About Us
Technology Commercialization Assessment Process
The Office of Technology Development (OTD) receives invention disclosures through one of two general pathways: either an inventor directly submits an Invention Disclosure Report (IDR) form to OTD, or the inventor reports verbally or through email that an invention may have been made. In the latter case, Technology Analysts preferentially meet with the inventor to discuss the potential invention and to learn about the technology as quickly as possible. If during that meeting it appears that there may be a significant commercial opportunity, the Technology Analyst will request that an IDR be filled out and submitted to the Office so that a full invention assessment may be performed.
Preliminary Screen
Once the IDR has been received, a preliminary screen is performed to see if enough information was supplied for the Technology Analysts to make an appropriate assessment. Basic information needed to pass the preliminary screen includes the concept of the invention, background on the technology, related publications by the inventor, and a description of the stage of development of the technology. If this basic information is not present in the IDR or has not been collected in the first meeting with the inventor, the Technology Analyst will request that more information be supplied prior to performing an assessment. In addition, pre-existing rights that a company or other entity may have through contractual agreement with MDA are identified. For example, if there is a research contract in place that give all rights to the technology to a company through a royalty free exclusive license, then the subject invention will not be submitted to the invention assessment process, but rather provided to the company under terms of the agreement. Other such pre-existing rights may include obligations to assign ownership, first right of refusal for a specified period of time, or granting of perpetual free licenses.
Upfront Assessment
Once a complete IDR is in hand and we have enough information to begin an assessment, several preliminary criteria are looked at to see if the Office should proceed with the assessment. If these criteria are not met, then the assessment may not be done. Examples of such criteria include the following: 1) Lack of any protectable intellectual property, which may occur when inventors have previously published details of the invention (this can result in loss of foreign or US patent rights). 2) The technology is not owned by UT/MDA, which can occur when an investigator collaborates with someone at another institution where the invention was conceived, but is not an inventor of the technology. Also, if the invention is made on the inventor’s own time, not using UT resources, and is not related to the inventor’s employment, then the invention is not owned by UT. 3) The technology is co-owned by another institution or company and there is no interest in licensing UT’s interest. In such a situation, there is often little or no opportunity to extract value from the invention. 4) The potential intellectual property, even if protectable, is non-enforceable due to the nature of the IP. For example, a new method of treating a patient with radiation may be protectable, but if the practice of treating a patient with the radiation becomes commonplace in medical practice and the same radiation treatment instruments are used as currently exist, then there is virtually no way to track who uses the method to treat patients per the claims of the patent.
Assessment
If the preliminary criteria for patenting are met, the IDR is subjected to an assessment that includes an information gathering stage and subsequent analysis of that information. An Invention Assessment is done by Technology Analysts Kristen Murphy, Ph.D., Belisa Diaz, Ph.D., or Ulrich Mueller, Ph.D., with a final recommendation as to disposition by Kevin Casement, Ph.D., Director, Technology Assessment and Licensing. See attached biographies for more information on the background of Technology Development professionals. Information that is gathered, reviewed and analyzed in the assessment includes
- Encumbrances
- Potential Bar Dates
- Product/Service Identification and Technology Description
- Development Stage of the Technology
- Product/Service Development Plans
- Prior Art Searches
- Market Data, which includes competitive advantages of the technology, the market potential of the envisioned product/s, competing products/technologies, potential licensees and potential barriers to entry into the market.
After gathering all the relevant information, an analysis of patentability, market potential and scientific merit is done, which serves as the basis for a final recommendation. The overall assessment process is usually completed within two to three weeks from receipt of the completed invention disclosure report.
A. Information Gathering
1. Encumbrances
Identification of encumbrances to licensing of technology is required to avoid legal conflicts. In some cases, rights to inventions arising from MDACC research are encumbered by provisions in contracts such as Sponsored Research Agreements (SRAs), Clinical Study Agreements (CSAs), Materials Transfer Agreements (MTAs), etc. Such documents frequently contain clauses requiring that intellectual property arising from research supported by an outside funding source (e.g., SRAs) or performed using material obtained from an outside source (e.g., MTAs) belong to the outside party, or at least that the outside party be given the first opportunity to license the technology. There are many variations in these clauses, and they must be taken into account when deciding which companies to approach with a given technology.
2. Potential Bar Dates
The establishment of potential bar dates, i.e., those dates after which it will be difficult to attain protection for the intellectual property, is critical in determination of the urgency with which protection of IP may have to be initiated. This also aids in the determination of where patent rights can be obtained. In the United States, inventors have one year from the date the invention was first made public (see below) in which to file a patent application. After that year elapses, the invention reverts to the public domain. In contrast, in the rest of the world a patent application must be filed prior to public disclosure of the invention, as public disclosure prior to filing automatically results in loss of the right to patent protection in these countries. For this reason, if an invention has potential commercial value worldwide, it is best to file patent applications before making the invention public in any way. The potential bar date analysis centers primarily around the inventor’s own publications, including abstracts, manuscripts, poster or oral presentations at meetings, online publication, or open discussions with companies or investigators at other institutions without the benefit of a pre-established confidentiality agreement. All of these constitute “public” disclosure. It is critical that OTD personnel be given all information relating to such disclosures, as these can have very significant ramifications with regard to both patentability and filing rights.
3. Product/Service Identification and Technology Description
The technology description provides the background and basis for evaluation of the potential business opportunity. Working with the inventor, the potential products or services and their uses, as demonstrated or supported by the data in the IDR, are identified and used as the basis for patentability and market potential analyses. Additional products and/or services that can be contemplated are also considered as long as there is rationale provided in the IDR or by the inventor.
4. Development Stage and Product/Service Development Plan
The development stage of the technology and the inventor’s product development plans at the time of disclosure are important indicators of the present value and licensability of the invention. Most technologies developed at MDA are at very early stages of their product development lifecycle, with many disclosures containing only in vitro data or even solely conceptual with no reduction to practice. From a practical standpoint, industry is often unwilling to take the risk associated with licensing a technology where there have been no proof-of-principle studies done, for example, in vivo animal studies, or assembly of a prototype device with demonstrated utility. Thus it is preferred that proof-of-principle studies be initiated or completed prior to initiation of IP protection. However since MDA is an academic institution, much research which can enable the concept of the invention and potentially defeat patentability is published prior to initiation of proof-of-principle studies. Due to the academic nature of the institution and the importance to investigators of publishing their scientific findings rapidly, decisions on protection of intellectual property must be made early, when most technology is not at a development stage where it can be readily licensed or commercialized. Because of this apparent conflict, the best way to balance the need for academic publication with protection of intellectual property to attain maximum return on investment is to make informed decisions based on the overall assessment of the technology early in the development stage, and when appropriate, initiate IP protection strategies as early as possible. It also becomes essential to define a strategy with the inventors for development of the technology as rapidly as possible so that value, in terms of licensability, can be added to the technology. Examples of supporting data or evidence that increases the value of a technology are completion of preclinical toxicology and pharmacology testing, IND filing, and prototype development and testing. The resulting maturation of the technology over time lowers the risk to the potential licensee and places MDA in a better position to reap maximal value of the invention when a license transaction is negotiated. To maximize the value of an invention over time requires an ongoing evaluation of the product development until the technology is licensed, and even then continued participation with the licensee will help to maximize the potential value both the inventor and the institution will derive from commercialization of the invention.
5. Prior Art Searches
Patentability of an invention is primarily assessed based on two criteria established by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and defined in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The first, laid out in title 35 of the U.S.C., section 102, is the requirement for novelty. A patent will not be issued if the invention was known or used by others in this country or patented or described in any country before the inventor filing the patent application made the invention. The second, described in 35 U.S.C., section 103, is the requirement for non-obviousness. To meet this requirement, the subject matter of a patent application must be sufficiently different from what has been known, used or described before in that field (the “prior art”) that it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology relating to the invention.
In order for an invention to be appropriately evaluated, it must be placed within the framework of the relevant prior art. This framework is established through analysis of the inventor’s own publications, as well as all related art uncovered through searches of the scientific and patent literature. Once this is accomplished, assessment of the novelty and obviousness of the invention relative to the prior art in its specific field can be performed.
The scientific literature is searched by means of databases such as PubMed, while the patent literature can be accessed through the IBM patent search engine (http://www.delphion.com/), through the Patent and Trademark Office website (http://www.uspto.gov/) or through any of several fee-based patent databases (Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, Dialog, and PatentMiner are examples.) Keywords appropriate for a given invention are used in searches of both the scientific and patent literature, and relevant papers and patents are selected for detailed comparison to the invention being evaluated. Scientific literature is examined for disclosure of key concepts and performance of proof of principle experiments (“reduction to practice”) similar to those of the subject invention. When looking at patent literature, an assessment is made comparing claims that are either issued or pending in existing applications to claims envisioned for the present invention. The patent literature assessment also includes analysis of information disclosed in the specification (background and general description section) of the patent or application (as opposed to the claims, which specifically define the invention) that may be similar to the envisioned claims for the subject invention. Based on these analyses, an opinion is advanced on the likelihood of obtaining commercially meaningful patent claims relating to the subject invention.
6. Market Data
A final step is the collection of market data relating to the products/services identified within the invention. Primarily, market size is established in terms of dollars and the number of products that could be sold (e.g., the number of patients that could be treated). The overall market is broken down into the various market shares held by all products within that market. Secondarily, market penetration, or the share of the market that the envisioned product/s could gain, is estimated and competitors are identified, both those with similar technologies and those with other solutions to the unmet need being met by the new invention. The competitive advantages of the new invention relative to existing products or products under development are also assessed in an effort to identify what place in the overall market the product may have. Analysis of the potential breadth of the patent claims envisioned also gives an indication as to the competitive advantages the technology may have and will aid in identification of the potential market share that the new product may be able to gain upon entry into the market. This broad overview of the market is intended to establish the potential market for products similar to the subject invention, allowing a reasonable decision to be made as to the market potential of the invention. This will impact the overall outcome of the assessment.
There are a variety of sources that may be accessed for collection of market data, including market reports specific to a particular field of technology. Market reports may be obtained from several different companies such as Medical Data International, PJB Publications, Theta Reports, and Frost & Sullivan. These companies provide reports specifically focused on a market area and they typically include the major players in the market, their market share, revenues and competing products, market pressures, as well as the forces that are shaping the business opportunities in the market such as government oversight, technological developments, and foreign policy.
It is also possible to obtain the same or similar data that market reports provide by searching a variety of available sources and synthesizing that data into one product. Periodicals to search include Drug & Market Development, Clinica, Cancer Drug News, Genetic Technology News and BioWorld. The internet provides web sites such as FREEDGAR, Hoover’s Online, Recombinant Capital, The U.S. Census Bureau, Cancer Clinical Trials database, BioOnline, BioWorld, OncoLink, Cancer Web, IBM Intellectual Property Network and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And, finally, direct conversation with individuals in the market also offers a means to obtain the necessary information.
Those resources define a market by answering such questions as: Who would use/buy the technology? What are the needs/issues in the identified market? What amount of improvement is necessary for a company to invest in the technology? Who are the major players in the identified market? What are the revenues of the market and each of the competitors? What will affect a competitor’s ability to sell a product in the market – i.e., lower price, better or faster technology? What are the hurdles a company would have to overcome to be able to sell our technology – i.e., governmental regulations, patent protection or high capitalization? How does our technology compare with currently used technologies? What are the profits the companies are making? Is it a technology that can support a company, or should it be part of a larger product group? It is the answers to questions like these that help determine whether or not our technology can be commercialized. Unfortunately, answers are not always available directly, and may need to be calculated from available information. For example, if market revenues for a comparable gene therapy product were known for breast cancer, one could extrapolate that our technology, affecting the same number of patients, could have a market potential equivalent to the known product. Annual revenues for a product could also be calculated by multiplying patient numbers by the number of treatments needed by a comparable technology and by the price of each treatment.
B. Analysis
After all the relevant information is gathered, analyses of patentability and market potential of the invention are made. In addition, scientific merit analyses may be done using faculty reviewers. These three analyses form the basis of decisions determining the outcome of an assessment.
1. Patentability
Once the scientific and patent literature relating to the subject invention has been assembled, it is examined in detail. The first question addressed is whether or not the subject invention is novel relative to the prior art, i.e., whether or not that invention is present in its exact form in the relevant scientific or patent literature. If the invention is determined to be novel, it must next be found non-obvious. The invention may not be present in the prior art in its exact form, but if the prior art contains something so similar that anyone familiar with the field would find the modifications obvious (for example, substituting a button for a snap where a fastener device is required on an item of clothing) then the invention will likely not be patentable. Finally, an invention must be ‘enabled’: i.e., enough information must be presented to allow someone of reasonable skill in the field to duplicate the invention. If an invention is determined to be novel, non-obvious, and enabled according to the guidelines established by the Patent and Trademark Office, then we would recommend pursuing patent protection on the technology from a patentability standpoint.
2. Market Potential
The gathered market data creates a picture of the financial possibilities of the envisioned product/s. For a technology to be successfully commercialized, a manufacturer/seller must expect that the revenues arising from a product will exceed the expense of preparing the technology for the market. Therefore, anything in the market that could increase the potential revenues while decreasing the costs is examined. The same is done for the technology. Examples of positive market indicators for commercialization include large consumer populations, large potential market revenues, natural or governmental barriers to market entry (such as enforceable patent protection, FDA approval, etc.), existence of an unmet need for a particular product, or determination that a particular invention significantly improves upon the current technology or significantly reduces the end-product production cost. Negative examples include easy entry into the market (unenforceable intellectual property protection, no intellectual property protection, few or no governmental regulatory concerns), low capitalization costs, small consumer populations, low annual revenues, only moderate to small improvements over current technologies and increased costs of production. How well the technology’s indicators “match” with the market’s indicators help determine its overall commercialization potential. As a bottom line, potential licensees expect that licensing a given technology will result in a profit increase.
3. Scientific Utility
In many cases, it is desirable to have a scientific utility review of the IDR done to address issues raised by the initial assessment or to bring in new issues not initially addressed. In this process, the IDR is sent to one to three MDA investigators for their review and comment. Preferentially, reviewers are selected that have a similar background in or knowledge of the technology area, have prior experience in the commercialization of technology, and have the ability to comment on potential clinical utility and practicality, in situations where that type of analysis is warranted. The IDR and any additional supporting material that may be relevant are sent to the reviewers and they are asked to address the following issues. 1) Whether or not the data in the IDR supports the claimed invention and its proposed uses. 2) Any technical or scientific matters that they believe may be limitations to development of the technology, and if any are described, how to overcome those limitations. These scientific utility reviews are then used as additional support material in making decisions on strategies for continued internal technology development, protection of intellectual property, and/or marketing and commercialization strategies.
C. Recommendation
Based on the information and analyses collected and reported by the Technology Analysts, the Director, Technology Assessment and Licensing makes a written recommendation as to how to handle the invention disclosure. Overall, the three main criteria that play a role in the recommendation are the potential for commercially meaningful patent claims, a significant overall market potential, and the scientific utility/stage of development of the invention. After the recommendation is made, a complete Invention Assessment report is provided to all OTD professionals and a meeting is held to discuss each invention and to make a decision on its disposition.
Commercially Meaningful Patent Claims
In order for a company to be interested in investing in a new technology through the acquisition of a license, there needs to be a mechanism by which company may exclude other would-be competitors. This mechanism is usually in the form of a patent, which is a legal instrument that allows the patent holder to exclude others from practicing the invention absent a license or grant of the right to practice the invention. The scope and legally defensible part of a patent is defined by the claims, and the breadth of the claims stipulates the extent to which the patent holder can exclude competition. A patent with claims that are narrow in scope and which does not allow the patent holder to exclude other competitors is not as valuable as a patent with claims of broader scope. Broad patent claims make it difficult for competitors to “design around” your existing patent and apply for a patent with similar, yet patentably distinct claims which enable them to produce similar products. Thus, when making a recommendation to proceed with filing of a patent application, it is not only the ability to get ANY patent claim issued that is taken into consideration when making an assessment of patentability, but whether or not the envisioned claims would be commercially meaningful. The available claims need to be sufficiently broad in order for a potential licensee to be able to exclude competition. The breadth of a claim that is commercially meaningful will vary from one technology to another, however in general, the broader the claim the higher the value to the licensee.
Significant Market Potential
There are many factors that play a role in the ability to license an invention, including the market potential of the products based on the technology or invention. For the invention assessment, the potential gross revenue of the envisioned product is the driving factor when deciding whether to proceed with commercialization of the invention. The product/s must bring in a potential revenue stream to the licensee that makes it worth the investment required to bring the product to market. The gross revenue stream required will vary widely by technology as well as with the potential licensee, who will have varying levels of costs associated with development necessary to bring a product to market. For example, for a large pharmaceutical company to license in a new class of pharmaceutical agents, the agent that makes it to the market may have to have potential gross revenues of $300M. Revenues from that agent may have to cover the development cost of that agent and all of the other agents within the class that needed to be screened, tested, and advanced along the development pathway until the particular lead candidate was identified and subsequently brought to market. Conversely, a smaller biotech company, which focuses on in-licensing later-stage drug candidates, will have smaller overall research and development costs to be recouped by commercialization of the lead candidate, and thus may be able to consider commercializing products that have overall potential gross revenues of only $30M. Thus, when evaluating a new invention, a product that may only be expected to bring in low to moderate levels of revenues may still be a candidate for commercialization if an appropriate licensee can be found, and therefore the term “significant market potential” is highly dependent on the context of the licensing deal that is being considered.
Another market factor that may play a role in deciding whether to proceed with commercialization of a new invention, in the absence of a significant gross revenue potential or even patentable subject matter, is whether the technology may allow the licensee to be first to market with the new technology. Such technologies would be those that allow the licensee to launch a product quickly and establish a market position that is dominant, and thus would allow the company to achieve a high market penetration or create a new market. Substantial revenues may be derived from being first to market. Many other product development factors come into play as well, such as clinical or technical issues that must be overcome, access to other enabling proprietary technology, product marketing, distribution, and shelf life issues. The potential licensee will look at all of these factors and more in determining whether or not the subject technology they are considering licensing is the right choice for them at that time.
Scientific Utility/Technology Development
Many of the inventions disclosed to the Office are at a relatively early stage of development with somewhat inconclusive or weak proof-of-principle data. Also, in some cases, it is not clear that the data in the invention disclosure amply supports the conclusions with respect to the envisioned products or commercial value of the invention. In these cases, a peer review of the invention is performed as described above in the Scientific Utility Analysis section.
Other factors that contribute to the disposition of the invention disclosure relate to the stage of development of the technology at the time of disclosure and also to the technology development plans of the inventor, as well as those suggested by OTD professionals, upon assessment of the technology. With early stage inventions, for example those based on data from in vitro experiments or those done in non-human systems such as prokaryote, Drosophila, or rodent systems, it is often difficult from a commercialization standpoint to generate much interest from potential licensees. In addition, from a patentability standpoint, in most cases filing patent applications based on data from non-human systems without any correlation to the human system is of limited value commercially, since the claims that will likely be allowed would only cover the non-human system in which the data was generated. Similarly, filing patent applications based on in vitro data usually will not meet the criteria of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for enabling the claims of the invention (see section on Patentability above) if those claims are directed to more than that shown by the data in the patent application. For example, inclusion of in vitro data in the application showing that p53 suppresses the growth of a cell line is usually not enough to support a patent claim that p53 can be used to suppress the growth of a tumor in a human. While a patent application can be written in a ‘prophetic’ manner with the intent of providing enough enabling disclosure in the application to get meaningful claims issued, in most cases this prophetic disclosure will have to be followed-up with experimental data to enable the disclosure. Thus, if a patent application is written prophetically, it is essential for the inventor to work towards attaining experimental data as soon as possible, preferably within one year to meet the patent application conversion and foreign filing deadline (see below). Technology Analysts experienced in the protection and commercialization of biomedical technology may recommend experiments for the inventor to perform to add value to the invention and assist in obtaining commercially meaningful patent claims, so it is very important that inventors work in conjunction with OTD to realize the full commercial potential of inventions.
Disposition
The disposition given the IDR, in general, after completion of the assessment is one of the following:
- Incomplete/Premature
- Return Rights/Not Assert Rights
- File Patent Application and then Market
- Market and then File if Industry Interest
- Perform Additional Market and Intellectual Property Diligence
1. Incomplete/Premature
An IDR is deemed incomplete or premature, in general, if the technology is at a very early stage of development and needs to mature before an adequate assessment can be made with regard to potential commercial value. Most inventions that are conceptual in nature are placed into this category, as are some where there is limited or unconvincing proof-of-principle data supporting the envisioned invention. Patentability is often not threatened to a substantial degree, or at the most would result in the loss of foreign rights should the inventors publish the research. The desired outcome of this disposition is that the inventors continue to advance the development of the technology until it reaches a maturity that enables reasonable decisions to be made as to protection of IP and commercial value. Technology Analysts maintain contact with the inventor over an extended period of time to maximize the possibility that advances in the technology are reported to OTD when appropriate; however, it is also essential that the inventor should promptly report new developments to OTD for evaluation prior to publication.
2. Return Rights/Not Assert Rights
Where the invention assessment results in findings that indicate limited commercial value, OTD will make a recommendation that the University of Texas System elect to either not assert rights to the invention or return the rights to the inventor. Examples of criteria for non-assertion or return of rights are the following: 1) Little likelihood of getting commercially valuable claims issued, 2) Insignificant market potential, 3) Significant barriers to enter market such as regulatory issues or competing technologies, 4) Pre-existing rights with negative impact on extraction of value and 5) Lack of correlation of scientific data with concept of invention. If the decision is made to not assert or to return rights, the inventor is notified informally at first to allow for comment and questions. A formal notice of intent to return rights follows and the file is closed. The inventor is then free, on his/her own time, to file for patent protection on his/her own behalf and to attempt to commercialize the invention for their own benefit. Under University of Texas System policy, however, the University retains the right to 25% of all income paid to the inventors upon successful commercialization of the technology.
3. File Patent Application and then Market
If the IDR appears to contain patentable subject matter with the potential for issuance of commercially meaningful claims, there is a substantial market for the technology, and the technology is sufficiently developed or a plan is in place to continue to advance product development, then the likelihood of being able to market and license the technology efficiently is relatively high. In this case, intellectual property protection will be sought through the filing of a patent application. A more in-depth level of diligence will then be done for both market and intellectual property analysis, and the technology will be marketed to potential licensees or allowed to mature to a stage where it is more readily licensable.
In general, a provisional patent application will be filed initially. This provides a one-year grace period, in which further experiments may be performed by the inventors and in which it may become more clear which embodiments of an invention, if any, may be commercially meaningful. Provisional applications are not examined by the Patent and Trademark Office, but exist as a ‘place holder,’ establishing the earliest possible filing date. At the end of the one-year period, the application must be converted to a regular application, from which a patent may eventually be issued. International patent filings may also be performed at the time of conversion of provisional applications to regular applications. If a provisional application is not converted at the end of the year’s grace period, it is abandoned. Reasons not to convert a provisional application might include failure of inventors to pursue an invention or their determination that an early-stage invention will not perform as originally expected after further testing.
4. Market and then File Patent if Industry Interest
When the invention assessment reveals that the technology has limited patentability in terms of attaining broad claims, in some cases the decision is made to do some preliminary marketing to see if there is significant interest from potential licensees. Similar situations arise when the potential for broad patent claims exists, but it is unclear if the technology has a significant market potential. There are also situations where it is likely that value might be extracted from narrow patent claims covering a small-market technology. For example, there may be industry players that would be interested in such a technology as an addition to an existing patent and product portfolio where they already hold a market position. There are also smaller industry players that are interested in niche technologies that they could develop into products that would bring in substantial revenues for them. In such cases, upfront marketing to these industry players is done to gauge interest in the technology. If substantial interest is generated, a patent application will likely be filed to protect the technology and aid in negotiations with the company, since most companies are much more willing to negotiate over a pending patent application as opposed to an unprotected technology.
5. Perform Additional Market and Intellectual Property Diligence
If after the assessment it is determined that there are some remaining questions as to the potential market, utility, or commercially meaningful patent claims that might be obtained, additional diligence is performed to answer those questions prior to making decisions on whether to attempt commercialization of the technology. Most often these types of questions will revolve around stage of development of the technology, proof-of-principle data, or unclear product identification and market. These issues are addressed with the inventor and other faculty within MDA that would be able to help address the issue of clinical utility, for example. After this further analysis, a decision is made according to one of the categories in 1-4 above.
D. Summary
In summary, the Technology Commercialization Assessment Process outlined above takes into account the major factors involved in determining the potential commercial value of an invention and provides a framework for consistently evaluating, analyzing, and making solid decisions on how to proceed with commercial development of an invention. The end result of the process is used as the basis for proceeding with marketing and subsequent licensing of inventions to industry and ultimately in generation of revenues for the inventors and the Institution.