1 / 8

Intellectual Property Sub-Working Group Co-Leads: Mike Acosta, Howard Marotto

Explore government licensing negotiation for data and rights in Additive Manufacturing. Identify gaps, solutions, challenges, and key takeaways from the Intellectual Property Working Group discussion.

caroli
Download Presentation

Intellectual Property Sub-Working Group Co-Leads: Mike Acosta, Howard Marotto

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Business Practices Work Group • Intellectual Property Sub-Working Group • Co-Leads: Mike Acosta, Howard Marotto • Licensing Negotiation Simulation for Data and Rights for Additive Manufacturing by the Government June 18 & 19, 2019

  2. Outline of Simulation Exercise Scenario was reviewed, questions addressed Gov, Alpha and Beta OEM Teams made, assigning real Gov & Industry personnel to each Staged approach for preparation and negotiation, with target subject assigned per stage: Introduction; Defining Data, Rights Services; Warranty & Liability; Consideration: and Finalize & Sign the Deal Group Debrief and prep Outbrief

  3. Intellectual Property Working Group • Objectives: • Simulate negotiation of licensing to the governmentof data and rights for AM • Explore flexibility of OTAs, 3Ps, Special Negotiated Licenses, and other contracting mechanisms in support of same • Identify gaps and opportunities in current IP procedures for licensing data and rights for AM by the government

  4. Intellectual Property Working Group • Actions Completed • Explored two contract vehicles for licensing of IP for AM purposes (3P and OTA) • Identified a number of lessons learned that can be applied to future IP publications • Identified gaps, e.g., yield standards/AM manufacturing criteria (price per part installed) and DIDs • Explored solutions for warranty challenges

  5. Intellectual Property Working Group • Actions Ongoing • Prepare executive summary • Request consideration of a negotiation of with widely different evaluation factors (i.e., strict vs loose), potentially unmanned aviation system for a flight critical component • Consider publishing AMIP Guide for industry and government • Consider role of DCMA in licensing AM

  6. Intellectual Property Working Group • Challenges / Gaps Identified: • Have more acquisition and program professionals in next Simulation • Need to develop common lexicon for AM • Government application of OTAs are too similar to DFARS; not taking advantage of flexibility, defaulting to DFARS • Need template for Specially Negotiated License Rights limited to program use

  7. Intellectual Property Working Group • Key Takeaways: • Gov’t recognition of need to incentivize industry (GPR and Unlimited Data Rights is a disincentive to industry) and limit options/drives up cost • Gov’t cannot ask for “everything, just in case;” Gov’t must better identify its data needs and target rights more narrowly to meet needs • Risk profile for AM approach is different, requires changes to contracting approach, e.g., OEM profit mechanism might no longer be sustainment, but licensing (not AM unique)

  8. IP Working Group Key Takeaways (cont.): • Gained insights into partner’s viewpoint • OEM: Non Recurring Engineering cost recoupment and profit • Gov: State Objectives, not Requirements • Explored +/- of “Pay for Performance,” e.g., tracking • Need for Flexibility and Novel Approaches

More Related