Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What has OU got to do with tdcp now? The IP was licensed exclusively years ago. There is no acknowledged use of OU facilities for product development.
Good news if it works out.
I cannot recall the number of amendments to the SRA but there were at least 2.
I do not understand the issues regarding the awarding of rights to a named company without the legalese for successors and the various ways companies could evolve into differently named entities with varying rights to IP.
I have read several OU SRAs and find them to be inconsistent in my small sample; I doubt that OU legal drafts them individually. I wonder if a case could be made that the exclusive use was to a company which no longer exists due to the name change.
The university terminating the licensing to the original company and then granting it to another company has been done recently; in this case it was due to the bankruptcy of the original company. It might be seen to benefit the university if this were to happen to the C-space IP.
Also, Given that work is continuing and receiving funding, I am hopeful that the right individual will get C-space moving again or that the next generation will need to pay royalties. I gather that others do not share this long term vision.
It looks like my reply is MIA.
You are welcome.
I hope someone can explain what is likely to happen with the IP licensed from the university.
3DICON never could sell but 3DICON had exclusive rights to several from OU research. OU did not have interest any from work by the company even with continuing, according to older versions of the website, activities by people from the university. The "partnership" with OU was still claimed.
My concern is what happens to that exclusive license with the new corporate structure/name. Did Coretec inherit the original rights? If not and the rights revert to OU, will Coretec seek them? OU has been known to resell the rights to its IP licensed to now bankrupt companies which have ceased to operate yet are still active with OK SOS.
3DICON's website has been updated with a button for "Patented silicon-based technologies" which links to Coretec's website. IMO, neither have been updated to reflect the latest changes.
Refai is an adjunct at OU. I am not sure what rights this gives him for his wife's company.
OK Open Records Act is your friend for obtaining information about OU's involvement via the Sponsored Research Agreement (3DICON). I have not identified any other company/OU agreements regarding C-space technology.
Because they have received funding for it. Optecks formation date is 11 June 2013 per OK SOS. I do not know how to search to see if there are pending patents.
OCAST AR14-012 Next-Generation Full-Color 3D Display Not funded
OCAST AR15-032 Next-Generation Full-Color 3D Display 7/1/2015 for $200K. Received $100K year 1, $85K+ year2 per OpenbooksOK
Note 3DICON's grant was AR132-019 for $300K.
The first 2 digits after the AR indicate FY of funding cycle. Some years have more than 1 funding cycle hence the third digit in some Project Numbers.
3DICON is still registered with OK SOS; CORETEC - at least the one of interest here - is not.
The SRA grants use of IP to 3DICON. Is Coretec guaranteed to receive the license as 3DICON's successor?
If the IP is part of the value of 3DICON to Coretec and the license is no longer valid and transferred to another company, what does that mean to the future of C-space as part of the new company?
IP is licensed to 3DICON. What could happen because of the changes?
If OPTECKS can go forward with a new product, why is 3DICON's approach not viable?
The grant to 3DICON was cancelled but Hakki and Badia are receiving grants to their company ($275K since 8/2015) one of which is: Next-Generation Full-Color 3D Display (AR15-032)
OPTECKS which is owned by Badia and Hakki as Registered Agent (OK SOS compny search)has received 3 OCAST grants - one to Badia and two to Hakki. Look at the vendor payments to OPTECKS in OpenbooksOK for award numbers
OCAST is still paying for the development of the next generation of the product - $180K to date.
I wonder what happens to the IP licensed to 3DICON by OU. How can one tell whether it will transfer to the new company?
OCAST Oklahoma Technology Showcase email announcement included:
Optecks pursues extensive research and development projects to expand its worldwide product and services offerings. The company leverages its design expertise to target several areas with strong potential for growth, including 3D scanning, 3D printing, heads-up displays, head-mounted displays and spectroscopy. Optecks is currently developing full-color 3D displays that allow users to seamlessly observe high contrast, true 3D images under room illumination over nearly 180° of horizontal angle 90° of vertical angle, without special viewing equipment.
65% WOW! How does TDCP benefit from this when it receives such a small part of the resulting company? I guess that was not an issue for the shareholders to know.
The OCAST proposals make me very uncomfortable about what was being done at both companies. How can generation 2 be successful when generation 1 is on life support?
It could have been a company looking for a product rather than original development. Also confusing is why OU owns the original patents when TDCP was to provide such a large level of support although this may be due to the requirements to obtain an SRA.
It also explains why OU was willing to deed the IP rights so completely. In another instance recently, the IP appears to have reverted to the university and subsequently licensed to a different company.
Thanks for the history lesson. It sounds like this was a new area of research, at least for OU, rather than a linkup to commercialize existing research.
Not surprising given Martin's history and that he is brother to Gov. Frank.
What I do not understand is the initial TDCP and OU connection and whether OU was working on the technology before the SRA
Did I miss the production location?
Does anyone remember whether the OU patents had any federal money involved?
Note the government has an interest in the patent.
I suggest looking at the NDSU info about the ownership of patents for ideas developed at the university. At OU the information is in the university's faculty handbook. Review NDSU's similar document.
He received a relatively generous salary by OK standards.
The 3 OCAST proposals have similar verbage in the publicly available file.
Why should he? OCAST paid his company nearly $100K already and there is more to come.
An employee could have legitimate reason to be out of the office :)
Did they have the demo device or a lab?
Work done as an employee of a company (including as a consultant) belongs to the company. When did it become OK to take even proposal text and submit it for another organization?
They must be making progress because they are collecting from OCAST. I wonder where the match is coming from.
There apparently has been no contract with OU anymore(at least not one that can be found)- just use of IP. Where is the lab?
There is a great plan; do the development with one company and dump the debt with a bankruptcy while collecting the benefits with another.
It is not TDCP's. Look at the last sentence; note the company name. Gee, you have noticed what I found to be unusual as well - nearly identical summaries for TDCP and OPTECKS submissions.
You will have to search OpenbooksOK yourself for financials as the reports can be downloaded but not linked. Go to Vender search, details, Search for OPTECKS and date range.
OCAST website press releases tab is not working. Exec summary below.
The goal of the proposed project is to develop and optimize the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a viable product prototype that can rapidly transition to a commercially viable prototype. The components to be optimized are the optical subsystems that generate the high-resolution 3D images, the electronic and software subsystems that control and coordinate the process of producing the image, and the materials and fabrication processes for a high optical clarity, efficient, and fast display volume to minimize power consumption and eliminate image flicker. The display writes specially designed diffractive elements via holographic methods, and these elements direct power from a full-color projection source over a wide angle to allow seamless viewing of the image all angles. This approach requires an efficient optically active material to produce bright and rapidly changing images in a cost effective and operationally safe manner. The display will have a refresh rate of 30 Hz to eliminate flicker, and a target resolution of up to 800 million voxels. At project's end, the resultant prototype display will possess capabilities suitable for applications in 3D data visualization, 3D printing, scanning systems, and application specific product designs and volume production. To meet the development goals and created the targeted display, several objectives must be met. The first objective is to design and optimize the optical systems that write and scan diffraction-based diffusing screens through the display and subsequently project the 3D image to the viewer. The size, shape, and divergence of the writing laser beams and the projection beams and the physical geometry of the system components must be specified to create the necessary image quality and resolution. The second objective is to select the most appropriate material for the display volume. The material must possess high optical clarity and must interact efficiently in with the optical sources so that images are created with less optical power and without flicker. The third objective is to upgrade the key software and electronic subsystems that control the generation of 3D images to ensure operational parameters. The project will use a combination of experimental research and theoretical modeling to meet the stated goals and objectives. The project builds upon prior research and development of 3D display systems by Optecks.
OCAST OPTECKS look for news announcement of award; look at website
Version 2 has received nearly 100K from OCAST. What do they know that TDSP doesn't?
When an employee was paid a million+ in salary over time and likely could have had stock, he has an obligation NOT to take the technology for his own benefit. IF he can make it work for his own company, why could he not for TDCP?
It seems like version 1 must work before version 2 can be released. Since version 2 is getting development money and the researchers are claiming they can do it, why has the company not gone after those who left with the technology but did not finish version 1?
Bingo!
Who said that they "let him go". He was working on and submitting proposals for funding for a similar project at the same time he was the CTO for TDCP. At that time his public profile did not show his "consultant" status for TDCP or his relationship to his wife's company for which he has been listed as the registered agent with the OK SOS.
It is unclear where the research lab they are using is located since OU has been unable to provide a current use agreement for the original one used for TDCP or the research by OU years ago.
For at least part of the time, TDCP was receiving payments from OCAST likely as the match to his salary from TDCP funds.
While the other company was initially denied funding, it is now receiving it with his wife as PI. OpenbooksOK is your friend.
All of this is either official OK public record or was previously published online.
I sure hope you are right!
OU has a responsibility to protect its IP. The fact they have already lost a great deal on this project is a concern. I would hate to see them become a partner with other company on similar projects in an IP use agreement. Look at their experience with Southwest Nanotechnologies (see bankruptcy filing).
I wonder how OU's IP grant to TDCP would be treated should TDCP follow this path.
Quotes from ORA response (ORA is your friend! Transparency in gov spending.)
2014
"Next-Generation Full-Color 3D Display"
"The goal of the proposed project is to develop and optimize the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a viable product prototype that can rapidly transition to a commercially viable prototype."
...
"The project builds upon prior research and development of 3D display systems by Optecks."
Previous 2013:
"Ultra High-Resolution Volumetric 3D Display"
"The goal of the proposed project is to improve the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a commercially viable product prototype that can be rapidly transitioned to commercial production."
...
"The project builds upon prior research and development of prototype systems by 3DIcon Corporation."
Ancient history if OU is no long involved. However, there was a use agreement for lab space and the shareholders meeting on campus in recent years.
It was alluded that there was other OU involvement after the termination of the research agreement which is not documented.
There is also the shares that were exchanged for forgiveness of the unpaid research agreement costs. This being the case, why should OU consider granting Hakki's company the IP unless it is for a significant payment, Since it is an LLC, there are no shares to exchange