CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Financial Conflict of Interest July 2012 rev
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate May 8, To be voted on.
1 UMass Dartmouth Conflicts of Interest Policies UMass Dartmouth Liz Rodriguez February 17, 2011.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
Air Force Materiel Command I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Developing, Fielding, and Sustaining America’s Aerospace Force INTELLECTUAL.
Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Ron Huss, Ph.D., Associate Vice President of Research and Technology Transfer Michael Brignati, Ph.D., J.D.,
AU SCHOLARSHIP INCENTIVE POLICY Faculty Research Committee Presented by Bruce Smith, Chair.
History 2002 – Director of research and sponsored program develops IP policy Fall 2002 – Referral to review the policy February 2003 – Faculty affairs.
Introduction to Intellectual Property using the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) To talk about intellectual property in government contracting, we.
UNIFORM GUIDANCE OVERVIEW. OMB Circulars Before and After A-21 Cost principles for Educational Institutions A-21 Cost principles for Educational Institutions.
Intellectual Property: Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) Director, Office of Intellectual Property.
B. Proposed Revisions to UT HOP 3.16 Threatened Faculty Retrenchment (D )— Janet Staiger (professor, radio- television-film and committee chair).
Institutional Memberships November Institutional Memberships New Operational Guideline: Memberships Paid by University Funds can be found at
Management of Intellectual Property at Iowa State University Contributing to Economic Development Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating.
1 May 2007 Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: l Show slides #1 through #5 of.
Overview OTL Mission Inventor Responsibility Stanford Royalty Sharing Disclosure Form Patent View Inventor Agreements Patent.
“Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs takes credit for the work our researchers did in the past and will do in the future.” Anthony J. Principi Secretary.
10/19/2011F. B. Bramwell1.  Thanks to conversations with: ◦ HU Office of General Counsel  John Gloster  Dan McCabe ◦ University of Kentucky Intellectual.
Bases for Academic Senates: What Are We And What Are Our Roles? Craig Rutan, Area D Representative Cynthia Rico, South Representative.
EMPOWERING LOCAL SENATES Kevin Bontenbal, South Representative Stephanie Dumont, Area D Representative.
10/16/2015 Roles and Responsibilities of Principal Investigators/ Program Directors/ Project Directors.
Policies Promoting IP Development in Universities and Higher Institutions of Learning In Africa OGADA Tom WIPO National Workshop on Intellectual Property.
Minimum Qualifications, Equivalence and Faculty Service Areas Bob Cosgrove, Dave Degroot, Wheeler North Standards and Practices Committee Academic Senate.
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES Development of Work-Based Learning Programs Unit 6-- Developing and Maintaining Community and Business Partnerships.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Philip.
WP1: IP charter Geneva – 23rd June 2009 Contribution from CERN.
Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence Carlos Arce, Yolanda Bellisimo, David Morse Standards and Practices Committee Academic Senate for California Community.
Intellectual Property And Data Rights Issues Domestic & Global Perspectives Bayh-Dole act -- rights in data Henry N. Wixon Chief Counsel National Institute.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE Intellectual Property Policies for Universities and Innovation dr. sc. Vlatka Petrović Head, Technology Transfer Office Acting Head,
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD Academic Affairs MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 1995 T0: Department Chairs FROM: Frank Martino Provost & Vice President,
 Reconsideration of the Employee Inventions System in Japan Pre-Meeting AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute January 27, 2015 Orlando Sumiko Kobayashi 1.
Medical Research in Times of Bioterrorism - OHRP’s Perspective Michael A. Carome, M.D. Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs Office for Human Research.
Review of Research-Related Agreements Between Academic Institutions and Other Entities. Manoja Ratnayake Lecamwasam, PhD Intellectual Property and Innovation.
Intellectual Property And Data Rights Issues Domestic & Global Perspectives Bayh-Dole act -- rights in data Henry N. Wixon Chief Counsel National Institute.
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
APPRAISAL OF THE HEADTEACHER GOVERNORS’ BRIEFING.
Technology Transfer Office
California Community Colleges Classified Senate
FY2007 Billing Rate Proposal Preparation (Part I)
Designing Effective Accommodation Plans in Clinical Placement & Internship Settings
Objectives of WHO's collaboration with NGOs
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Evaluation of Tenure-Accruing Faculty
Minimum Qualifications and Equivalence
2017 Workshop Tenure and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview
Technology Commercialization Office
National Contact Points (NCP) Training
Internal and Governmental Financial Auditing and Operational Auditing
UW Conflict of Interest Program Manager Office of Research Policy
UCR PRO Reviewer Placemat
The Tenure Process at Babson College: The Fourth-Year Review
Considerations in Engineering
Elizabeth Lord Vice Provost for Academic Personnel
Spencer County Public Schools Responsible Use Policy for Technology and Related Devices Spencer County Public Schools has access to and use of the Internet.
Agreements OSR Symposium
Review of Interim Policy Regarding Appointment of Principal Investigators FA
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) IN FP7
WHAT TO EXPECT: A CROWN CORPORATION’S GUIDE TO A SPECIAL EXAMINATION
Roles and Responsibilities
Faculty Leadership Institute, June 17, 2017, Sacramento Sheraton
PAc-28 Educational Leave of Absence
State support for creative arts and organizations of art creators in Lithuania. Presentation of the system of state pensions for artists and the program.
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Export Controls – Export Provisions in Research Agreements
Overview of Academic Staff Title Change Process
Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development
Presentation transcript:

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD Approved by the Senate: 05/30/95 Approved by the President : 09/01/95 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD DESIGNATION CODE: 94-95 CR 1/FAC 7 DATE SUBMITTED: May 18.1995 TO: The Academic Senate FROM: The Committee on Research The Faculty Affairs Committee SUBJECT: CSUH Patent Policy PURPOSE: Action by the Academic Senate ACTION REQUESTED: That the Academic Senate approve the proposed CSUH Patent Policy BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The CSUH Academic Senate approved a Copyright and Patent Policy on June 5, 1990. The policy, however, never received Presidential approval. Then President McCune sent the document to the Chancellor's Office for advise on legal issues, and although several inquiries were made about its status, the campus never received a response. At a meeting of campus Senate Chairs in Long Beach on October 13, 1994, Statewide Senate Chair Harold Goldwhite informed Chair Merris that it would be useless to wait for a response from the Chancellor's legal staff on this issue. He advised that because case law is divided, it is especially important for campuses to have formal policies in place. At its meeting of November 8, 1994, the Executive Committee referred the issue of intellectual property rights to both the Committee on Research and the Faculty Affairs Committee, with the recommendation that a joint subcommittee be formed to revisit this issue. Alan Almquist (Anthropology), Bruce Glasrud (History), and Gary McBride (Accounting & CIS) were appointed to serve on the joint subcommittee. The subcommittee prepared two separate policies, a CSUH Patent Policy (94-95 CR1 /FAC 7) and a CSUH Copyright Policy (94-95 CR2/FAC 8). Both policies were approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee on May 17 and by the Committee on Research on May 18, 1995.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD PATENT POLICY California State University. Hayward is dedicated to teaching, research, service, and the transfer of knowledge to the public. Personnel at the university recognize as two of their major objectives the production of new knowledge and the dissemination of both old and new knowledge. Inherent in these objectives is the need to encourage the development of new and useful devices and processes. Such activities promote the general welfare of the public at large, provide additional educational opportunities for students, contribute to the professional development of the individual staff members involved, and enhance the reputation of the university. Inventions often come about because of activities of the university's faculty, staff, or other employees who have been aided wholly or in part through use of facilities of the university. It becomes significant, therefore, to ensure the utilization of such inventions for the public good and to expedite their development and marketing. The rights and privileges, as well as the incentive, of the inventors must be preserved so that their abilities and those of other employees of the university may be further encouraged and stimulated. California State University, Hayward establishes the following policy with respect to inventions and their subsequent potential patentability and marketability. This policy applies to all CSUH employees and to students who may produce inventions as a result of projects completed as course assignments or master's theses or any activity where university facilities are used or faculty guidance is received. Determination of Patentability A patent is a grant issued by the United States Government giving an inventor the right to exclude all others from making, using, or selling the invention within the United States, its territories and possessions, for a period of 17 years. When a patent application is filed, the U.S. Patent 1

International variation of patentability regulations. Office reviews it to ascertain if the invention is new, useful, and nonobvious, and, if appropriate, grants a patent--usually two to five years later. Not all patents are valuable or insusceptible to challenge. Not all inventions are patentable. Questions relating to patentability are often complex and usually require professional assistance: General criteria for patentability. An important criterion of patentability is that an invention must not be obvious to a worker with ordinary skill in that particular field. It also must not have been publicly known or used by others in this country or patented or described in a printed publication anywhere prior to the date of invention. Loss of patentability. Inventions that initially are patentable may become unpatentable for a variety of reasons. An invention becomes unpatentable in the U.S. unless a formal application is filed with the U.S. Patent Office within 12 months of disclosure in a publication or of any other action which results in the details of the invention becoming generally available. Circumstantial impairment of patentability. Many other circumstances may impair patentability, such as lack of "diligence." For example, unless there is a record of continuous activity in attempting to complete and perfect an invention, it may be determined that the invention has been abandoned by the initial inventor, and priority given to a later inventor who showed "due diligence." International variation of patentability regulations. Regulations covering the patentability of inventions and application filing procedures vary considerably from country to country and are subject to change. It is important to note that an invention is unpatentable in most foreign countries unless a patent application is filed before any verbal or written publication occurs. Ownership The ownership of patent rights varies depending upon the circumstances 2

Under no circumstances may the sponsor prohibit or interfere with of support and discovery. In general, all rights in the invention shall remain with the university* except as specified below: University research. All discoveries must be assigned by the inventor to CSUH unless it is clearly demonstrated that university facilities were not used. When a discovery has been made which might be patentable, an invention disclosure describing the invention and including other related facts should be prepared and forwarded to the office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA). An invention disclosure is a document which provides information about what was invented, the inventor, circumstances leading to the discovery, and facts concerning subsequent activities. It provides the basis for determination of patentability. Copies of the invention disclosure can be obtained from the office of the VPAA or the CSUH Foundation. If the university chooses not to file a patent application within a year, then complete ownership rights to the invention revert to the inventor. Sponsored research. Sponsored project agreements (including but not limited to those projects sponsored by the federal government, state government, private foundations, and private industries) often contain provisions with respect to patents and licensing. In the majority of cases, these agreements will stipulate that any inventions occurring during the course of the agreement will become the property of the inventor and California State University, Hayward. However, under special circumstances the sponsored agreement may be revised to waive the university's patent rights after negotiation between the Sponsor, the VPAA, and the Principal Investigator. Under no circumstances may the sponsor prohibit or interfere with * The greater effort needed to gain patents and the lack of a publishing industry equivalent in the patent world explains some of the copyright/patent practice differentiation. The large bureaucracy of the institution works for the faculty member in securing the patent rights, claims ownership to maintain appropriate controls, legal safeguards, and ability to compensate direct institutional costs and then generously remunerates the inventor to motivate future efforts. 3

Identifying the Inventors the university's or inventor's rights to publish research results regarding project inventions. The university may agree to a review of proprietary information by the sponsor prior to publication of such information or to a limited waiting period before publication. Whenever there are disputes between the university and the creator regarding patents, or otherwise as needed, the office of the Provost shall convene a Patent Advisory Committee consisting of at least one school dean, and two members of the faculty chosen by the Committee on Research; advice on legal issues shall be obtained from university counsel. Identifying the Inventors Only persons who made an inventive contribution to the subject matter claimed in the patent application may be named as inventors in the application. Persons who have made other contributions such as gathering essential data or constructing a practical embodiment of an invention, are not inventors--unless they make an inventive contribution. Similarly, a project supervisor is not entitled to inventor status simply because of her or his supervisory role; an inventive contribution is the singular criterion. The determination of who has made an inventive contribution may be difficult when several researchers and students have been involved in the project. It can be fatal to an otherwise successful patent application if the name of a legitimate co-inventor is omitted from the application and competing applications are filed by different inventors. Therefore, it is important to clarify inventorship before the patent application is submitted to the U.S. Patent Office. The inventor's status shall be established in writing before an invention disclosure is submitted to the VPAA. Implementation In the implementation of its policies, the university and the inventor may choose to pursue the invention's patentability and, if favorable, a patent for the invention, by following any of the following courses: 1. To develop and manage its patent rights program through an independent patent assistance organization so as to secure competent evaluation of inventions or discoveries, expeditious filing 4

To develop and manage independently its own patent rights program; or of applications for patents and aggressive licensing and administration of patents; To develop and manage its patent rights program through an affiliated auxiliary corporation or other nonprofit organizations established for this program; To develop and manage independently its own patent rights program; or (in the event that the university chooses none of the above) To release the invention to which the university has title or an interest to the inventor for management and development as a private venture after the execution of an agreement providing for the division of royalty income produced. Division of Proceeds In some instances, the university, the inventor, and/or a third party may have prepared a contract or agreement which provided for the division of proceeds. If no prior contract or agreement was prepared between the inventor and the university, all costs associated with prosecuting the patent and marketing the invention are paid by the university or by a corporation contracted to prosecute patent applications. After reimbursement for all such associated costs, the balance of the royalties resulting from an invention shall be divided as follows: 60% to the inventor(s), 20% to the inventor's department, and 20% to the university. There are no restrictions on the use of the inventor's share of the distribution. The university and the department shares, however, must be used to further promote research and faculty development at California State University, Hayward. 5