Meeting Homepage
Speaker Presentations
Speaker Bios
Meeting Committee
Meeting Program:
Schedule-at-a-Glance
Workshops-at-a-Glance
Technology Showcase
Add-on Seminars
Plenary Sessions
Workshops
PDS Workshops
CLE
Additional Events:
Networking Events
Tech Fair
Tours
Sponsors:
Meeting Sponsors
Sponsorship Opportunities
Miscellaneous Info:
Hotel
Weather and Dress
|
Workshop Sessions
 CHEMICALS, ENERGY AND MATERIALS |
|
Thursday, February 22
1:45 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1-A
The Challenges Facing New Energy Projects - Where are the Deals?
All levels
Financing energy projects deals is not what it used to be. Projects based
on conventional technology were bank financed. However, banks can be averse
to the new technologies required for new energy supply projects. Energy projects
involving clean coal to power, gas and liquids, LNG, and heavy oil refining
projects require large amounts of capital. Can these billion dollar plus projects
be financed? How can they be structured? What are the likely sources of funds?
Is government support required? We will study how energy projects are financed
today and what investors want to see before you can close financing.
Moderator: Anthony Venturino,
Partner, Stevens Davis Miller Mosher, LLP
Douglas
H. Cortez, Managing Director, Hensley Energy Consulting LLC
|
 CONSUMER PRODUCTS |
|
Thursday, February
22
3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
2-A Lose a Daughter or Gain a Son? How, Why and When
Consumer Products Powerhouses Extend their Brands by Licensing Out the Brand
or Licensing in a Technology
All levels
What’s better than developing
an improved invisible ink and selling 10,000 pens in your first year? Licensing
the underlying IP to Newell Rubbermaid once and watching Newell Rubbermaid
sell 10,000,000 SHARPIE® Permanent Invisible
Ink Pens in the second year and pay you a royalty. What’s better than
developing a new type of whitening laundry detergent and selling 10,000 boxes
in your first year? Licensing the CREST® mark from P&G and watching
your sales of "New,
Improved Crest® Laundry Detergent" soar to 10,000,000 boxes in your
second year (for a modest royalty paid to P&G). But isn’t CREST® a
brand of toothpaste? Would Newell Rubbermaid ever sell a permanent INVISIBLE
marker under the SHARPIE® brand? Do you understand "increase my sales
1000 times through the power of BRAND" but are a little hazy on the implementation
details? This is the workshop for you. Let the BRANDS tell you how to do business
with them.
Daniel O’Neill, Associate Director, Intellectual Property
Office, University of Cincinnati
|
 FINANCIAL MARKETS |
|
Friday, February 23
9:45
a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
4-B Royalty Monetization
Advanced
A panel of royalty buyers
and sellers will engage participants in an interactive discussion of the benefits,
risks (concerns), valuation methods, deal structures and case studies related
to royalty monetization. Join panelists representing a research institution,
a biotechnology company, venture fund and an investment bank for this insightful
discussion.
Moderator: Louis Berneman, Principal, Texelerate
Lionel Leventhal, Partner, Paul Capital Partners
Joseph D. Fondacaro, Director, Intellectual Property
and Venture Development, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
Medical Center
John J. Moore, Jr., Managing Director, Morgan Stanley
Guy Van Meter, Director, Corporate Development,
Dyax Corp
Friday, February 23
11:30 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
5-B Risks, Rewards, & Resources:
Evaluating the Forces of Change in Licensing Transactions
Intermediate
This
workshop will focus on the sources of many of the risks and changes in licensing
deals that have occurred over the last ten years. Companies today must evaluate
the changed environment and the relative risk when developing relationships
with other companies around IP-based transactions (licensing, mergers, spin-outs,
etc.). Data and analysis regarding four key factors affecting these changes
will be highlighted, and a due diligence checklist will be provided to all
workshop participants. Gain ideas on how to uncover hidden risks so that they
may be mitigated or eliminated. Learn how to build on the checklist as you
approach new parties. This workshop addresses strategic direction, organizational
structure, competition, complementary assets, financial strength, ethical positioning,
world marketplace, and changes in IP law that may affect your deals. A key
focus will be on the four key factors influencing the licensing environment
1) nature of the technology involved in the deal 2) sophistication of parties,
methodologies, and tools available in the transactional arena 3) the level
of resources available to the licensing profession to leverage in deal-making;
and 4) external factors influencing licensing today. Participants will be encouraged
to suggest alternative factors affecting the changes in deals that have occurred.
Moderator: Jill Rusk, Director, Navigant Consulting,
Inc.
Presenters: Robert Vigil, Vice
President, Analysis
Group, Inc.
Kara Gorski, Manager, Analysis
Group, Inc
Kathleen Kedrowski, Managing Director, Navigant Consulting |
 HEALTH CARE |
Thursday, February 22
1:45 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1-C Deal Killers in Healthcare and Biotech
Licensing
All Levels
This workshop will expose the "deal killers" in
healthcare and biotech legal and business matters that frequently arise during
licensing negotiations. Real life experiences will be explored with an eye
to identifying unrealistic expectations. The presentation will cover the principal
provisions of the "make or break" contract
terms and conditions, the parties’ tactics and behavior, communications
skills and key factors leading to a successful arrangement. Strategies for
getting what you want, knowing when to stand firm and when to fold will be
discussed. Don’t miss this highly interactive session focused on the
art and science to successfully avoid "deal killers." Extensive
dialogue and active participation are hallmarks of this dynamic session.
Gary
Nath, Managing Partner, The Nath Law Group
Thursday, February 22
3:30 p.m.
- 4:45 p.m.
2-C Test Drive with an Option to Buy: Strategic Alliances that
Lead to Acquisitions
Intermediate/Advanced
Given the inhospitable IPO market,
biotechnology companies and their investors increasingly look on M&A as
a liquidity event of choice. What are the pros and cons for each party when
strategic alliances become a dress rehearsal for possible majority stock ownership—or
outright purchase—of the smaller
player by the larger? How can one party discreetly position the collaboration
to lead toward marriage, when this issue is not on the table? What are the
key terms in the collaboration agreement that need careful crafting when possible
acquisition of a majority stake in the company, or acquisition of the company
itself, is openly discussed? And when the outcome is majority ownership by
the larger player, rather than outright purchase, how does each party protect
its continuing interests? The panel will include a senior legal officer of
Merck, providing the Big Pharma perspective in light of that company’s
recent acquisition of its former collaborator Abamaxis; and the general counsel
of Idenix, in which Novartis acquired a majority stake after a successful collaboration.
Their discussion will be moderated by a corporate lawyer whose transactional
practice focuses on M&A and strategic alliances in the life sciences sector.
Douglas Fambrough, Ph.D., Principal, Oxford Bioscience
Partners
Eileen Smith Ewing, Partner; Head, Life Sciences Practice Group, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
Nicholson Graham LLP
George Shiebler, Esq., Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Merck & Co.,
Inc.
Friday, February 23
8:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
3-C Creating
the Orthopedic Operating Room of the Future: Lessons Learned from a Deal of
Distinction
Advanced
Cleveland Clinic and Stryker Corporation formed a strategic
alliance for the development of the technology that has led to the orthopaedic
operating room of the future. This technology development and commercialization
agreement has provided a unique opportunity for research and development,
commercialization, new technology assessment and physician education.
Under the terms of the ten-year program, Stryker will support Cleveland
Clinic in developing, testing and advancing image-guided surgery systems
and advanced orthopaedic surgical technologies to improve patient care.
As well as, the training and education programs for Cleveland Clinic physicians
and physicians from other medical centers in the use of these technologies.
Establishing such an alliance required the parties to successfully address
a myriad of legal (including intellectual property and licensing), regulatory,
compliance, technological, and cultural issues. Two of the primary (non-attorney)
champions of the alliance’s formation
will provide their insights into the negotiation and development process and
to the key challenges that were overcome to create the alliance. The alliance
agreement received the 2005 LES Deal of Distinction award for the Industry/University
and Government Laboratory Transactions sector.
Mark Bloom, Vice President and
Project Consultant, Business Success Strategists
Keric DeChant, Vice President, HealthCare Solutions
Stryker MedSurg Group, Stryker Corporation
Jonathan Schaffer, Managing
Director, e-Cleveland Clinic
Friday, February 23
8:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
3-D Flexibility:
The Key to Partnering Successfully in a Competitive Licensing Environment
Advanced
Flexibility in licensing agreements is key to many of today’s
most successful partnerships in the pharmaceutical industry. Oftentimes, a
discussion that begins around licensing a product in one geographic area may
change during the course of conversations to include different territories
as well as other commercial structures (licensing, copromotion, and so forth).
It is critical that companies remain flexible about deal structure and scope
of partnership during the licensing negotiation process. This session will
explore approaches that have been proven to be effective in establishing flexible
agreements that support mutual corporate goals. The workshop will include examples
of Eisai’s
successful licensing experiences as well as an open discussion about best practices
and current licensing trends.
David H. Messner, Senior Director/Team Leader,
Business Development, Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals
Alex Scott, Vice President,
Business Development, Eisai Inc.
Friday, February 23
9:45 a.m. – 11:00
a.m.
4-C Securing and Managing a Transforming Deal with Big Pharma: A Case Study
Intermediate
What is a "transforming deal?" How does a small biotech company
close a transforming deal with Big Pharma? A transforming deal provides a biotech
company with validation and funding, advances programs, allows it to become
fullyintegrated through a codevelopment/copromotion option and positions the
company for future fundraising. Big Pharma provides transforming terms because
the deal fills a pipeline gap or complements an existing program, the target
indication or MOA is a strategic priority and/or the deal enables access to
a platform or expertise with potential to generate multiple and diverse NCEs.
Finding the deal requires identification of licensing objectives and
alignment with a potential partner. Selling the deal requires an understanding
of the partner’s corporate structure
and key decision makers and the ability to secure champions within R&D
and BD/commercial. Closing the deal requires patience, tenacity and thick skin;
deal terms that address critical needs and sensitivities of both partners;
a willingness to compromise and accept risk; and recognition that value comes
in many forms and half a loaf is better than none. Join this interesting discussion
of Targacept’s
transforming deal with AstraZeneca.
Beth Fordham-Meier, Senior Director, Business
Development, Targacept Inc.
John Reid, Director, Global Alliance Management, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP
Friday, February 23
11:30 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
5-C
What’s
HOT and What’s NOT in LifeScience Technology
Intermediate
Emerging Biomedical
Technologies: What’s hot and what’s not hot today…but more
importantly, what are the hot biomedical technologies on the horizon for tomorrow?
Explosive innovation in medical devices, diagnostics, tissue engineering and
genomics means you really need to understand market trends and objective measures
to determine where the smartest licensing dollars should be allocated. How
do you know what the venture community and corporate investors are going to
be interested in tomorrow so you can make the best investments? In this targeted
presentation to licensing executives and healthcare executives who want to
understand the secrets that lead to the selection of technology for successful
commercialization, the following questions will be explored:
- How much
money is being spent by biomedical companies and the venture capital
community to license technology?
- What
is driving today’s medical device innovation?
- What are
the current hot technology areas of biomedical technology?
- More
importantly, what are the hot technologies on the horizon for tomorrow?
- What are the twelve market drivers that determine commercialization
success?
Nancy Patterson, Vice President, Alfred E. Mann Foundation
for Biomedical Engineering |
 HIGH TECHNOLOGY |
Thursday, February 22
1:45 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1-E Analysis of a Licensing Deal:
PSI/JHU Gun Shot Digital Imaging System
All Levels
Planning Systems Incorporated
(PSI) and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL)
will be discussing the licensing of APL’s patented Gun Shot Digital Imaging
System. JHU/APL’s technology detects impulse sounds (gunshots or explosives)
and captures these impulse sound source areas on video. Join this case study
of a successful licensing deal.
Moderator: Teresa A. Colella, Technology Manager, Johns
Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
George A. Orrison IV, Director
of Marketing, Security Technologies
Thursday, February 22
3:30 p.m. - 4:45
p.m.
2-E Getting Unbogged—Getting Through the Sticking
Points of Licensing with Creative Approaches
Intermediate/Advanced
Learn unique and creative ways
to solve the typical points where licensing negotiations get bogged down,
as well as unique licensing terms demanded by licensors and how apparent
impasses were overcome with creative bargaining. The panel will address,
for example, how they have responded when a licensor demanded a grant
back of all rights under the licensee’s
related technology and how they have structured indemnification agreements
that were palatable to all parties.
Bradley Hulbert, Partner, McDonnell Boehnen
Hulbert & Berghoff
Bradley Johnsen, Senior Corporate Counsel, Marvell
Semiconductor, Inc.
David
Meisels, General Counsel, D&M Holdings US, Inc.
William Zahrt, Ishimaru & Zahrt
LLP, (formerly Associate General Counsel, Palm, Inc.)
Friday, February 23
8:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
3-E Off-Industry and Non-Core Patent Licensing
- Myth, Magic, Mirage or the Holy Grail?
Intermediate
Ever since Kevin Rivette’s "Rembrandts
in the Attic" suggested most companies held underutilized or overlooked
assets, the intellectual property community has been on a roll to help others
find their way to high-yield returns. We’ve all heard about the potential
benefits of licensing your patents outside your core industry. Is it a low-risk,
high-return strategy or simply all that’s left if your company isn’t
supporting a strategy to license or enforce its patents against its competitors?
We wondered what the experts who tried have found. How much do companies
actually depend upon licensing non-core patents for their returns on patents?
Is it sustainable? Is it less risky? How about licensing your core patent
assets to industries outside your own? Is that viable? Does it lower the
risks of counter-assertions? Is a soft-assertion or carrot approach more
successful when licensing core holdings outside your core industry or
when licensing non-core patents? To get it straight, we engaged 15 companies
in different industries and 10 IP vendors in a reasonably comprehensive
survey. Although we cannot disclose all the details, the results allow
us to draw some fairly compelling conclusions.
Suzanne Harrison, Director, ICMG/LECG
Gene
Potkay, VP Intellectual
Property, Avaya Inc.
Friday, February 23
9:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
4-E Open Source Software: Adoption Trends and Implications
for the Licensing Community
Over the years, Open Source Software (OSS) has strengthened its influence
beyond IT infrastructure functions, and Open Source applications are now
increasingly being considered or adopted by large clientsincluding governments
and non-for profit organizations for their everyday tasks. This workshop
will illustrate this trend with presentations on successful diffusion
of OSS applications and adoption by end-users, and will discuss potential
implications of Open Source License Agreements for the
licensing community. The panel will provide the perspective of Canadian
governmental users of Open Source, adding a unique dimension to this workshop.
Michel Mellinger,
Business Development Officer, NRC Institute for Information Technology
Nader Mousavi, Partner, Wilmer
Cutler, Picking Hale & Dorr
Gwyn Firth Murray,
Attorney, Matau Legal Group
Joseph Potvin, Senior Economic Analyst, Enterprise
Technology & Application
Strategies Institute for Information Technology
Oscar Rosenblooom, Attorney, Axiom Legal
Jason B. Wacha, Vice President Corporate Affairs,
General Counsel & Corporate,
Monte Vista Software
Friday, February 23
11:30 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
5-E- Licensing
High Tech de facto Standard Technology in Asia
Intermediate
This workshop will
include a discussion of various aspects of licensing high tech de facto
standard technology in Asia. For example, we will discuss setting up and
running an arrangement that shares improvement technology among licensees
in an IP pool or improvement cooperative and the many issues and potential
pitfalls it involves including antitrust, unfair competition, and indemnification
for liability. We will discuss experiences and strategies for dealing
with these and other issues, and for providing incentives and inducements
to persuade licensees to contribute their technology to the pool or cooperative.
John Paul, Partner, Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
L.L.P.
Stuart P. Kaler, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel,
Clairvoyante, Inc.
Pat O'Reilly, Partner, Finnegan,
Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
L.L.P.
|
 LICENSING EXECTUTIVES SOCIETY
(USA and CANADA), Inc. WORKSHOP SESSIONS INDUSTRY, UNIVERSITY AND GOVERNMENT
LABORATORY TRANSACTIONS |
Thursday, February 22
1:45
p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1-B We Must Increase Our Efficiency!
Advanced
In "The
World is Flat," Thomas Friedman says, "Give me more for less" and "all
of us want the lowest price possible, with all the middlemen, fat and
friction removed." Although licensing negotiations are unique to
each deal, licensing professionals have to think about how to make negotiations
less time intensive. We have to learn to reach an agreement faster for
our clients, companies, and universities because the transaction costs
(e.g., time, money and opportunity costs) are becoming very high. Participate
in interactive brainstorming among licensing professionals.
Moderator: Katharine
Ku, Director of Technology Licensing, Stanford University
Ron Epstein, CEO, Ipotential
Thursday, February 22
3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
2-B All for One and One
for All: Interinstitutional Agreements
Introductory/Intermediate
Can a multi-institutional
IP agreement survive arid no-funding zones, massive tech transfer turnovers
and passionate inventors? Can this alliance survive multiple licensees?
We will present a case-study of a collaboration spanning six years and
five universities. Tune in to find out thel issues and challenges associated
with the implementation of an inter-institutional agreement and how flexibility
and solidarity are the keys to survival. Meet fellow musketeers to learn
how license deals have been structured to meet multiple needs and the
evolving stage of the technology. Join us to discuss best practices and
reveal the battle scars!
Steven T. McMaster, Technology Licensing Manager,
Office of Intellectual Property, Mayo Clinic Health
Solutions
Karthika Perumal, Assistant Director,
University of Texas Medical Branch
Friday, February 23
8:15
a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
3-B "Employee’s Invention;" Does it apply
to Japanese Universities?
Intermediate
Concurrent with the settlement of Nakamura
v. Nichia, Blue Laser Diode case, Japanese patent law was amended to enhance
clarity and transparency of "employee’s invention," giving
protection to the employee’s right of reasonable remuneration. It seems
that sets of new laws have been working well to some extent in private sectors.
Leastwise, there are few disputes in private sectors with respect to the ownership
of patents. On the other hand, there are still uncertain issues on the part of
universities: their ownership as well as remuneration to professors and researchers.
How does patent law work on universities and university professors/ researchers?
Do universities vest in patents? Why or why not? What is the difference between
private corporations and universities? What is the difference between researchers
in private corporations and university professors and researches? How have universities
and their partner corporations been treating these issues practically? Does US
practice work under the Japanese law? This presentation deals with this inevitable
issue under the rapid increase of technology transfer from Japanese universities
to private sectors worldwide and explores the better possible practice under
the current law, based on the comparison of practices in US and Japan.
Naoki
Iguchi, Associate, Attorney, Anderson Mori & Tomostune |
 LEGAL |
Thursday, February 22
1:45 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1-D From Bankruptcy to Success through Licensing:
A Case Study
Intermediate
Hear an interesting study about a small, bankrupt
biotechnology company that employed a licensing strategy to meet its business
objectives. Follow the company’s development of an enforcement licensing strategy, its preparation
in terms of obtaining required expertise and its execution of at least 6 license
agreements, including agreements with large medical device manufacturers. Learn
how it overcame obstacles, including limited funds, a pre-existing license agreement
that conflicted with its licensing strategy, and challenges of negotiating with
much larger companies with substantially more resources. Finally, see how the
company addressed various licensing terms and how it leveraged a flexible licensing
model to negotiate royalties.
Moderator: Jeff Snell, Principal, CRA International
Steve Jakubowski, Esq., Counsel, The
Coleman Law Firm
 Thursday, February 22
1:45 p.m.
- 3:00 p.m.
1-F Medimmune v. Genentech: Its Effects on Patent Licensing and
Suggestions for Agreement Drafting in the Future
On January 9, 2007, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Medimmune
v. Genentech that will have wide-ranging implications for both patent
licensees and licensors. The Supreme Court ruled that a licensee is not required
to breach or terminate its license agreement in order to bring a challenge
to a licensed patent. This workshop will discuss the ramifications
of that decision for both licensees and licensors with respect to existing
license agreements. In addition, the impact on future license negotiations will
be addressed and suggestions on how to best draft license agreements in the
future will be provided. Finally, we will examine what questions have
been left unanswered by the Supreme Court and the impact of the decision
on patent litigation.
D. Brian Kacedon, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
LLP
Thursday, February 22
3:30 p.m.
- 4:45 p.m.
2-D Inventorship Disputes in Scientific Collaborations: How They
Arise, How to Prevent Them and How to Resolve Them
Intermediate/Advanced
This
workshop will look at how inventorship disputes can arise in scientific collaborations,
how they can be avoided and the various options for resolving them when they
do occur. The stakes of being named—or not named—as a coinventor
on an issued patent for an important area of technology have never been higher.
The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in inventorship disputes due
to the large amount of R&D work being performed by collaborations between
different entities. As inter-company,
inter-academic, and academic-company collaborations
have increased, so have the disputes.
Jorge Goldstein, Partner, Sterne, Kessler,
Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Friday, February 23
9:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
4-D Dealing with 271(f) after Eolas:
Strategies on Negotiating with Asian Companies
Intermediate/Advanced
Federal
Circuit decisions in Eolas and related cases treat software on a golden master
disk as a "component of a patented invention" under 35 USC 271(f).
Accordingly, a holder of a U.S. patent covering implementations of software
has rights to damages based on U.S. patent claims for activity in connection
with the golden master outside of the U.S., without obtaining patent protection
outside of the U.S. Such treatment of software on a golden master as a component
of a patented invention may also extend to treatment of FPGA code, firmware,
computer games, verilog code, CAD/CAM designs, non-software content (e.g.,
digital movies), technical specifications, blueprints, circuit diagrams, etc.
as a "component of a patented invention." Asian companies having
R&D operations in the United States and manufacturing operations outside
of the United States will find themselves at increased exposure to U.S. patents
in general after Eolas. Increased exposure to U.S. patents for activities in
Asia, and other legal developments, may alter strategies on negotiating with
companies based in Asia. Come to our session and learn how to incorporate this
current law and associated negotiating strategies into your practice.
Moderator: Howard
Skaist, Managing Attorney, Berkeley Law & Technology
Group LLC
David Lubitz, Senior Attorney, Microsoft Corporation
Friday,
February 23
11:30 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.
5-D Accelerated
Examination of Patent Applications & its
Impact on Licensing
Intermediate
Recognizing that time to patent issuance has
recently been measured in years rather than months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) now offers patent filers an option for "accelerated examination." In
brief, this option guarantees that final decisions regarding allowance or denial
will be rendered by the USPTO within 12 months of filing. The rules regarding
accelerated examination took effect on August 25, 2006. While accelerated examination
can provide innovators with the early certainty needed to attract investors
or protect inventions against infringers, caution must be exercised as the
rules and restrictions for accelerated examination are quite specific and have
some potential for loss of rights. In exchange for a quick determination of
patentability under accelerated examination, patent applicants must conduct
a patent search, provide much greater disclosure upfront, limit the number
of claims, and adhere to shortened time periods for responding to most USPTO
communications. A panel of patent experts from industry, academia and a law
firm will analyze the results for the first six months of accelerated examination
and address the impact on patenting and licensing decisions going forward.
Moderator: David Dykeman, Shareholder & Patent Attorney, Greenberg Traurig LLP
George
W. Jonas, Intellectual Property Counsel, 3M Innovative Properties Company
Elaine
F. White, Associate Director, Technology Licensing, Boston College
|
| LICENSING OFFICE STRUCTURE & MANAGEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT |
|
Friday, February 23
8:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
3-A Seven Principles of Exceptional
Pharma Licensing Programs: Using Influence to Drive Success
Intermediate
Because
business development in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has
become highly competitive, sustained success requires continuous improvement – especially
in the engagement of decision-makers and crossfunctional support to define
strategy and pursue deals.
This session offers a pragmatic, strategic perspective
on the critical success factors for business development, with a particular
focus on the role of influence. The session will highlight seven operating
principles that separate exceptional business development teams from the rest:
generating a steady flow of quality opportunities; maximizing "signal-to-noise" in
evaluating opportunities; aggressively separating the wheat from the chaff;
recruiting the right people for project teams; making effective use of influence;
maintaining discipline in a fast-paced environment; and managing risk intelligently.
The reality is that many business development teams regularly violate several
of these principles. In particular, internal partnerships are often suboptimal,
resulting in missed deals, misused resources, and effort wasted in pursuit
of the "living dead" opportunities that never seem to go away.
The speaker will present a diagnostic model for identifying the underlying
causes of breakdowns in internal partnering relationships. Then he will provide
participants with a systematic approach to engagement along with practical
tools to generate active, sustained support.
Jack Nightingale, Consultant, Numerof & Associates, Inc.
Friday, February 23
9:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
4-A
Outsourcing of Computer Game Development - Commercial Trends and Contractual
Considerations
Intermediate
Outsourcing of various aspects of computer game
development is no longer new. However, the level of sophistication in structuring
and documenting the outsourcing relationship is more complex than ever in light
of next generation game technology, business globalization, industry responses
and the interplay of laws from different countries governing important issues
including data protection, corporate disclosure requirements and protection
of intellectual property contribute to the complexity. Pitfalls can be avoided
through careful deal planning and legal drafting. Understanding commercial
trends in this evolving sector as well as where risks lie and how to draft
effective solutions under current law with an eye toward what the law may likely
provide tomorrow is good management of business risk.
Maria Spustek, Partner,
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Friday, February 23
11:30 a.m. - 12:45
p.m.
5-A The Business of Patent Licensing
Intermediate/Advanced
Many patent
holders naively think, "I have a great patent, so the world will beat
a path to my door." Most of the time, nothing could be further from the
truth. As in any other business, to be a successful patent licensor, you must
provide (and therefore understand) what licensees actually need. We will cover
the different types of licenses that the patentee can offer, the business and
legal pros/cons of such licenses and which kinds of licensees would want (or
not want) such licenses. With this in mind, one can move away from a one-size-fits-all
mentality and begin to craft targeted licensing programs that will actually
work.
Joseph Yang, Partner, PatentEsque Law Group, LLP
|
|
