Well ****, this is an interesting turn of events. That is just crazy, I can't wait to see how this turns out.

 

MIT had better hope that they win or they will have some serious issues. Tech transfer from research universities to major corporations takes place fairly frequently, but you seldom hear about it for a reason. The companies typically pay very well and the contracts are almost always of the ‘this never happened and we were never here’ variety. This will be very interesting to watch unfold.

 

MIT is one of the best when it comes to tech transfer. They do a great job of protecting their IP and commercializing/licensing their technologies and inventions. Not sure what you mean that "you seldom hear about it for a reason" regarding tech transfer. Maybe the general public doesn't hear much about it, but it is far from secretive.

I have a good friend that runs cancer research at a fairly big pharma, he says universities do the foundational research and it's from that research that pharma builds upon to get to medical solutions.. in a word, rarely is university research able to be applied commercially, it takes sometime s decades for a research finding to have practical application at the therapy or medical level.
I would imagine Ford had to do additional work to commercialize the tech.

What you have stated here is pretty much true, if not a bit over generalized. I too work in the cancer space in big pharma. I've also worked in small biotech and on the other side in academic research. Every big pharma company has dedicated research units involved in basic research to identify novel targets and to better understand the biology of a given disease (i.e. cancer). That said, they also have BD&L groups on the lookout for in licensing or forming partnerships and collaborations with biotech companies or universities regarding emerging technologies, platforms, or compounds/biologics that target specific pathways and molecules on cells. Indeed most universities and smaller biotech companies lack the money or know how to fully develop a drug or bring it to clinical trials. And yes, from drug discovery to market takes upward of 15-20 years.

He laughs at 'lets find a cure' propaganda. We barely understand the gene mulfunctions that cause cancer.. let alone the magic pill.. to cure.. walk for the cure works well for the political money train,rarely does it end up at a research lab in a university or cancer center .

A cure and a magic pill are two different things. There will unlikely ever be a magic pill. Cancer is a complex disease that evolves over time in each individual. A cell doesn't typically become cancerous due to a single mutation and is only after a series of many mutations that a normal cell transforms to a cancerous cell. We actually have a pretty good understanding of the genetic mutations involved in cancer. However, as I just mentioned, there are multiple genetic mutations that take place before a cell becomes cancerous. Therefore, targeting a single gene with a "magic pill" will never happen. However, there is hope to get closer to a "cure", especially now with personalized medicine. 10 years ago if you had stage 4 melanoma, you died. Now, if you receive this diagnosis, there is hope, and about 30% of patients will go on to live long, productive lives. Far short of a cure, but we are getting closer. The same with lung and many other cancers.

As for donating money to cancer research...some charities are better than others. I can say that with many of these charities a large proportion of donations goes to fund cancer research. Best to do a little "research" of your own before contributing.

Back to Ford-MIT - it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

I have a good friend that runs cancer research at a fairly big pharma, he says universities do the foundational research and it's from that research that pharma builds upon to get to medical solutions.. in a word, rarely is university research able to be applied commercially, it takes sometime s decades for a research finding to have practical application at the therapy or medical level.
I would imagine Ford had to do additional work to commercialize the tech.

He laughs at 'lets find a cure' propaganda. We barely understand the gene mulfunctions that cause cancer.. let alone the magic pill.. to cure.. walk for the cure works well for the political money train,rarely does it end up at a research lab in a university or cancer center .

 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

I wondered what became of the ethanol boosting research from back then,
maybe Ford changed just enough to block MIT’s claim. Interesting times ahead

 

I did many of University Development Agreements for GM. The Universities such as MIT, Michigan etc., always try to use their form agreements which gave the University exclusive rights to everything. Back in my day GM always said nice try but no way. If GM paid for the development GM owned the work product and any patents filed were to be assigned to GM. If the work was jointly funded then GM had the exclusive rights to use, modify, license the technology and any patents in the automotive space. That is why you never hear about it. I would hope GM still follows the same practice and Ford did in the case in question. There is always the possibility that a Ford Executive signed a University Agreement without checking with Ford's Legal Department. Time will tell.

 

If I had to bet between some pointy-head professors and my old pal Bill Ford & Friends, I'll go with FoMo.

 

I wonder about a licensing agreement when Ford and MIT were doing joint development,
it's not exactly the same as stealing an idea. In this instance, Ford and MIT were looking
at Ethanol boosting, using 87 PFI and E85 DI in a high boost engine to replace diesel engines.

Maybe Ford using 87 or premium gasoline in its PFDI system is changed just enough to avoid
running foul of most of the primary intent of the project, gas engines replacing diesels.

Also, perhaps Ford introducing PFDI this way, opens the door to introduce ethanol boosting
at a later date..as an end run around MIT claiming more royalties for the same system.

I sense an out of court settlement / agreement coming up as Ford and MIT will probably
want to collaborate again on something in the future. This is just an ugly bump in the relationship.

 

QUOTE :

MIT professors Leslie Bromberg, Daniel R. Cohn and John B. Heywood, who have been working for decades on improvements to internal-combustion engines, say they invented dual-injection technologies that allow for better fuel-and-air mixing and combustion stability than direct injection, with less engine knock.

“Revolutionary throughout the industry,” is how MIT describes the technologies, which have been cited by more than 115 other patents, including dozens by Ford, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

The professors transferred ownership of their creations to MIT, one of the premier U.S. research universities, which then granted exclusive patent-licensing rights to a small company the three men founded, Ethanol Boosting Systems LLC. EBS offered to license patents on the enhancements to Ford in 2014, but the company declined.

Since then, the technologies have become integrated into new EcoBoost engines Ford is promoting in recent models, including F-150 trucks, Lincoln Navigator sport-utility vehicles and Ford Mustang sports cars, according to the plaintiffs.




Heywood, who was director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory < a rotating position > at MIT < where he is still an Internationally esteemed and important member of the Facility > also wrote the 1988 textbook “Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,” emailed two Ford executives in October 2014 to discuss licensing the dual-injection technology, according to the complaint. Heywood cited MIT’s history with Ford and wrote that EBS “would like to give Ford the first opportunity” to license a portfolio of five patents, one of which is named in the lawsuit.

After a volley of emails, Bill Coughlin, then Ford’s chief intellectual-property officer, agreed to meet at MIT in April 2015. According to the complaint, Coughlin proposed that “in exchange for EBS agreeing not to assert the patents against Ford,” the auto giant “would work with EBS to market other MIT/EBS technology.” At one point in the conversation, Coughlin asked the three professors “whether they were ‘greedy inventors,’” the complaint says.

No Interest

EBS invited Ford to analyze the patents and identify any that weren’t applicable to its products, but that never happened, the plaintiffs allege. After more rounds of emails and phone calls, including with Greg Brown, then the counsel for global engine intellectual property at Ford Global Technologies LLC, the carmaker told EBS in November 2015 that it wasn’t interested in licensing the patents.

Asked whether Ford might be interested in the technology for future vehicles, Brown, according to the complaint, “indicated that Ford had no plans that he knew of to use that technology in its vehicles.”

But Ford “did have imminent plans” to use the technology, and “already was incorporating that technology into its engines and fuel-management systems,” MIT and EBS said in the lawsuit. The complaint cites a June 2017 press release in which Ford said it was using dual port- and direct-injection technology in its 3.5-liter EcoBoost engines and other engines that are available in the F-150, Expedition and other models.

END QUOTE


So....... The only likely real issue is 'for what'.... and 'how much' ....... and when Ford gives up.


Pretty damn strange...... and then some...... and then some more.......... that this got to this point.

 

^^^^ that’s funny.. the professors are overreacting, do they work for themselves or mit...by the way.. great insight from rampole and impala

 

I invented the "Wheel", I just don't know who to go after first.

 

form a joint venture with whoever invented the axle!

 

This is interesting and all with the we say, they say and such.

 

Ford better be careful here. Some of these IP cases turn into BIG settlements - especially considering the numbers involved. Those MIT researchers are pretty smart. If they say that Ford owes them, I bet they're right.

 

If you read the filing / complaint - or failing that, even a 'useful' summary, it's not just about the three and EBS.

MIT, as in the whole enchilada....... is right there in it with them.

They don't really do that very often but when they do.....


****


Don't mean to digress uselessly ..... so I won't.

My first Pop Warner 'Championship' team got to the 'second' round and was defeated 52 / 0.

This one......... reminds of that one....... and no, Ford ain't the team with the 52.

 

I wonder how precise the PATENT is or is it LIKE a "business process" patent where it covers a general idea IE port + direct injection and FORD is going to claim to have come to the idea independently which would explain FORD not even meeting up with MIT to "look over" the patents
or is it a more "complex" patent and FORD is going to argue there approach is ENOUGH different

I believe the Toyota D4S engines utilized direct AND port injection AND is of a MORE complex mapping then FORDS which is primarily to decarbonize intake valves

 

That was going to be my question. How is their's different/special vs what is already available on the market by others? Toyota, Germans, etc.... Plus didn't the article reference the design was for ethanol, which the Ford engines aren't doing?

 

So I know some of the attorneys at Ford Global Technologies (FGT) including the ones identified although I have not spoken to them in more than a decade. What I am reading is that Ford was contacted by the professors demanding money for Patent infringement. At this point they are acting like just another patent troll demanding money. FGT responds that your patents may have been cited but we never examined them for validity and even if they are found to be valid we don't infringe on them. Rather than get into those issues FGT proposes a business arrangement under which both would pool their patents, technology and know-how and seek to license it. It is a very reasonable position and something that FGT is good at and better than GM.
Well, we will probably get to see if the professors' patents are valid and infringed by Ford. Regardless the effect will be to tarnish the working relationships between universities and corporations if it can't be worked out in a constructive manner.

 

The future could be very interesting when Chinese patents are involved - there are a lot being submitted.

 

Glad to see them in the ip game, as long as they stop stealing

 

I was always of the impression that when a company funds research that it's contractually stipulated that the company funding the research owns any intellectual property as a result of the collaboration/partnership? Or in other words, we give you money and an objective, you find or invent the solution, and we contractually own your work and inventions as well?

Though I suppose researchers could insist that a contract include stipulations that they are entitled to bonuses or royalties if their research leads to the commercial use of their research or technology/inventions?

 

I was always of the impression that when a company funds research that it's contractually stipulated that the company funding the research owns any intellectual property as a result of the collaboration/partnership? Or in other words, we give you money and an objective, you find or invent the solution, and we contractually own your work and inventions as well?

It all depends. Some contracts are drawn up as you stated above, while others are like what you describe below. I was recently involved in a collaboration with an academic institution, and the contract went something like this: We funded the research, the researchers owned the data they generated, and we had the right of first refusal on any novel "targets" they identified. We were interested in one target, so our company filed the patent, but our academic partners are listed as co-inventors. If we ever do decide to commercialize it, the academic institution would also receive royalties, as defined in the contract.

Though I suppose researchers could insist that a contract include stipulations that they are entitled to bonuses or royalties if their research leads to the commercial use of their research or technology/inventions?