Schedule-at-a-Glance

Schedule-at-a-Glance*

October 3-4 
Raleigh Marriott City Center
Raleigh, North Carolina

Conflicting Events
Attendees of the Eastern Region Meeting will be required, as a condition of their participation, not to host conflicting events. Private events should not conflict with any of AUTM’s educational sessions, special programs, social and themed events, including receptions and meals provided by AUTM. Participants should review the meeting program for potential conflicts before scheduling their events.

*Tentative schedule, program subject to change
 

Thursday, October 3

7 a.m. – 4 p.m.         Registration
8 – 9 a.m.         Continental Breakfast
9 – 10 a.m.         A1: Foundation Agreements: Is It Worth Sharing the Pie?

Recently, foundations are moving away from traditional foundation funding model, where foundations did not expect any “Return on Investment (ROI)”, to an advanced revenue sharing model, where foundations are looking for ROI. This session will discuss the pros, the cons, best practices and success stories.

A2: Plant Intellectual Property

Join us to discuss the recent changes to the PVP process, included in the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, referred to as the Farm Bill 2018, which greatly expands the PVP Act to include asexually reproduced varieties, a new avenue of IP protection that has not previously existed.

This candid discussion will cover the challenges, pitfalls, and advantages of developing robust IP portfolios in agricultural sectors. Learn how licensing negotiations in tech transfer at a company’s inception impact the future of that company.  We will highlight and explain the value of that license to investors and to partners as products are developed.  
10 – 10:30 a.m.       Networking Break
10:30 – 11:30 a.m.    B1: University IP Monetization: Reaping the Benefits While Avoiding the Pitfalls

This session will focus on strategies for monetizing a university’s intellectual property rights. We will discuss the following topics: understanding of the importance of IP monetization, obtaining university support for a monetization campaign, identifying the most valuable assets in a unversity's portfolio, developing an effective monetization strategy, financing the monetization campaign - navigating budgetary constraints, and taking control of the public message.

B2: Release the Kraken - A Case Study of the Triangle Venture Alliance (TVA) in North Carolina's Research Triangle Region

In the past two years the Triangle Venture Alliance (TVA) in North Carolina's Research Triangle Region has collectively attracted 466 members that have deployed $23.8 million in early-stage capital to advance the growth of 47 university-affiliated companies. Three universities - Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State have all set up individual networks to compose the Triangle Venture Alliance (TVA), a multi-university collaboration between the Duke Angel Network (DAN), the Carolina Angel Network (CAN), and the Wolfpack Investor Network (WIN). With funding from many sources including the EDA Regional Innovation Strategies Seed Fund Support (SFS) grant, this session will provide insight as to what it took to create, launch, support, and grow this organization. You will also hear about the legal, political, organizational challenges that the effort has overcome. 
11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.     Industry Forum

Learn what industry representatives from a broad cross-section of fields are seeking from university licensing and collaborative research partnerships. Companies will pitch their wants and needs to the audience at a rapid-fire pace of six to eight minutes each. Participants will gain insights on connecting with the right industry colleagues for licensing and collaborative research opportunities.
12:30 – 1:45 p.m.   Lunch
1:45 – 2:45 p.m.    
 
C1: Future Proofing: Patent Claims Against the Rising Bar of Enablement for Biotech Inventions

This session will provide strategies for "future proofing" patent claims (to the extent possible) against the rising bar of enablement for biotechnology inventions. Currently, when drafting and prosecuting patent applications, applicants are often forced to address the tradeoffs between disclosing improvements or additional embodiments that may not be quite as robustly supported with examples and data as the main inventive subject matter, and the risk of not disclosing these embodiments (e.g., jeopardizing licensee interest, making it more difficult to claim later, etc.). Examples of these and other challenges encountered with enablement issues will be highlighted along with strategies for addressing these types of rejections during prosecution and/or during post-grant review. Additionally, this session will help technology transfer professionals become more familiar with the scope of biotechnology claims that is better able to withstand the rising bar of enablement enforced during patent prosecution and during post-grant review.

C2: Innovate Carolina
2:45 – 3:15 p.m.     Networking Break
3:15 – 3:30 p.m.     AUTM Chair Address

Ken Porter, AUTM Director, welcomes you to Raleigh and shares the Boards vision for AUTM – from advocacy initiatives to increased partnering opportunities and strategic planning.
3:30 – 4:45 p.m.     Plenary - Pitch, Please! Positioning University Start-ups for Success Start-up's

Technology transfer offices are increasingly expected to help position university start-ups for success. But how do we do that? Learn from institutional investors as they provide feedback to three academic entrepreneurs who will pitch their technologies to a panel of venture capitalists, start-up development officers (SDOs), angel investors, and corporate VCs. These academic entrepreneurs will each give a five-minute pitch and receive 10 minutes of investor feedback, helping them understand how to create start-ups for market success. 

The investor panel will provide Q&A for the audience to address common TTO-investor issues around creating, developing and funding university start-ups including licensing IP to the start-up, equity distributions to key players, investor term sheets, key legal requirements, finding start-up management, and common investor pitfalls and funding traps. At the end of this session, technology transfer offices will have a better understanding of key market and investor requirements to move university technologies to market via academic entrepreneurs and their university start-ups.
5 – 7 p.m.         Welcome Reception

Be ready to mix business with pleasure in an open, relaxed vibe at The Stockroom at 230. Socializing face-to-face with colleagues and industry pros has never been more enjoyable. Ready. Set. Mingle!
 

Friday October 4

8 a.m. – 2 p.m.     Registration
8 – 9 a.m.         Continental Breakfast
9 – 10 a.m.  D1: Regulatory and Patent Exclusivities for Life Science Companies: Considerations for Patent Owners Who Commercialize through and Communicate with FDA

Patent applicants and their licensees have several decisions to make in prosecuting their patents but very often there are questions as to when or how IP counsel should work with FDA regulatory counsel to best prepare for the commercial launch of a drug or biologic. Ultimately, stakeholders should focus on cohesion between the overall business strategy and IP realities related to exclusivity which might inform a university licensor of how or why certain business decisions are made by licensees drug product development.
            
D2: Tenure and Promotion Trends: Current Initiatives to Take Commercialization into Account

In late 2015, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) issued a report calling on its member institutions to include technology transfer, innovation, and entrepreneurship accomplishments in the tenure and promotion (T&P) review process, seeing them as "one manifestation of meritorious faculty work." At that time, APLU had identified 40 institutions that considered tech transfer activities in making T&P decisions. Since APLU's report, even more universities - not only public but also private - have included patents, industry-sponsored research, and other related activities into T&P criteria. This session will examine the wide range of initiatives universities have undertaken to include tech transfer in T&P reviews, providing a historical perspective along with the latest trends. This session will discuss policies and techniques used to actually achieve a shift. Institutions with a long history of such policies will share data on their impact. These experiences will be complemented by information on more recent T&P initiatives. You will gain insights on the latest trends and best practices in tech transfer T&P efforts, which will help you establish effective policies and practices at your home institution.    
10 – 10:30 a.m. Networking Break
10:30- 11:30 a.m.  E1: What to Look For in Contingency Fee Arrangements When Deciding to Enforce University Patent Rights

This session will focus on the many different considerations that universities face, when deciding whether to enter into contingency fee arrangements for enforcing their parent rights. More specifically, this session will discuss how litigations funding entities work with law firms and universities, the advantages and disadvantages of working under a contingency fee arrangement, and the decision process that occurs within universities on when to reach out to law firms to seek a contingency fee arrangement. Lastly, this session will examine what makes for an attractive contingency fee case and what is expected out of the university inventors, technology transfer office, and other university stakeholders, when going forward with a contingency fee case.
            
E2: Inventions in the Life Sciences - Is There Anything Left to Patent?

In years since the Supreme Court handed down the Mayo, Myriad and Mayo/Alice rules for patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Statutes, confusion has reigned and expanded in a number of tech areas. The district courts and the Federal Circuit have struggled to delimit which inventions are patent-eligible and which inventions are patent-ineligible laws of nature, natural products and abstract ideas. While the Patent Office has made some progress in its attempts to contain overly broad definitions of "abstract idea", claims to inventions in the life sciences, particularly when attempting to claim diagnostic methods and nature-derived products, remain difficult to obtain.
 
This panel will summarize the history and the latest developments in these areas, which are particularly relevant to the operation of tech transfer offices and university/institutional inventors. This session will discuss possible strategies to obtain meaningful patent protection in these areas and the possibility of legislative fixes in the patent statutes. The panel will comprise WW, a representative of BIO and a university tech transfer specialist in the life sciences area.
11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Plenary: North Carolina Plant Science Initiative

In years since the Supreme Court handed down the Mayo, Myriad and Mayo/Alice rules for patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Statutes, confusion has reigned and expanded in a number of tech areas. The district courts and the Federal Circuit have struggled to delimit which inventions are patent-eligible and which inventions are patent-ineligible laws of nature, natural products and abstract ideas. While the Patent Office has made some progress in its attempts to contain overly broad definitions of "abstract idea", claims to inventions in the life sciences, particularly when attempting to claim diagnostic methods and nature-derived products remain difficult to obtain.

This panel will summarize the history and the latest developments in these areas, which are particularly relevant to the operation of tech transfer offices and university/institutional inventors. This session will discuss possible strategies to obtain meaningful patent protection in these areas and the possibility of legislative fixes in the patent statutes. 
12:30 – 1:45 p.m. Lunch
1:45 – 2:45 p.m.  F1:  Critical Considerations for Bayh-Dole Compliance 2019

A heightened interest in Bayh-Dole Compliance has emerged over the past year, giving rise to scrutiny of recipient entities by Federal agencies and other special interest groups. High profile actions taken to enforce compliance, along with changes made to the manner and the content of compliance, have heightened the stakes. This session will discuss the critical considerations that technology transfer offices confront and how to navigate the new playing field.
            
F2:  Blockchain Stacks: What Universities Need to Know to Develop and Protect a Commercially Viable Blockchain Technology

This session will discuss the various elements of the blockchain stack and how universities and startups are adding technology to the stack, and where opportunities lie to protect and monetize these contributions. 
2:45 – 3:15 p.m. Networking Break
3:15 – 4:15 p.m. G1: How to Leverage Internal University Resources to Increase Industry Partnerships

As the scope of technology transfer has expanded, so have the expectations and breadth of industry engagement and how we must interact with them to ensure success.  In this interactive discussion, we will explore:
 
  • How to overcome/address internal siloes
  • Overview the engagement and lifecycle
  • Relationship management strategies
  • Prospecting and the work involved
  • Identify pain points, barriers, challenges, and opportunities
  • Metrics and communicating
  • Examples of what works well
            
G2: Conflict of Interest - What We Owe Each Other- Ethical Concerns in Technology Transfer

An increased level of government enforcement surrounding Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants warrants equally increased attention to compliance by institutions encouraging participation in the SBIR program to stimulate commercialization of research.

Recent prosecutions and convictions make that clear:  We will discuss individual prosecutions and convictions, which involve relationships between professors, Universities, and the small businesses in which professors have had a financial interest. Even in the best of circumstances, an institution’s role in a government investigation involving a small business and/or professor can impose significant costs and create disruption. 
4:15 p.m. Meeting Adjourns

Platinum Sponsors

Elanco Animal Health
Longford Capital Management
Eva Garland Consulting

Gold Sponsors

Myers Bigel, PA
Wellspring
Knowledge Sharing Systems
Casimir Jones, SC

Silver Sponsors

TreMonti Consulting LLC
Marshall Gerstein
MedImmune
Croda
Michael Best & Friedrich
The University of Alabama
Meunier Carlin Curfman
Murgitroyd
NanoVest Inc
Nixon Peabody LLP
Fox Rothschild  LLP
North Carolina Biotechnology Center