1. Possible outcome of the TTN effort for RD51 MPGD Patent Pool RD51 Meeting – 25 th Nov 2009

2. The problem 25th November 2009B. Denis2 GEM patent CAT patent Licensee 1 2 CERN CNRS depends on

3. The solution 25th November 2009B. Denis3 GEM patent CAT patent Licensee CERN CNRS depends on Agreement allowing CERN to license CAT together with GEM also covering a revenue sharing scheme

4. Another problem 25th November 2009B. Denis4 µbulk patent application CERN / CEA depends on µmega patents CEA CAT patent CNRS depends on ?

5. In the future … 25th November 2009B. Denis5 P1 P2 P3 P4 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 L1 L2 L3 L4

6. Possible solution 25th November 2009B. Denis6 P1 P2 P3 P4 L1 L2 L3 L4 Patent pool

7. Potential benefits  “One-stop licensing” for industry  Reduced risk of IP litigation for licensees  Reduced licensing transaction costs  The IP coming from the research community is better identified and more visible  The pool may also cover related technical know-how and unpatented technologies 25th November 2009B. Denis7

8. Difficulties  The elaboration and negotiation of a patent pool consortium agreement maybe be difficult and time consuming  Need to agree on the relative value of the technologies and on a fair revenue sharing scheme 25th November 2009B. Denis8

9. Steps  Initial meeting between CEA/CNRS/CERN in September 2009.  Identification of essential projects, technologies and patents as well as possible industrial applications in the framework of the TTN pilot project.  Get expert advise.  Assess the feasibility of such a patent pool.  First agreement to be signed by the 3 initiators.  Possibility for other institutes to joint. 25th November 2009B. Denis9