If you have a question you would like to ask, please send it to questions@labtoipo.com with a subject line of FAQ Question.
FAQs for [DISCLOSURE]
Can I register a Non-University Discloseure? At the moment the system is focusing on University and research group originated (sponsored) disclosures from the European geographic and political region. This does not imply that a non-University disclosure will be rejected out of hand, but it may require additional input from an academic source (university researcher) to ensure that it is up to the expected standards of the disclosures and review system.
Can I resubmit a disclosure? Unless the outcome of the original was a full house of red flags, resubmitting the disclosure at a later point, with changes to reflect the further work done and resolutions to the comments made, is not only possible but encouraged. If the original review felt that the time had not yet come, maybe now it has.
How do you prevent hostile / friendly review stuffing? The disclosure validation reporting system allows for the identification of reviews authors. This allows the filtering of friendly or hostile sources as well as the identification of constant outliers across multiple disclosures. At the end of the day the disclosure authors and their sponsors have to be happy that the reviews included are pertinent, and if they choose to exclude objections they are likely to find that the subsequent QED process is a lot harder to complete.
How does a Disclosure get a Sponsor? Most disclosures will already have a sponsor (the hosting university or research group), but some may originate from individual researchers or non-academic sources. In those cases a Sponsor will be required to take the role usually held by the university, i.e. paying some of the bills. A Disclosure can expose that it requires a sponsor, and may be able to go through the entire review process and in theory be acceptable as a project to be developed into a Protégé Company, before such time as a sponsor steps forward. Under certain (currently exceptional) circumstances, PIPE may allow a disclosure to go forward without charge, if it is seen to be a particularly worthy outcome it is attempting to achieve, or a particularly profitable one. In the later case however sponsors will probably be queuing up to take on the project.
How does Disclosure of IP work? Disclosure of IP comes in two forms
1: Protected IP. Information about patents provided during the disclosure & validation has value to the disclosing party, assuming they wish to be made aware of competing IP i.e. to know that a preceding patent exists saves time & money.
2: Unprotected IP. Information as to unprotected IP should not under any circumstances be exposed to anyone who is not covered by at the minimum a BASE NDA and willing to see the IP with the agreement explicit or implicit of its authors, or covered by BOTH a BASE NDA and a PROJECT SPECIFIC NDA and brought into a project team by the project lead.
Disclosing IP is the responsibility of the AUTHOR of the disclosure and is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
Authors should be aware that:-
1: The title of the Disclosure should be enough to be able to elicit interest but should not give away any IP in itself and that the Author gives permission for the Disclosure Title to be displayed as a minimum to all potential reviewers, even if they should decline to review for a potential conflict of interest.
2: The purpose of the Disclosure is to disclose information short of revealing IP and that it is the authors responsibility to ensure that this is done so.
3: PIPE only shares information as supplied by the author and in accordance with the NDAs that have been signed. i.e. PIPE is also bound by the BASE NDA to treat information as confidential and not to expose it outside of the agreements signed. As at this point NO IP should be present on the PIPE system for a disclosure the scope for accidental or deliberate exposure is very limited.
How long does it take to review a Disclosure? Disclosures to have to be visible for at least 30 days, or until it has received its threshold number of qualified reviewers before any meaningful determination could be made.
If I think that the Disclosure review outcome is wrong, what next? If as an author you think that the final outcome, after having taken into account all of the feedback and adjusting the disclosure to resolve any misconceptions or unclear aspects, is still incorrect, your first port of call is your sponsoring university or research group. Your Technology Transfer Office (TTO) or equivalent will have within their power the ability to accept or ignore the review conclusions, or to impose conditions upon the response given. If you can find a sponsor willing to take you forward then, unless the review outcome was a complete rejection, PIPE will be willing to help. Be warned however that the rejection reasoning will have to be resolved somewhere along the pathway towards investment, and before acceptance into the exchange. Sometimes the rejection reasoning may be a matter of timing. The solution proposed may be to a problem that has now been obsoleted, you missed the window of opportunity, or the solution would work if the marketplace had reached a specific level of awareness of the issue, or an underlying supporting technology / infrastructure outside the control of the project would need to be in place for the project to be viable. e.g. mobile phone apps require mobile phones, networks, network coverage etc.
What happens to failed/rejected disclosures? Any disclosure that is made and not carried forward remains dormant upon the system, usually in a 'withdrawn' status, and can be updated and reactivated by its authors at any point.
What is a Disclosure? A Disclosure is a document that describes an idea / project / invention in such a way as no NOT give away any of the core IP involved but DOES give a fair idea of what the idea is about and how it might be useful. A Disclosure usually already has a sponsor (the host university of the researchers involved) and is a serious step along the way to getting the idea implemented.
Disclosures are reviewed by PIPE Associates who will themselves be either familiar with the specific technology area or the market that it addresses, such that they can give a reasoned appraisal of the opportunities that the disclosure presents for the development of a Protégé Company, a Licensing process or a Joint Venture. As can be expected not every Disclosure is going to get the universal approval that its authors may have anticipated, but even those that do not may still have a future. It may be that the time is not yet ripe for the proposition, and a few more pieces need to fall into place before revisiting the proposal.
What prevents PIPE from exposing IP that it shouldn't? PIPE is cited as a signatory party to both the BASE NDA and the PROJECT NDA. PIPES acceptance of the NDA is through its generation as an NDA to be signed and its loading into the system as a signed NDA and being accepted as such for permissions to proceed.
PIPE is therefore bound to an NDA with the Author(s) of the Disclosure and subsequent Projects through the process of accepting the Author as a PAN member
The front door of the system is not the only place that checks are run. Access to projects requires a signed PROJECT NDA that should precede the Project leader bringing the individual into the project.
Who decides what a Disclosure review outcome is? The outcome of a review is the sum of the individual reviewers. The only single reviewer who has any influence is the final collator of the summary, and the bias at this point is slightly more positive than negative. The factual evidence however cannot be adjusted by anyone other than the individual reviewers passing their judgements. For this reason alone, it is important that the Disclosure Author, looks at and responds to any negative feedback in a prompt and appropriate manner. A simple assumption that the reviewer will make a specific connection between things, or that the way the commercial world operates supports the process, could undermine the disclosure review outcome. Ideally NO question on the Disclosure form should have a negative average (That's a RED FLAG) and VERY FEW if any should have anyone who has marked the question negatively (that's a warning card). If that can be achieved then it is down to levels of good, and the comparative levels for the disclosures that a sponsor is looking to take forward.
Who is allowed to review a disclosure? Only fully registered members of the platform are allowed to review a disclosure. Ideally a quorum of reviewers whose skill profile closely matches the skill requirements profile of the disclosure will be available within the existing PAN membership. If not it is PIPEs responsibility (with any help readily accepted) to identify and invite other individuals into the system so that they can participate in the review process. Restriction of the reviewers to nominated sets of PAN members is a possibility but not encouraged as it is not desirable to either intentionally or accidentally create a bias of review outcome and to exclude feedback that may be either positive or negative.
Your question not there?, send it to questions@labtoipo.com with a subject line of FAQ Question.