involved
      • Update the sheet if the weight of the researchers contribution evolve (At Inria, contributions can be added, others diluted)
      • How does this fit in the organizational structure?
      • The Rule has been progressively adopted (with slight variations) by all the members of the LIEU network. Example: Liège (1999), Mons (2002) …
      • By default, the “3 thirds” rule is applicable. All the parties must agree for any other distribution.
      • The inventors can abandon their “third” to the benefit of the laboratory.
  • When, who, where ? LIEU INRIA Decision and application Rule adopted by the Board ot the University and is registered in the minutes of the meeting. Applied in 1999 in Liège, and in 2002 in Mons Rule adopted by the French government in 1996 and applied at Inria in summer 1997. The « 3000€ » rule is a french law adopted in 2005 Responsible for application The Technology Transfer Office of the university INRIA Department of Transfer Document Income Distribution Sheet Inventorship Declaration Where All the universities of LIEU network (7 locations) All INRIA research centres and in most PROs in France (as CNRS, INRA, INSERM…) and in some universities
  • Pro’s & Cons
      • Pro’s
      • Institutional rule: written in the general rule about IP, protection and valorisation of research results inside the University
      • The rule acts as an incentive towards Researchers and Laboratories
      • Creates a clear and professional framework for TT
      • Favourable to the financial subsistence of the patent management
      • Clarity, equity, no privilege, no individual approach, no exception
      • Cons
      • Laboratory directors must define clearly the “inventors” and the relative weight of their contribution
      • Revenue sharing key could create stress between colleagues
      • Money expectation could generate tension in a team
      • The 50% rule brings some difficulties sometimes to follow the transfer contracts giving revenue specifically when royalties are asked for.
  • Why?
    • Rationale: “ Why was the Practice established?”
      • Basically, TT is not a traditional / prior mission for University / researchers
      • Each case was dealt individually : negotiations, time loss, stress…
      • Lesson from US Universities, European benchmarks, Proton Recommendations
      • Rule adopted:
        • to make TT enter the researchers culture
        • to ensure a fair return in favour of researchers
        • avoid disputes, time losses, useless negotiation
        • create a clear and professional framework for TT
  • Why?
    • Impact:
      • create a clear and professional framework for TT
      • ensure transparency and a fair return to Inventors and Laboratories
      • avoid disputes, negotiations, comparison, stress, competition…
      • act as an incentive and contributes to raise researchers awareness about TT
  • Outcome
    • What happened after the implementation?
      • Rule is no success “in se”
      • Rule acts as a facilitator, contributes to create favourable climate
      • Difficulties for the laboratory Director to determine the inventors and the relative weight of their contribution
    • Plans for the future?
      • A study could be made about researchers satisfaction
      • Possible improvement :
        • I ncrease the percentage dedicated to researchers when the generated revenu is low
  • Lessons Learned
      • Rule exist, but need for a clear communication about it
      • Rule is not sufficient “in se” to ensure motivation: other tools must be deployed
      • Rule could be improved with variable percentage in case of low financial return ( example)
        • Researchers: 50 % if low profitability 33 % if high profitability
        • Laboratory: 25 % 33 %
        • University: 25% 34%
  • Suggested readings
      • Link to Codebook
      • LIEU
      • INRIA
      • Researcher incentive
      • Intellectual property rights
      • Invention
      • Inventor
      • Patent
      • Licence
      • Royalties
      • Know-how