OCTOBER
2004
 

KEEPING YOUR PATENT COSTS UNDER CONTROL - PART II

This is Part II of a three-part article which discusses the strategies that educational institutions can use to protect their intellectual property, while keeping associated costs under control. In Part II, we discuss the second of three strategies to be covered, Partnering with Business. You can find a link to Part 1 at www.cwilson.com/cgi/webadmin/jump.cgi?ID=793.

2.2 Partnering with Business

Because there are so many good ideas available for commercialization, it can be challenging to attract the right business partners.

(a) Developing a Marketable Reputation

The most direct way to secure partners from industry is to build a reputation for technical and business acumen, at least in select fields, so that businesses will either come calling to discover what technology is available for commercialization or will at least be receptive to a direct pitch. Institutions that have developed a marketable reputation also tend to enjoy collaborative research partnerships with industry, in which industry funds both commercialization and additional pure research. As well as cultivating world-class researchers and performing world-class research, an institution can further develop a marketable reputation by encouraging its faculty and students to become integrated into industry and business networks, both local and virtual, in addition to academic networks. Faculty who are skilled at preparing successful grant applications enjoy enhanced reputations within their institutions and in the world at large.

(b) Banding Together with Other Institutions

Very few institutions have the size and resources to go it alone in all fields, so partnering arrangements with other institutions are important to consider. For example, Centres of Excellence and associations of Industry Liaison Offices provide a forum for institutions to pool their research, interact with industry, and actively pursue solutions to specific industry needs.

Westlink Innovation Network Ltd. (www.westlink.ca) is an association of Industry Liaison Offices from mainly Western Canadian institutions. Westlink's mission is to:

  • bundle the intellectual property of its member institutions into comprehensive portfolios that can be marketed to targeted industries; and

  • provide consulting services to business clients to find solutions to their specific needs by assembling bundles of member technology.

There is also a relatively recent trend in which institutions identify key market sectors and place their patents into pools that can be easily and widely accessed by standard-form, easy-to-administer licenses.

(c) Internet Invention Marketplaces

Not surprisingly, the Internet is also driving the creation of marketplaces that facilitate transactions in intellectual property. While many institutions post information about their licensable technology on their own websites, this approach has limitations because potential licensees are more likely to search for solutions by technology, not by institution. Therefore, other Internet marketplaces have developed to meet this need. For example, www.yet2.com is a large Internet marketplace used by blue-chip multinationals to advertise their technical needs and licensable technology. Closer to home, Flintbox, a Vancouver company founded by the University of British Columbia and Westlink Innovation Network Ltd., has developed a low-overhead electronic commerce engine to enable institutions to track interest in and grant click-wrap licenses for their technology. Flintbox is particularly well suited to high-volume, low-cost technology that might not warrant patent protection at all, because it can be sufficiently and more efficiently protected contractually through licensing.

Flintbox's Bob de Wit explains,

"We created Flintbox (www.flintbox.ca) to improve the connection between university researchers and the end-users of their inventions. By enabling click-wrap licensing of any technology and affordable wide-scale distribution of software and content over the Web, we have enabled tech-transfer organizations to quickly gather market information about new discoveries. This information can prove critical in their decision to convert provisional patent applications into full submissions.

Flintbox can also save institutions the trouble of trying to target likely receptors of new technology; in several instances, Flintbox has already helped prospective licensees from the most unlikely places to find the technology that they need and then to obtain a click-wrap license from the institution that owns the technology.

Overall, we expect this new tool to not only improve institutions' licensing and dissemination results, but also to reduce their overall patenting expenses, because institutions will be better able to decide to forego patent protection for poorly received inventions and for inventions that are generating an adequate click-wrap royalty stream."

In Part III of this series (which will appear in our next issue of Campus Counsel), Michael Roman will discuss the third strategy, Minimizing (Delaying) Patent Prosecution Costs.
 
 

AN OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS:
HOW THEY ARISE AND HOW TO AVOID THEM

The Problem

Institutions of higher learning are undertaking major capital projects to deal with ageing infrastructure, deferred maintenance and the demand of a burgeoning student population. This has forced institutions to deal with projects which require skills which are very different from those required for the institutions’ core missions of education and research. In many instances, capital projects have been plagued with construction claims both during and following completion of the work. These claims can cause significant legal expense and also create a huge drain on personnel whose time could be better spent on more productive matters.

How do Construction Claims Arise?

Construction claims can be caused by a number of factors. Understanding what causes construction claims is the first step in avoiding them. In general, construction claims occur because of the following:

  • delays in construction and completion of the contract;
  • delays in the delivery and supply of materials;
  • weather which slows down or prevents construction from proceeding;
  • owner requested changes;
  • changes which occur even though not requested by the owner;
  • poor management and administration of the construction site;
  • site conditions which differ from those expected;
  • work becomes impossible to perform due to unavoidable circumstances, such as force majeure;
  • inadequate plans and specifications;
  • failures to disclose information which is material to the construction;
  • conflicts and failures to co-operate among consultants, contractors and subcontractors involved in the project;
  • acceleration of the work;
  • failure to adequately schedule and co-ordinate the work; and
  • insolvency of contractors, subcontractors or key suppliers.

General Recommendations for Avoiding Construction Claims

Owners who have been involved in construction claims, and especially those which have resulted in arbitration or litigation, are well aware of the costs, disruption and often ill will, caused by such claims. In many cases, construction claims can be avoided if effective risk management is performed at the outset.

Effective risk management to avoid construction claims involves a cost/benefits analysis at each stage of the project. It may not be practical to take all or even most of the steps set out below for avoiding construction claims. However, if an owner undertakes some of these steps the owner is likely to incur significant savings in the long term.

12 Steps to Avoiding Construction Claims

  1. The best way to ensure that something occurs or does not occur is to put it in the contract. Obtain good legal advice before entering into key contracts in order to ensure that your objectives are properly and adequately reflected. The standard general conditions contained in industry standard documents may not be adequate for your needs, and in particular, they commonly contain limitations on liability which are not fully understood by the owner and may be inappropriate in the circumstances. This is particularly true of public entities which have special and diverse needs and interests.
  2. Owners should try to hire contractors and consultants with whom they have a good relationship and who have a good reputation in the industry, are credit worthy and are qualified to undertake any specialized work required for the project. An owner is well advised to investigate the reputation and qualifications of its general contractor [or?]any key subcontractor. Bonding will address some of these concerns.
  3. Owners should realize that the lowest bid is not always the best bid.
  4. Owners should ensure that the contract allows them to have some say in the general contractor's selection of subcontractors, especially when any element of the project requires specialized expertise.
  5. The parties to a contract should ensure that they understand their duties and obligations and that they have the ability to perform these duties and obligations as required by the contract.
  6. Owners should ensure that the project is well planned from the outset to minimize the need for change orders. Changes are likely to cause additional costs, in and of themselves, but are also likely to increase the risk of construction claims due to delays and impacts caused by the changes.
  7. Owners and contractors should do what they can to ensure proper management and administration of the project, including proper and adequate staffing and co-ordination of the project and trades, establishment of protocols for site meetings and provision of timely responses to requests for review of working drawings and for provision of instructions.
  8. All parties benefit from an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect and each party should do what it can to engender such an atmosphere among the parties and their advisors.
  9. While it may be initially attractive to a party to shift all of the risk in the contract to the other party for risks such as insufficient plans and specifications and unexpected site conditions, a contract which is skewed in favour of one party often results in a higher chance of a dispute and hence, a construction claim. A contract that recognizes and balances the interests of all parties and that does not include an overly unfair allocation of risk will result in a decreased likelihood of construction claims.
  10. Ensure proper and adequate documentation for the project.
  11. Acknowledge and settle claims which have merit at an early stage.
  12. Ensure that the contract has an adequate process for dispute resolution. Try to provide for a range of solutions from discussions between key personnel, through mediation and culminating in binding arbitration. Provide for how the project will proceed pending resolution of a dispute.

For a more in depth understanding of a broader range of issues relating to risk management (including insurance risk) in relation to construction projects, our readers should attend the conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on November 3, 2004 entitled Insurance and Risk Management for Construction Projects. The conference is sponsored by Pacific Business & Law Institute and is co-chaired by Neo Tuytel, a partner at Clark Wilson, and Gordon Wainwright, Risk Officer for Simon Fraser University. To find out more, contact Pacific Business & Law Institute, Suite 305 - 1681 Chestnut Street, Vancouver BC V6J 4M6; Phone (604) 730-2500 and Fax (604) 730-5085, or link to www.cwilson.com/seminars/criskmtg.pdf.

   

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT

Bill 60, being the University Amendment Act, 2004 received first reading in the Legislature on October 4, 2004. Bill 60 enacts three key amendments to the University Act. The first of these amendments affects only the University of British Columbia; the second two affect each of the universities governed by the University Act, namely UBC, University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University and University of Northern British Columbia.

The first amendment in Bill 60 will facilitate the academic governance structure required by UBC to incorporate the university elements of Okanagan University College into UBC. This structure will give UBC two senates and a council, as follows: there will be an Okanagan senate, which will be responsible for the academic governance of the portions of UBC which its board of governors specifies are to be governed by the Okanagan senate, and a second senate which will be responsible for the academic governance of the rest of UBC. In addition, UBC will have a council, comprised of members of both the Okanagan and the Vancouver senates. Any of the president, the board of governors, the Vancouver senate or the Okanagan senate may refer to the council a matter which might be considered by either of the two UBC senates. In such event, the council will consider and dispose of the matter as though it were a senate.

The second two amendments have been long awaited by BC’s universities. Section 50(2) of the University Act has now been amended to require only the approval of the Minister of Advanced Education (rather than an Order in Council) where a university wished to dispose of its land. With respect to the third amendment to the University Act, first, a bit of background. Universities are creatures of statute, and as such have only the powers conferred on them by the University Act. If a university does not have the power of a natural person, anyone dealing with the university must consider if each action or obligation undertaken by the university is authorized under the University Act. The relevant amendment in Bill 60 states: "Subject to this Act and for the purposes of exercising its powers and carrying out its duties and functions under this Act, a university has the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity". Universities in British Columbia have requested the power to contract on the same basis as a natural person of full capacity for some time. If this power were conferred without qualification, it would give universities the broad ability to contract which is enjoyed by conventional business corporations.

Clearly, a number of activities which a university may wish to undertake remain subject to external approvals in spite of Bill. For instance, grants and conveyances of land remain subject to the obligation to obtain the approval of the Minister of Advanced Education under Section 50(2) of the University Act. Borrowings for the purposes set out in Section 58 remain subject to approval by the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance. If a power of the board of governors is qualified or limited in Section 27, such limitation remains in force. But is the power and capacity of a university to act like a natural person of full capacity further limited? The new language in Bill 60 makes a university’s expanded power and capacity available "for the purposes of exercising its powers and carrying out its duties and functions" under the University Act. This may invite an analysis of what the duties and functions of a university are under the University Act before any determination can be made if a given power exercised by a university is in fact authorized. It would have been preferable, in our view, if Bill 60 had simply stated: "Subject to this Act, a university has the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity."

 
  

NACUA 44TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE:
JUNE 2004, VANCOUVER BC

This year Vancouver hosted the 44th Annual Conference with over 900 delegates in attendance.

The National Association of College and University Attorney’s ("NACUA") membership is made up primarily of accredited, non-profit colleges and universities. Most, but not all, of the members are American. As an organization created to foster and promote higher education by advancing knowledge in the practice of law on behalf of colleges and universities, NACUA has made a conscious decision to focus on service to the fundamental unit of higher education – accredited institutions. NACUA is an important resource for the lawyers at Clark Wilson LLP and the Annual Conference gives us the opportunity to enjoy an exceptional program and a chance to catch-up with old friends and meet new ones, as we continue to expand the firm’s network. Clark Wilson LLP was the co-sponsor of an open reception which was held on a beautiful summer evening at the Museum of Anthropology at UBC.

Through our involvement with NACUA, the lawyers at Clark Wilson LLP are able to better understand the issues of the day as they affect our clients and, as well, develop an important network of contacts across North America.

We look forward to next year’s Annual Conference, which will be held in Orlando, Florida.

 

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY SOLICITORS

Brock Johnston and Roy Nieuwenburg of Clark Wilson LLP attended the annual CAUS conference on September 17 and 18 in Kelowna. The conference was attended by in-house and external counsel of many of Canada’s universities, including BC lawyers from UBC, Ogilvy Renault, Taylor Jordan Chafetz and Richards Buell Sutton. Representation extended from British Columbia through the Prairies and Ontario to the Maritimes. Papers were presented on a broad range of topics, ranging from "Who is a Student" to "Unlocking Value of Campus Real Estate". In addition, the event provided an excellent opportunity for lawyers involved in the higher learning sector to canvass, in an informal way, many areas of common concern and also to get to know each other better. Next year the CAUS conference will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

 

CAMPUS COUNSEL VIA EMAIL

If you would prefer to receive Campus Counsel via email, please send your name and e-mail address to webmaster@cwilson.com.  You may access back issues of this and other Clark Wilson LLP newsletters on our website at www.cwilson.com.


 

Barristers & Solicitors
Patent & Trade-Mark Agents

800.885 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC  Canada  V6C 3H1
Tel. 604.687.5700
Fax. 604.687.6314

Articles may be reproduced with a credit stating "Reproduced from Clark Wilson LLP's Campus Counsel". Please forward a copy of any reproduced article to "Marketing" at Clark Wilson LLP.

Questions or Comments?

For more information on any article contained in this issue of Clark Wilson LLP’s Campus Counsel or on any Higher Learning matter, please contact :

Roy Nieuwenburg

Direct Tel.   604.643.3112
Email           ran@cwilson.com

Brock Johnston

Direct Tel.   604.643.3116
Email           rbj@cwilson.com

or any member of the Higher Learning Group at tel. 604.687.5700

 
Clark Wilson LLP's Campus Counsel is published periodically by the Higher Learning Group at Clark Wilson LLP. The information contained in this newsletter should not be treated by readers as legal advice and ought not to be relied on without detailded legal counsel being sought.
Editor: Brock Johnston © 2004, Clark Wilson LLP. All Rights Reserved.