Ion Torrent and the issue of licensing deal

Now the trend of genomic research is all about next gene sequencing and the personalized medicine. Life Technologies just launched a new technology called Ion Torrent PGM. It is robust and said to be reliable, which relies on hydrogen ion detection uses for DNA sequencing. Beijing Genomic Institute (BGI) just recently used this tool to sequence the new deathly mutant strain of E.coli, they are now coming out a PCR diagnostic kit to detect this strain.

 

Ion torrent launched by Life Technologies last year.

 

This technology was invented by two Standford scientists: Ron Davis and Nader Pourmand. With the increasing market interest on this Ion Torrent, more businesses also indicate more conflict in financial interest. Having said that, these two scientists proclaimed what they invented does not return some profits for them, in monetary nor scientific credit. They blamed the Stanford Office of Technology Licensing of their university to undervalue their technology deal in Ion Torrent. In other words, they think the university does not fight for their benefit when negotiating the licensing and patent issue with Life Technologies.

"In a typical deal, Pourmand said, Stanford asks for 1 percent or 2 percent equity in the licensing company, of which a third will go to the inventor, a third to the inventor's department, and a third to the inventor's school. Since Life Technologies acquired Ion Torrent for up to $725 million in cash and additional considerations last year, he said the university and the inventors could have gained several million dollars collectively if the tech transfer office had negotiated terms that were in line with previous agreements."

 

Ronald Davis

Nader Pourmand

While now it is the negotiation and war between the researchers and the university itself. The university OTL has a clear law not involving the inventors in licensing negotiation because "conflicts that may arise from an inventor's multiple potential roles and relationships — university researcher, royalty recipient, company consultant, company board member — make such participation unwise." The very reason why not involving inventor is because they are often "not a good judge of the street value of his/her invention. The market is the best indicator."

It is very clear that having a patent of product or technology to be market, it is difficult to justify whether the product is "over or undervalued". The risk of involving too many stakeholder may lead to lower evaluation, or in other words it is better to undervalue the product because there is always a risk the product does not getting used or earn for anything if it is overvalued. " the purpose to license the technology should opt for the benefit of the university, the inventors, and the public as a whole. The goal is to get the technology used to improve lives," (Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation).

As for this, from the view of an inventor, they wish to get more attentions from this licensing issue as to protect their inventions, not to be own by third parties. This is serious and sounds a little bit unfair, when one's invent the ideas and able to apply the technique to community demands, instead of protected and appreciated, much profits actually gone to the parties whom support only in terms of financial part.

This story revealed the truth that scientists wish to get more attention in the profit and patent part, they realize they're not solely exist just to invent the knowledge that turn out to be profit-earning by other parties.

For more information: Scientists Claim Stanford Undervalued Their Technology in Ion Torrent Licensing Deal
 (if you've problem to read this, notify me, i can email the full copy to you)