Early Innovation Fund

Awards are funded by Technology Commercialization, within the Research and Innovation Office at the University of Minnesota. Award budgets are set up with a UMN chartstring that is shared with the PI for project-related expenses. Awards are not issued through SPA, and do not include any indirect (F&A) expenses. PIs are responsible for the management of the chartstring budget and compliance with UMN Finance policies during their award period.

Yes, however one of the objectives of the Early Innovation Fund (EIF) is to fund a diverse range of projects across multiple technology areas. As a result, it is highly unlikely that more than one project will be funded for a specific individual/team in a cycle. If a project isn’t funded in one cycle it can be resubmitted for consideration in subsequent funding cycles. We also work closely with other funding organizations and have been able to get a few projects funded outside of the standard EIF process.

Reporting an innovation to Tech Comm by submitting an IPDF simply opens an 'IP Case' in the office. This puts the technology on our radar and enables access to a number of available resources. After an IPDF is submitted and docketed in our system, the inventor(s) receives notification of the IP Case number for this technology. This IP Case is our way of tracking activity on University-owned technologies, including any subsequent discussions about IP protection strategies and activity related to licensing or commercialization of the technology.  The focus of this program is on advancing early innovation, so we are limiting consideration to projects based on newly submitted IP Disclosures or projects focused on existing IP Cases that haven't yet progressed to the submission of a patent application. In the case of innovations covered by copyright, projects must be on IP that is not in an advanced stage of development.

As long as the University has an ownership stake in the technology, it can be considered for EIF funding. One of the requirements of EIF is that the technology is owned by the University, and this includes technology that is co-owned with other institutions. In the ‘Project Team Members’ section of the EIF application please state whether any team members have dual appointments or other employment agreements outside the university. Other external institutions or companies that provide services which could help advance the technology can also be engaged to help advance a project. 

Generally, we're looking for no more than a few paragraphs in each of those sections. In the end, it's up to the applicant to provide enough information to make sure we have clarity on the who, what, when, why, how of the project, but we're certainly not seeking a fully referenced, highly detailed proposal. We will also follow up if there are questions that come up during our review.

We are seeking projects that can be completed within a year of the receipt of funding and recognize that the awarded amount will typically only bridge a portion of the commercialization gap. We appreciate individuals/groups who have thought through the steps required to prove out their technology, and are able to define projects which advance the technology to the next logical milestone or decision point. We also value groups that can articulate what the next logical source of funding is beyond the completion of the EIF project.

The one item that we typically exclude from project budgets is salaries/overhead for faculty, staff, or graduate students working on the project during the school year. Budgets can include:

• Costs for purchasing or renting materials, equipment, or other resources 
• Fees to access specialized services, expertise, or personnel
• Costs associated with hiring workers (including students) to carry out specific tasks
• Expenses (e.g., travel) related to generating user/customer feedback or other entrepreneurial activities

As stated previously, one of the primary objectives of EIF is to fund a diverse range of projects across multiple technology areas. We generally receive a significant number of applications in each cycle and only have funding for a small percentage. Specific review considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Does the project involve technology which has a high likelihood of producing strong, enforceable patent claims (and/or copyright-protectable assets) and has a clear path to market?
• Will the project advance the technology readiness of the innovation and move it closer to commercialization?
• Are the project goals likely to be achieved through the proposed work plan and within the proposed timeline and budget? Are impediments to timely completion adequately anticipated and addressed?
• Does the team include appropriate expertise and collaborations to complete the proposed scope of work?
• Are there alternative, more logical funding sources available to fund a project of this nature (e.g. MVP Challenge, BBIC, DSAI Seed Grant, ODAT)?

Funding will be awarded with the expectation that the recipient(s) adhere to the stated work plan. Deviation from the stated work plan without prior approval may result in a revocation of project funding. We also expect brief updates on project progress approximately every 6 months until completion.