Quick Intro — What's Driving This Conversation?

• Which best describes your role in evaluating external technology for your organization? Options: VP of R&D / Head of Innovation, Director of R&D, Startup CTO / Founder, Venture investor / Principal, Product leader, Other
• Briefly name the technical area or capability you’re exploring (e.g., biosensors, AI for drug discovery, advanced materials)
• What triggered this search right now? Options: Roadmap gap requiring 3+ years to build, Foundational IP needed for a seed round, VC portfolio company need, Competitive pressure, Other
• How soon do you need a working solution or demonstrator integrated into your roadmap? Options: Immediate (0–3 months), Short (3–6 months), Medium (6–12 months), Longer (12+ months), Unsure
• What keeps you up at night about licensing university technology for this project?

Are You Trying to Build a Moonshot or Fill a Gap?

• What if building this capability in-house will cost you more than you expect — how would that change your approach? Options: We'd accelerate licensing, We'd hire more internally, We'd form a JV or spin-out, We'd pause the project, Unsure
• What internal capabilities do you already have that are directly relevant to developing this technology? Options: Strong core team and labs, Some expertise but not enough, No internal expertise, Contract R&D partners, Other
• If you chose to build internally, what is your realistic timeline and budget to reach a licenseable or product-ready milestone?
• What specific technical milestones would make you feel comfortable not licensing (e.g., reproducible prototype, validated assay, performance threshold)?
• Have you licensed university technology before? If yes, what went well and what didn’t? Options: Yes — mostly positive, Yes — mixed, Yes — mostly negative, No

How Bad Would It Be If This Took Longer (or Failed)?

• If this capability is delayed or fails to materialize, what are the tangible consequences for your product roadmap or funding timeline? Options: Missed product launch, Lost market window, Delayed fundraising, Increased costs, Other
• How much additional budget or time can you realistically commit to a technology that underperforms initial expectations? Options: Significant (20%+ budget/time), Moderate (10–20%), Small (under 10%), None
• When you face technical uncertainty, do you prefer incremental progress with staged go/no-go gates or a single concentrated development push? Options: Staged gates, Single push, Hybrid
• Tell us about a past technical project that surprised you—what went wrong and how did it make you rethink risk?
• Emotionally, how do your stakeholders react to risk—risk-embracing, risk-averse, or somewhere in between? Options: Risk-embracing, Risk-tolerant with milestones, Risk-averse, Varies by stakeholder

Who Really Holds the Keys?

• If a pilot or license requires sign-off, who are the decision-makers and what authority do they hold? Options: VP of R&D, CPO / Head of Product, CEO / Founder, Board / ICs, Legal/IP counsel, Other
• What procurement, legal, or contracting constraints typically slow deals at your organization? Options: Complex legal reviews, Vendor approval processes, Budget cycles, Export control/ITAR, Other
• How frequently does your organization require outside legal approvals or VC consent before signing licensing or pilot agreements? Options: Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never
• Who in your team will own day-to-day collaboration with inventors or our program managers during discovery and pilot? Options: Internal technical lead, Program manager, Procurement contact, External consultant, Unsure
• What internal timelines or events (budget reviews, board meetings, product sprints) create hard deadlines for this decision?

What Would Perfect Look Like for Your Program?

• Imagine a five-invention pilot that solves your top blocker—what measurable outcome convinces you to scale (reduced time-to-market, performance uplift, validated integration)? Options: Time-to-market reduction, Performance benchmarks met, Clear commercialization partner, Investment-ready IP, Other
• Which KPIs will you use to judge pilot success? Options: Prototype meeting specs, Independent validation, Patent strength score, Partner commitment/LOI, Cost to further develop
• How would success feel for your team beyond metrics—what internal perceptions would change?
• If success required trade-offs, which are acceptable: faster timeline vs broader rights, higher cost vs exclusivity, or limited scope vs guaranteed diligence? Options: Faster timeline over broader rights, Higher cost for exclusivity, Limited scope with guaranteed diligence, Prefer not to trade core IP rights
• What would a clear ‘no-go’ look like—what findings would stop you from proceeding? Options: Unresolvable technical risk, Unacceptable licensing terms, No inventor engagement, Market not interested, Other

What Would Make Licensing Feel Safe?

• What licensing terms or clauses are absolute deal-breakers for you? Options: Broad field exclusivity, High up-front fees, Strict diligence milestones, Unfavorable indemnity, No sublicensing rights, Other
• How concerned are you about patent claim breadth and freedom-to-operate when evaluating university inventions? Options: Very concerned, Somewhat concerned, Neutral, Not concerned
• Would you prefer a license structure that prioritizes speed (short pilot license + option) or one that prioritizes long-term certainty (full-term exclusive license)? Options: Speed-first (pilot/option), Certainty-first (full exclusive), Non-exclusive exploration, Hybrid
• How important is the university’s flexibility on revenue structure (royalty vs equity vs milestone) to your decision? Options: Critical, Important, Somewhat important, Not important
• Describe any past licensing term that made you walk away—and what specifically about it felt unfair or risky?

The Pilot — Tell Us What Success Looks Like in Practice

• If we proposed a 6–8 week portfolio audit of 5 inventions, what would you need to see in the deliverable to say it was worth the investment? Options: Clear go/no-go recommendation, Patent strength scoring, Technical validation notes, Commercial landscape summary, Prototype feasibility assessment
• Which artifacts would you want from a pilot to accelerate licensing or internal adoption (e.g., bench data, integration plan, term sheet template)? Options: Bench data/replication, Integration prototype, Term sheet draft, Inventor interviews, Freedom-to-operate memo
• How involved will your technical experts need to be during the audit—are inventor interviews and lab access acceptable? Options: Hands-on involvement, Periodic check-ins, Minimal involvement, Unavailable
• What acceptance criteria should we use at the end of the pilot to trigger a licensing discussion? Options: Technical feasibility affirmed, Patentability & freedom-to-operate cleared, Commercial partner interest, Cost-to-develop acceptable
• What would make you say yes to a pilot today (pricing, timeline, NDA, references)? Options: Low-cost pilot, Short timeline, Mutual NDA, Successful references, Clear option-to-license

Hidden Roadblocks — Let’s Surface the Stuff No One Mentions

• What faculty or institutional realities have surprised you in past collaborations (engagement level, conflicting obligations, publication timelines)?
• Are there known encumbrances on relevant IP (sponsored research, existing licenses, inventor equity) we should be aware of? Options: Yes—sponsored research, Yes—existing license, Yes—inventor equity issues, No known encumbrances, Unsure
• How do export controls, data privacy, or regulatory constraints shape your ability to work with university partners? Options: Major constraint, Moderate constraint, Minor constraint, No constraint, Unsure
• If university inventors are unresponsive, how willing are you to proceed with limited inventor involvement (e.g., using published methods only)? Options: Very willing, Somewhat willing, Prefer inventor involvement, Not willing
• What internal or external approvals could unexpectedly derail a pilot after it starts? Options: Budget cuts, Legal objections, VC objections, IT/security block, Other

Practical Next Steps — How Do You Want Us to Work Together?

• What is your preferred next milestone for us to reach together (introduction call, NDA, pilot SOW, internal review)? Options: Introductory call, Mutual NDA, Pilot SOW/Estimate, Internal decision memo, Other
• Who should be on the short kickoff call from your side (names or roles)?
• What cadence of updates would you find most useful during discovery (weekly, biweekly, end-of-pilot report)? Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Milestone-driven, Only final report
• How would you prefer we present pilot findings to your leadership—technical briefing, executive one-pager, or both? Options: Technical briefing, Executive one-pager, Both, Other
• Realistically, when can you commit to a 6–8 week audit if we align on scope today? Options: Start immediately, Within 2–4 weeks, In 1–2 months, Later than 2 months, Unsure

• Current State Confirmation
• Consequence & Success Metrics Workshop
• Pilot Solution Experience — Representative Proof Session
• Operational Pilot Planning & Inventor Engagement

• Confirm Final Five-Invention Pilot List
• Have explicit, quantified consequences (dollar/time/risk) tied to the current-state diagnosis.
• Agree a short list of measurable pilot success metrics and the go/no-go thresholds the VP of R&D will use.
• Prioritize decision criteria so the Solution Experience focuses on what matters to the buyer.
• Customer to provide internal cost and timeline assumptions used in the scenario models.
• Seller to produce a comparative ROI/time-to-license model for the five-invention pilot.
• Facilitator to produce a KPI table with go/no-go thresholds for circulation.
• Recap Preconditions (Current State, Consequences, Future State)
• Demonstrate a clear, evidence-based de-risking path for a representative invention that directly ties to the buyer's consequences and metrics.
• Obtain explicit validation from the customer that the demonstrated proof addresses their defined problem and metrics.
• Agree portfolio-level impact projections (months-to-license reduction, probability-of-success uplift) supported by the representative proof.
• Seller to prepare five concise proof-pack templates (one per invention) specifying required evidence, timeline, and acceptance criteria.
• Customer to confirm which internal stakeholders must validate the representative proof and schedule their participation.
• Facilitator to document validation responses and update the pilot KPI table accordingly.
• Introductions & Objectives
• Have a signed operational pilot plan with scope, deliverables, acceptance criteria, timeline, and governance owners.
• Confirm inventor participation commitments and data-handling agreements necessary for the audit.
• Establish an agreed risk register with mitigation actions and triggers to preserve the pilot timetable.
• TTO to produce and circulate the pilot Statement of Work (scope, milestones, SMMs) and NDAs within 3 business days.
• Legal teams to draft data/IP handling templates and expedited licensing term skeleton for pilot follow-on.
• Seller to schedule inventor interviews and provide an interview questionnaire to the inventors and customer reviewers.
• Agree a one-sentence current-state diagnosis that articulates what is breaking today.
• Capture an evidence inventory (documents, data, patent status) sufficient to run the pilot proof.
• Identify decision roles, constraints, and pre-work owners to remove blockers before the proof session.
• Customer to upload R&D roadmap, build-time estimates, and internal go/no-go thresholds.
• TTO to deliver five one-page invention briefs and current patent prosecution snapshots.
• Facilitator to draft the finalized one-sentence current-state and circulate for confirmation.
• Recap Current-State Statement
• Quantify Consequences
• Define Deliverables & Acceptance Criteria per Invention
• Representative Invention Diagnosis
• One-sentence Current State Draft
• Proof: De-risking Plan & Evidence
• Define Success Metrics & Thresholds
• IP, Data & Confidentiality Procedures
• Evidence Review
• Roles, Responsibilities & Governance
• Stakeholders, Constraints & Decision Roles
• Proof: Commercial Fit Mapping
• Scenario Modeling
• Inventor Engagement Plan
• Open Unknowns & Pre-work Closure
• Prioritize Decision Criteria
• Portfolio-level Aggregation
• Force Validation: Customer Confirmation & Challenges
• Risk Register & Contingency Triggers
• Next Steps & Kick-off Timeline
• Capture Acceptance Criteria & Evidence Requirements

• Draft and file provisional patent application
• Draft and file PCT/international patent application
• Manage patent prosecution and respond to office actions
• Draft and execute exclusive license agreement
• Draft and execute non-exclusive license agreement
• Draft and execute option-to-license agreement (startup)
• Negotiate and execute confidentiality/CDAs
• Draft and execute material transfer agreements for validation
• Negotiate and execute sponsored research agreements
• Manage license compliance, royalties, and invoicing
• Process patent maintenance, annuities, and payments
• Prepare and execute patent assignment and transfer documents

Draft and file provisional patent application

• Include this module in the pilot scope? Options: Yes, No
• How many provisional applications do you anticipate needing? Options: None, 1-2, 3-5, More than 5
• Are invention disclosures complete, with inventor confirmation and supporting data? Options: Yes, No, Partially
• Desired filing timeframe for provisionals? Options: Within 2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, Flexible
• Is there any pre-publication embargo, conference presentation, or grant reporting that affects filing date? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Notes on provisional requirements (e.g., figures, experimental data, co-inventor approvals)

Draft and file PCT/international patent application

• Include PCT/international filing in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Do you plan to enter national phases in specific jurisdictions after PCT? Options: Yes, No, Undecided
• Which target jurisdictions are priorities for national-phase entry? Options: US, Europe (EPO), China, Japan, Other, Undecided
• Is there existing prior art or foreign filings we should coordinate with? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Preferred timeline for PCT filing relative to provisional/priority date? Options: Within 12 months of provisional, Waive priority and file directly, Flexible
• Any special confidentiality or export-control constraints relevant to international filing? Options: Yes, No, Unknown

Manage patent prosecution and respond to office actions

• Include prosecution management and office-action response in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Which patent offices require active prosecution support? Options: USPTO, EPO, China CNIPA, Japan JPO, Other
• Do you have preferred outside counsel or should we manage docketing and outside counsel selection? Options: Use preferred counsel, We should select counsel, No preference
• What is the expected budget or authorization threshold for substantive prosecution actions (e.g., appeals, interviews)? Options: Under $10k per office, $10k-$30k per office, Over $30k per office, Decide case-by-case
• Are there claim-scope priorities (broad composition claims vs method claims) that should guide response strategy? Options: Yes, No
• Provide any open office actions or prosecution notes that we should review (application numbers, examiner names, deadlines)

Draft and execute exclusive license agreement

• Include an exclusive license option in pilot scope? Options: Yes, No
• What exclusivity dimensions are required (field-of-use, territory, application-specific)? Options: Field-of-use, Territory, Channel/industry, Time-limited, Other
• Preferred exclusivity term length? Options: 1-2 years, 3-5 years, Term of patents, Negotiable
• Desired commercial terms to include (upfront fee, milestone payments, royalties, equity)? Options: Upfront fee, Milestones, Running royalties, Equity, No preference
• Are sublicensing rights required or prohibited? Options: Allowed with approval, Allowed freely, Prohibited, Undecided
• Any special obligations to inventors, sponsors, or third parties that must be reflected in the license? Options: Yes, No, Unknown

Draft and execute non-exclusive license agreement

• Include non-exclusive licensing in pilot scope? Options: Yes, No
• Will non-exclusive licenses be limited by field, territory, or use-case? Options: Yes, No, Undecided
• Preferred compensation model for non-exclusive deals? Options: One-time fee, Low royalty rate, Subscription/annual fee, Milestones, Other
• Do you require minimal diligence or development milestones to maintain the license? Options: Yes, No, Case-by-case
• Is exclusivity carve-out or priority licensing to be preserved for preferred partners? Options: Yes, No, Maybe
• Provide preferred non-exclusive template clauses or deal-breakers (e.g., indemnity limits, publication rights)

Draft and execute option-to-license agreement (startup)

• Include option-to-license structures for startups in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Preferred option term length? Options: 3-6 months, 6-12 months, 12+ months, Negotiable
• Will option include exclusivity during the option period? Options: Yes, No, Partial
• Required consideration for option (option fee, equity, milestone commitment)? Options: Option fee, Equity, Milestones, No fee
• Do you require diligence milestones, investor-qualification thresholds, or fundraising conditions to convert the option? Options: Yes, No, Undecided
• Any university spinout policies or conflict-of-interest rules that affect option terms? Options: Yes, No, Unknown

Negotiate and execute confidentiality/CDAs

• Include CDAs/NDA management in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Will most CDAs be mutual or one-way? Options: Mutual, One-way (Recipient), One-way (Discloser)
• Typical disclosure recipients (select all that apply)? Options: Corporate R&D, Startups, VC investors, Contractors/consultants, Academic collaborators
• Preferred CDA term and confidentiality duration? Options: 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, Indefinite
• Do CDAs need export-control or ITAR clauses included? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Any existing CDA templates or mandatory legal language we must use? Options: Yes, No

Draft and execute material transfer agreements for validation

• Include MTAs/material transfer support in scope? Options: Yes, No
• What types of materials will be transferred (select all that apply)? Options: Biological samples, Cell lines, Reagents/chemicals, Prototypes/hardware, Data sets
• Are any materials subject to biosafety, human-subjects, or export restrictions? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Required MTA provisions (use, return/destroy, publication, ownership of derivatives)? Options: Use limits, Return/Destroy, Publication rights, Ownership of derivatives, Other
• Preferred liability/indemnity language or insurance requirements for recipients? Options: Standard university limits, Higher limits required, No special requirement, Undecided
• Any material handling SOPs, chain-of-custody, or temperature/control requirements we should capture?

Negotiate and execute sponsored research agreements

• Include SRAs (sponsored research agreements) in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Sponsor type and primary goals for SRA (select all that apply)? Options: Corporate R&D collaboration, Preclinical validation, Prototype development, Translational research, Other
• Preferred intellectual property allocation (sponsor owns background/foreground, university retains ownership, options to license)? Options: Sponsor owns foreground, University owns foreground with license option, Joint ownership, Custom
• Are there publication or confidentiality carve-outs required by faculty or funders? Options: Yes, No, Partially
• Is government or restricted funding involved requiring specific flow-down clauses (e.g., Bayh-Dole, reporting)? Options: Yes, No, Unknown
• Expected SRA budget, milestone payments, and timeline to deliverables

Manage license compliance, royalties, and invoicing

• Include post-execution compliance and royalty management in scope? Options: Yes, No
• Preferred reporting cadence for licensees (select all that apply)? Options: Quarterly, Semi-annual, Annual, On-demand
• Do you require audit rights and how frequently should audits be permitted? Options: Yes — annual, Yes — as-needed, No
• How should invoicing and payments be handled (institution billing, third-party billing, online portal)? Options: Institution billing, Third-party billing, Online payment portal, Other
• Are minimum annual royalties, milestones, or performance guarantees expected? Options: Yes, No, Case-by-case
• Any currency, tax withholding, or cross-border payment considerations?

• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Pilot Commercial Term Sheet
• Master Services & Licensing Agreement (MSA)
• Non‑Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Data Sharing & Use Agreement (DSA)
• IP Handling & Licensing Agreement
• Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) / Sample Access
• Inventor Engagement & Support Commitment
• Acceptance Criteria & Decision Gates
• Payment & Milestone Schedule
• Option to License / Right of First Negotiation
• Change Control & Governance Addendum
• Liability, Indemnification & Insurance Addendum

• Pilot Outcomes Review — Diagnosis
• Go / No‑Go Decision Meeting — Formal Gate
• Lessons Learned Workshop — Capture & Translate
• Scale‑up Commercialization & Resourcing Planning
• Stakeholder Handoff & External Communication

• Align IP prosecution priorities with commercialization milestones to avoid blocking partner talks.
• Reach an explicit Go / Conditional Go / No‑Go decision documented with rationales.
• Capture any conditions (metrics, timelines, funding) tied to a Conditional Go and assign owners.
• Agree on the communication plan to internal stakeholders and external prospects.
• Draft and circulate the formal decision memo summarizing verdict, rationale, and conditions within 24 hours.
• If Go or Conditional Go: trigger updates to the licensing strategy and project plan; assign leads and target dates.
• If No‑Go: document failure reasons, archive pilot artifacts, and prepare an internal closure report and learning brief.
• Framing: Current State, Consequence, Future State (1 sentence each)
• Produce a prioritized list of 3–6 concrete experiments or process changes to validate before scaling.
• Assign owners, timelines, and success criteria for each experiment.
• Identify playbook updates and documentation required to embed successful practices.
• Ensure failure causes are translated into mitigations rather than vague recommendations.
• Create a Lessons Learned report that includes root causes, experiments, owners, and timelines.
• Set up and schedule the first validation experiments with clear success metrics and owners.
• Update the pilot-to-scale playbook and templates to reflect validated changes.
• Define One‑Sentence Future State for Scale
• Agree on a concrete commercialization roadmap with milestones, owners, and timelines.
• Secure initial resourcing commitments or approvals to begin scale activities.
• Opening & Meeting Objectives
• Establish governance and reporting cadence for scaled execution.
• Draft the scaled commercialization project plan (milestones, budget, staffing) and circulate for approvals.
• Initiate resource requests (budget/hiring/consulting) for approved elements of the roadmap.
• Schedule kickoff for partner outreach aligned with roadmap milestones.
• Stakeholder Map & Communication Objectives
• Ensure consistent, approved messages are ready for each stakeholder group and a communication timeline is set.
• Assign explicit owners for each outreach and define escalation contacts.
• Establish monitoring and reporting cadence to surface issues early during scale-up or closure.
• Prepare and approve communication templates (faculty note, partner brief, executive summary) for immediate distribution.
• Send notifications to impacted stakeholders per the agreed timeline and collect acknowledgements.
• Set up the agreed reporting channel (dashboard or weekly summary) and schedule the first update.
• Ensure every stakeholder has the same one-sentence current-state understanding of the pilot outcomes.
• Quantify the business, technical, and schedule consequences of unmet signals.
• Identify and assign owners for any data gaps that must be closed prior to decision.
• Produce a short 'decision packet' checklist to carry into the formal gating meeting.
• Finalize and distribute the decision packet (outcomes summary, KPI comparisons, inventor statements) to decision attendees 48 hours before the Go/No‑Go meeting.
• Owner assignments to close identified data gaps, with clear deliverables and deadlines.
• Prepare a concise consequence memo translating pilot gaps into estimated cost/time/risk impacts.
• Recap Decision Criteria & Pre-Reads
• One‑Sentence Current State
• KPI & Success Signal Verdicts
• Core Messages (Go / Conditional / No‑Go)
• High-Level Roadmap & Milestones
• Timeline Walkthrough
• Risk & Mitigation Review
• IP & Patent Prosecution Priorities
• Success Signals & KPI Review
• Timing & Channels
• Root Cause Analysis (Failures & Surprises)
• Consequence Quantification
• Commercial Outreach & Partner Strategy
• Role Assignments & Escalation Paths
• Commercial Validation & Market Signals
• What Worked: Replicable Elements
• Budget, Staffing & Resource Allocation
• Inventor & End‑User Validation Evidence
• Monitoring & Reporting Cadence
• IP & Licensing Posture Summary
• Translate Learnings into Experiments & Controls
• Open Data Gaps & Unresolved Questions
• Prioritization & Resourcing Estimate