FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)

1. FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)

2. 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.

3. 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 %.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. When, who, where ?

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 : • Increase the percentage dedicated to researchers when the generated revenu is low

12. 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%