There are a number of factors that determine whether there is sufficient value at a given stage of development to invest limited development dollars. Generally, we use the following matrix to evaluate a technology. (Definitions of variables provided below.)
Disclosure Evaluation Criteria Rating
Stage of development:
This may range from conceptual (an idea with maybe some sketches) to essentially market-ready (a fully developed, beta-tested software package including complete user manuals, etc.). Both extremes are relatively rare but will drive the understanding of costs to develop and protect the technology.
Patentability and patent coverage:
The U.S. Patent Office requires that the invention have novelty and utility. Novelty must be absolute. There can be no prior art, nor can the invention be obvious. Publications are essential to the mission of the University and career development of the faculty, however they can influence patentability. OIPA staff thoroughly evaluates publications provided by the inventors to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention. A patent search can help determine if there is prior art and the potential coverage by a potential patent.
Development costs and time:
This refers primarily to commitments and investments which a potential licensee would have to make to take the technology from its present stage to product stage. Large costs with long lead times spell high risk and therefore require high potential rewards to arouse commercial interest. High risk technologies also include those which are dependent on a related development (technical, regulatory, political, etc.) or solving a problem which is not currently high priority but may become so in the future.
Technical merit:
This may range from a marginal improvement to an existing product to a basic breakthrough which revolutionizes a technical field or industry. Evaluation of this factor should weigh towards understanding of the technology rather than determination of its importance, since at times a marginal improvement which offers an elegant (and inexpensive) solution to a nagging problem can be both easy to commercialize and relatively profitable.
Market breadth:
This factor should be examined from two aspects, namely field of use and geography. Narrow markets often have the advantage of a relatively simple marketing effort but are usually smaller opportunities. The evaluation should also consider the possibility of multiple uses for the technology, above and beyond those suggested by the problem(s) the inventors set out to solve. Experience indicates that the alternatives often exceed the base in market potential. In evaluating this factor, any information regarding potential licensees (industries, companies, individual contacts, etc.) are extremely valuable.
Market size:
If at all possible, this factor should be defined in terms of dollars. A precise definition is usually not readily feasible or necessary; order of magnitude, "back of the envelope" estimates (with assumptions) are normally quite adequate at this stage.
Inventor(s)'s attitude:
Throughout the commercialization process, which can take from a few months to several years, the inventor(s) have to be willing and able to "invest" time, effort, and skills in the activity, often with minimal short-term tangible rewards or benefits. Without such an "investment", a positive outcome is highly unlikely, regardless of the technical and economic merits of the technology.
