A: Marie - Licensing Executives Society USA and Canada

Crowdsourcing Session Examines Commercial Space
Strategies And Trade-Offs While Breaking New Ground
By Linda Corcoran
Texts and tweets infused the conversation
as LES (USA & Canada) Annual
Meeting goers in Toronto broke new
ground in a session that invited participants
to augment the conversation using their
Blackberries, iPhones, and the like. The topic,
“Carving Out Your Commercial Space—
Strategies and Trade-Offs,” was centralized
around three big questions and looked to the
crowd for unique perspectives on alternative
strategies that ensure their companies’
freedom to successfully carve out space in
the marketplace.
Tim Lowman acted as the “Oracle” (the
voice of texts and tweets), and provided the
session overview as Kathleen Denis, Associate
VP, Office of Technology Transfer
at Rockefeller University, and Richard
Razgaitis, Senior Advisor for Charles River
Associates, led the discussion from the stage.
Question #1: To search or not to search?
Denis posed the first big question: Company
cultures used to grow organically, but now
that is changing. Most pharma companies
have scouts visiting other small companies
looking for technology to bring home. Many
other industries have not adopted those strategies;
instead, they go out and conquer. Should
these other companies go out and search?
The conversation quickly centered on
sourcing products in DICE (Digital Information
Computing Electronics) as an audience
member commented that there were “tens of
thousands” of open innovation products in
this space and noting their longer than usual
timeline in bringing technology to market.
A question was entertained regarding a
parallel system being set up in other social
media in order to ascertain who is out searching
and who is not. Razgaitis interjected that
Kodak, which is now in bankruptcy, may
have had a different fate if they had been
scouting outside their walls. “Could DICE
take some advice from that?” he asked.
A member of the audience commented that
people in the DICE space weren’t even aware
of licensing practices until they came to LES
and heard various presentations. Another
audience member’s comments stated, “If I
want to develop a drug I know it is going
to cost $10 million and take 10 years. You
don’t need to wait for that in social media or
Internet areas.”
A poignant tweet came in: “If you want to
find the next big thing,
don’t go to a university.
Go to Berkeley
coffee shops and talk
to students.”
Some distinctions
were made regarding
DICE looking for
opportunities that are
fused to technology
that is already in place
versus Life Sciences
technology, which is
more stand-alone.
Further comments
on this key question
included considering
changing a company
culture to be more
open to looking for
opportunities as well
as creating a doorway
at LES meetings by
introducing yourself
to people who may hold a strategic advantage
for your company.
Question #2: Is there value in
IP collaborations?
A second key question was posed by
Razgaitis: Is the participation in IP collaborations—for
the purpose of freedom of action,
or new business opportunities, or both—an
important strategic opportunity for Life
Science companies? If so, what research or
communications are most attractive for such
collaborations and what are the associated
high-importance IP/Licensing issues?
An audience member quickly jumped into
the conversation citing the chemical space’s
use of upstream opportunities as an example
of well-managed collaborations. It was noted
that Life Science would have to change its
culture to have a similar positive experience.
Denis mentioned that several universities and
pharma collaborations are already doing so.
Concern for NPEs (Non-Practicing Entities)
participation in collaborations was
voiced, mentioning that NPEs might gain
access to patents, but collaborations might
head off the purchase by NPEs. Other areas
of collaboration were recalled, including 3M
Ventures, plastics and the auto industry, and
the DICE industry.
Kathleen Denis (left) and Richard Razgaitis lead the Crowdsourcing
session in Toronto.
Question #3: Advice for First To File?
The final question was in regard to the
America Invents Acts: What can our Canadian
and other non-U.S. colleagues tell
us about strategy and tactics under First
To File? With a university exception to the
prior user rights defense, will companies
rethink their filing strategy?
An attorney in the crowd submitted,
“Under the America Invents Act, everyone
files provisional applications. The
grace period has eviscerated the one-year
waiting period.”
Others stated that there should be a race
to the patent office with people getting
their provisional patents on file and that
there is a need to file before inventions
are mature. A Canadian attorney stated,
“Many are looking globally and examples
of First to Invent are available globally. I
don’t think this will change too many of
my clients’ strategies.”
Different industries were examined
throughout the conversation. It was mentioned
that universities would be impacted
on smaller projects with upfront expenses.
DICE industries will be impacted by First
To File and will be taken aback by their
longer time frames for development. ■
November 2012 11