After an inventory (in the materials list) of the IP/TP, which will be introduced into the project, the next step is to clearly determine how the ownership of new real estate discovered under the project (new IP/TP) is determined. In a typical collaborative research project, there is potential for three classes of new IP/TP: (2) The guidelines also apply to other research project funding agreements in which conditions are set by the parties providing funding, beyond reporting on the application of funding. In addition, a cooperation agreement must always respect certain immutable principles concerning (2) Section 9: “The institution may waive, in whole or in part, the right to inventions that were killed by the project, in cooperation with a party that is not covered by law, on behalf of the worker, in whole or in part, after prior consultation with the person concerned.” An important part of the IP provision is what the agreement actually promises with respect to licensing or “subsidy.” Normally, the parties enter into a research cooperation agreement in order to gain access to the discoveries resulting from the cooperation project. Only those with delegated signing authority can obtain an NDA on behalf of the UTD. In the case of UTD, NDAs must be submitted for verification and signature either to the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) (if it is a potential collaborative search using UTD resources) or to the Office of Technology Marketing (OTC) (if the object is the granting of a UTD clean technology license). A publication clause should protect the interests of both parties. In general, there is a statement that both parties reserve the right to verify and comment on any public disclosure by the other party. As a general rule, a certain period of time (usually 60 or 90 days) is put in place for such a review. Often, a provision of the cooperation research agreement requires one party to delay the public disclosure of project-derived information for a period of time in order to allow patent preparation or exclusive use by the other party. Ultimately, a well-written agreement should clearly reflect all such restrictions on disclosure. (1) The Danish Law on Inventions in Public Research Institutes (Forskerpatloven) allows the university to require a share of the potential for commercial exploitation from the outset if the research carried out by the workers results in inventions that can be patented or registered as utility models.
(3) Other considerations may be taken into account in the context of specific types of agreements, such as trade .B agreements, EU contracts, centre agreements or training agreements for industrial researchers.