Material in this module was adapted from the University of Minnesota RCR curriculum, which is located at the following URL: http://www.research.umn.edu/ethics/modIntell.html. Materials are reproduced and cited with permission from the University of Minnesota.
Learning Goals
1. Define intellectual property.
2. Differentiate four basic types of intellectual property defined by law.
3. Know how to comply with University and TBR policies that relate to intellectual property and sponsors' rights concerning intellectual property.
4. Given a list of activities related to creative work, indicate those that constitute intellectual property of the University of Memphis.
Links to Tennessee Board of Regents and University of Memphis Policy and Procedures
Tennessee Board of Regents Policy Page
http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/general_counsel/ip/
Intellectual Property Policy
http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/general_counsel/ip/IP_Policy.htm
***Peter and Peggy please note that the policies for UM listed below are not the same as TBR****
***I assume we need to change the UM policies***
http://policies.memphis.edu/Procedures/2b_Academic_Procedures/2b0111a.html
http://policies.memphis.edu/Policies/12b_Academic_Policies/12b0111.html
http://policies.memphis.edu/Policies/12b_Academic_Policies/12b0403.html
Intellectual Property Basic Information and Definitions
http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/general_counsel/ip/IP_Basics.htm
Patent and Technology Transfer
http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/general_counsel/ip/Technology%20Transfer%20Process.htm
Public-Private Partnerships and Forming Nonprofit Corporations
Types of Intellectual Property
There are four basic types of intellectual property, usually categorized on the basis of the laws governing their use and protection:
Copyrights: A copyright protects the tangible expression of an idea, not the idea itself (e.g., a book, a research article, or a videotape).
Patents: A patent protects the idea and gives the creator the right to exclude others from using the idea (e.g., a patent may be awarded to anyone who invents a new machine or a new way of manufacturing something, etc.). In order to receive the patent, the creator must disclose in detail how to make his invention work and its use.
Trademarks: A trademark identifies and distinguishes an idea, written words, pictures, or products from those of competitors (e.g., the Coca Cola script name is a registered trademark that immediately identifies the product).
Trade Secrets: A trade secret refers to information that is not publicly known, that produces economic benefit to the owner, and that the owner maintains as secret.
Basic Policy of the Tennessee Board of Regents
As stated in the policy, the policy exists to “(1) encourage inventions and the production of copyrightable works by members of the TBR component Institutional communities; (2) facilitate the utilization of such inventions and works to the benefit of the public, the Institution, and the members of the Institutional community; and (3) provide for the equitable sharing of any proceeds derived from the commercial exploitation of inventions and copyrightable works in which, pursuant to this policy, the Institution is determined to have an interest.”
The policy applies to “all persons employed (either as full-time, part-time or temporary employees) by the Tennessee Board of Regents and its constituent Institutions, to students enrolled at TBR Institutions, and to other persons using Institution facilities and resources. Contracts for works for hire between TBR Institutions and independent contractors should define the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to ownership of any intellectual property developed as a result of the contract.”
In general, the policy defines intellectual property and tries to maintain the traditional faculty control over regular academic work product. The policy recognizes the need to reward those involved in the creation and development of intellectual property-from the individual creating it to the institution supporting it-by providing guidelines as to how any income is to be distributed among the parties concerned. The policy also lays out the responsibilities of the University and individuals covered by the policy.
Basic Policy of The University of Memphis
The University of Memphis, as an Institution of the Tennessee Board of Regents, is authorized to seek and hold patents and copyrights, to assign its rights in intellectual property, and to execute agreements concerning royalty distribution. This policy shall apply to all persons employed (either as full-time, part-time or temporary employees) by The University of Memphis, to students enrolled at The University of Memphis, and to other persons using University facilities and resources. Contracts for works for hire between The University of Memphis and independent contractors should define the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to ownership of any intellectual property developed as a result of the contract.
Definition
Intellectual Property, as defined by the University of Memphis Policy, means:
Intellectual Property means inventions and works. “Invention” means any discovery, invention, new use or application, process, composition of matter, article of manufacture, know-how, design, model, technological development, or biological material. “Work” means any copyrightable material, such as literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; architectural works; computer software or databases; circuit diagrams; architectural and engineering drawings; and lectures.
Ownership
The TBR Policy and the UM policy clarify conditions of ownership as follows:
Intellectual property developed by persons to whom this policy applies shall be the sole and exclusive property of the TBR Institution with which the person is associated if the subject intellectual property is (1) developed within the person’s scope of employment with the Institution, (2) developed in the course of a project sponsored by the Institution, (3) developed with the significant use of the Institution's facilities, services, or equipment (personal office space, libraries and the inventor or author’s personal computer provided by the Institution excluded), or (4) developed in the course of a project arranged, administered or controlled by the Institution and sponsored by persons, agencies or organizations external to the Institution, absent prior written agreement to the contrary. With respect to students, use of resources or facilities typically available to students in their educational activities shall not be considered “significant”.
Significant Use: Utilization of University funds, personnel, facilities, equipment, materials or other resources resulting in a cost to the University (direct, indirect, or depreciative) of more than $2,500 (in constant 2001 dollars).
Work For Hire: Any work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, assigned to an employee by his or her superior, or specifically ordered or commissioned by the University
Prior to an Institution providing support (for example, release time or Institutional funding) to a person to whom this policy applies, where that support could reasonably be expected to result in an invention or creation of a copyrightable work with commercial value, the Institution and the person or persons receiving that support shall agree in writing whether any intellectual property potentially arising from the supported activities would qualify as a scholarly work.
Intellectual property developed outside an employee’s scope of employment, on the employee’s own time and without the use of significant Institutional resources shall be the sole and exclusive property of the Inventor or Author. In consideration of Institutional support in evaluating the intellectual property, seeking patent protection and / or pursuing commercialization activities, the Institution and the Inventor or Author may agree to assign all or a portion of the ownership rights to his or her invention or work to the Institution.
Also noteworthy is the fact that traditional works of scholarship will generally remain the intellectual property of the author. Unless one of the aforementioned conditions applies, the University will not assert ownership of scholarly works. The key point in this part of the policy is that disclosure is required under conditions where there is a reasonable expectation that copyrighted work might have commercial value. Here is what the policy states about scholarly works.
“Scholarly works” include, but are not limited to, articles written for publication in academic journals, textbooks, works of art, musical compositions, and literary works. Theses and dissertations are not, for the purposes of this policy, scholarly works. Works by non-faculty employees shall not, for the purposes of this policy, be considered scholarly works.
The Institution shall not assert ownership of “scholarly’ works, regardless of whether the circumstances surrounding creation of the work satisfy one or more of the four tests outlined in this section for determining Institutional ownership. Disclosure of “scholarly” works is nonetheless required, subject to the condition that only those copyrightable works which could reasonably be expected to have commercial value must be disclosed.
“On-line course materials” shall be regarded as “scholarly works” in which the University will not assert ownership, UNLESS the “on-line course materials” are created as a work-for-hire or have commercial value, in which case the materials shall be the sole and exclusive property of the University if one or more of the four tests outlined below apply.
Commercial Value: Work that has the potential for sale, lease or license to a third party
Nothing in this policy shall preclude a mutually agreed upon contract between the Institution and persons to whom this policy applies wherein either party may agree to waive their rights under this policy.
Responsibilities
The main responsibility of faculty, staff, and students is to follow the policy of disclosure to the University President whenever there is a reasonable expectation that some invention or copyrightable material has commercial value. The TBR policy on responsibility states.
Disclosure shall be made to the President of the Institution, or to such person as the President may designate, using an Invention Disclosure Form (see Attachment 1) or Copyrightable Work Disclosure Form (see Attachment 2). The Inventor or Author shall fully cooperate with other TBR personnel in the disclosure process and in other subsequent activities associated with patenting and / or commercialization of the invention or work.
In the event that two or more persons are entitled to claim ownership of the intellectual property, the Inventors or Authors shall reach agreement between or among themselves regarding relative contributions for the purposes of distribution of net income from the Invention or Work. That agreement should be in writing and be notarized. The agreement will be required prior to the President’s initial decision regarding whether to pursue patent protection or commercialization of the intellectual property.
Inventors should particularly note that certain acts (for example, enabling disclosure of the Invention in an academic journal) can constitute a statutory bar to patent protection. An Inventor contemplating public disclosure activities prior to filing an Invention Disclosure Form should contact the TBR Office of the General Counsel prior to engaging in those disclosure activities.
The President of the University is advised by an Intellectual Property Advisory Committee. The President makes the final decision regarding the pursuit of patents and licensing agreements. Inventors and authors have the right to appeal any decision of the President so long as they do so within 30 days of the initial decision. A final appeal is available through the Chancellor of the TBR System.
Intellectual Property Advisory Committee
The University President shall appoint an Intellectual Property Advisory Committee composed of faculty, staff, and other persons experienced in intellectual property matters. The Disclosure Form shall be forwarded to the Committee for an evaluation of the ownership, patentability and/or commercial potential of the invention or work. The Committee shall conduct an interview with the Inventor or Author and other persons as needed to make this evaluation. A patentability evaluation shall in particular include a thorough evaluation of acts by the Inventor or items of prior art that would bar patent protection.
The Committee shall provide the President of the University with its recommendations as to ownership of the intellectual property, whether patent protection should be sought, and whether to seek commercialization opportunities. The Committee shall conduct investigations as it deems necessary in the preparation of its recommendations to the President. The Committee is authorized to seek outside assistance in preparing its recommendations. The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee must approve, in advance, any compensated assistance obtained from private legal counsel. The Committee shall also generally advise the President in all matters relating to this Policy.
For those inventions or works in which The University of Memphis is deemed to have an ownership interest, following a decision by the University President to seek patent protection, copyright registration, and/or commercialization of the intellectual property, the Vice-Provost for Research will arrange to have those activities undertaken. All direct costs associated with those activities shall be borne by The University of Memphis.
If the committee finds that the invention or work was not developed within the scope of the inventor’s employment with the University, that no University or external sponsorship, nor significant use of University facilities, were involved, it shall recommend that the University waive all claims to ownership of the intellectual property.
Income Distribution
The TBR policy regarding income from intellectual property in which the University has an interest specifies that inventors and authors must have at least a 40% share of income from such property. Each University within the TBR System may set more generous policies in sharing income from the works of inventors and authors. It is important to note that the policy also dictates that the University may recover its costs before sharing any profits. This is the TBR Policy on income distribution.
Income derived from the commercialization of intellectual property in which the University has an interest shall be first applied toward any direct expenses incurred by the Institution in seeking patent protection or copyright registration or in pursuing commercialization of the intellectual property.
Of the remaining annual net income, the Inventor or Author shall receive a minimum of 40% from the University. The Inventor or Author’s department shall receive a maximum of 25% of the annual net income, provided that the total to the Inventor and the department does not exceed 65%. If the inventor is associated with a University research center, institute or bureau, then the center, institute, or bureau may be allocated an additional 10% of the annual net income. All rRemaining net income will be used for the purpose of enhancing the research functions of the University at the discretion of the Vice-Provost for Research.
The portion of the net income the University retains from royalties and any other intellectual property-related income shall be deposited in a restricted account, and used by the University where the income-producing creation originated for the enhancement of research and instructional programs. The funds may be used for other purposes if specifically approved by the Chancellor of the Tennessee Board of Regents System.
The University of Memphis is authorized, subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Tennessee Board of Regents System, to accept equity in lieu of cash in total or partial consideration for use of the Institution’s intellectual property rights. Dividend income and income received from the sale of equity shall be divided in accordance with the distribution rules adopted by the University.
Contracts
For all intellectual property in which the University holds an interest, it is advisable for the University and the author or inventor to enter into a contract which reflects the rights and responsibilities of the interested parties. For all “online course materials” developed by a faculty or staff member, an agreement must be entered into between the author and the University, even if the material is considered to be “scholarly works.” To begin the process of entering into a contract, please click on the proper description of your work from the list below.
The Bayh-Dole Act and Its Significance in University Technology Transfer
The Bayh-Dole Act is seminal legislation enacted in 1984 which allows Universities to retain ownership of inventions made as a result of Federally sponsored research at the University. Since adoption of the legislation, university technology transfer has expanded at a tremendous rate. The Act is contained at 37 CFR 401 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/37p401.htm#37p401s). The following link at the Council on Government Regulations (COGR) provides a thorough discussion of the Bayh-Dole Act (http://www.cogr.edu/bayh-dole.htm).
For each of the following cases:
Identify the intellectual property issues and discuss each with respect to University policy
Identify conflicts and disputes and develop worst- and best-case resolutions
In cases where a court ruling was made, discuss the ramifications of each ruling
The following case is taken from the American Association of Universities site which includes a report on intellectual property (http://www.aau.edu/reports/IPReport.html)
Case Number 1 Ownership of Imaging Technology in Art History
One of the world's leading experts on high Gothic cathedrals is tired of displaying his architectural illustrations of Amiens Cathedral in two dimensions and with two slides viewed side by side. He is fed up with comparing and contrasting. He has heard about the new digital technologies and begins to explore the possibilities of creating a data rich, audiovisual work on Amiens that links to historical and philosophical works, to other architectural materials, to materials on the growth of medieval and Renaissance towns, etc. He wants to provide his students with proper historical, literary, and musical contexts. He knows nothing about new information technologies. He comes to the Provost's Office where, he has heard, the receipts from revenues of biotechnology intellectual property are being reinvested in new scholarly and teaching initiatives. The Provost's Fund invests resources to seed innovative projects, and it offers the Amiens project a $50K budget to develop new media tools. The art historian is linked collaboratively with faculty in the Graduate School of Architecture who are working on computer assisted design and with others in the School of Engineering and Applied Science. The University supports the technical development of new media content by the world-class art historian. A $50K investment produces in due course a $750K matching grant from the NEH, and the University helps the scholar to develop a program for new media works in art history and to raise funds to match federal grants. The project leads to the creation of several new media products, and leads to the creation of a collaborative group that goes on to create multiple products. Indeed, many scholars in the Department of Art History, who had been highly skeptical of the use of new media in teaching art history, become "converts" to the new innovative techniques. Who owns the new digital content?
This case seems entirely straightforward. There is no dispute over ownership of the intellectual property. Beyond core levels of support, the faculty member clearly has made use of a substantial contribution by the University in creating the product. Beyond the financial investment, the University has provided much of the original materials from its libraries and the technical support needed to create the product. It is a true collaborative enterprise. There should be no dispute over ownership under the policy.
Case Number 2: Hypothetical abuse of the University's Name
A member of the Department of Political Science of the University produces a new media video course, "Machiavelli and Rational Choice Theories in the History of War and Conflict," that has been funded by a major publishing company. He has worked as a consultant to that company, receiving substantial personal compensation for his efforts. The publishing company has used its resources to develop the technical features of the new media course. The professor has derived this course over 10 years of highly successful "off-Broadway" teaching experiences at the University. He is charismatic, charming, witty, and has the looks of Cary Grant. He has used University facilities to develop the course and a half-generation of his students to sharpen his wit. The major publishing house has a contractual agreement with the individual faculty member that permits it to suggest (albeit somewhat ambiguously) that this course, which is being widely advertised by the publishing house, is "sponsored" by the University.
Meanwhile, the University has no contractual agreement with the publishing house for the use of its name. The faculty member has not received permission from the University to attach its name to this product. And, as charismatic as the professor is, it is fairly clear that the "value" of the product is derived to a substantial degree from the "brand name recognition" associated with the University's reputation. Has the faculty member violated the policy of full disclosure and the feature of the policy that proscribes the use of the University's name when attached to new media products that are not approved by the University? The faculty member is deriving substantial personal benefit from his association with the University's name; has failed to inform the University of his arrangement; and has not permitted the University to have any say in the quality control of the products being attached to its name. This would appear to be a violation of the policy where the University has the right to protect its name against misuse. 15
Case No. 3: Regular Academic Work Product
A faculty member has taught a senior-level course in quantum mechanics for several years and has developed an extensive set of notes that she plans to convert into a new textbook as soon as she can find the time. She is close to the end of the term for this year's course when she makes a rather alarming discovery-a student in her class has been selling the notes for her class at a small profit to the other students. The notes are an expanded version of her lectures and contain material from her visual aids, as well as diagrams copied from the textbook.
The student claims that he is only helping the other students learn a very difficult subject and that the profit barely covers his expenses. However, it soon comes to light that he has been doing the same thing for several other courses and actually hires students to take notes in other classes, which he then develops into a sellable form.
The faculty member is very upset. Not only is her lecture material being sold without her permission, but the student has also copyrighted it. Her university's policy clearly states that such traditional academic work product belongs to the faculty member.
Case Number 4: A More Difficult Hypothetical Case
The Walt Disney company decides to start a "virtual university." It will hire academic "stars" from the great research universities and will build and market new media courses based on the content provided by the stars. If the "academic stars" have other "star qualities," they will be used on camera. If they do not have video appeal (determined by market testing techniques), Disney will hire actors to "perform" the content.
In one of its first pilot efforts, Disney approaches Professor Simon Schama from Columbia with an offer of $250,000 plus royalties to create a course on the French Revolution, which is derived in part from his best selling book, Citizens. The course will be produced at Disney, using Disney personnel, technology, and its vast distribution network. Schama would be identified as a University Professor at Columbia, but there would be no indication that Columbia was involved in the production of the course. Schama, with experience in creating films, is going to write the content and teach the course. Schama will be using Columbia facilities to prepare the content of the course insofar as he uses its libraries, offices, computer facilities, etc. - normal uses associated with his faculty status. Of course, he is also using the cumulative stock of knowledge that he has stored since he began studying history, which was long before he came to Columbia. He would be receiving his normal salary, but during the production time for the virtual course he asks for an unpaid leave to work on the project.
Does the University have a claim to any part of the intellectual property that Schama creates for the Disney project? If the University had been developing its own new media content for broad distribution, would it have a right of first refusal? Should any of the revenues received by Schama on this project go to the University? If so, on what basis?
Case Number 5: Specially Commissioned Work
The University of Northern South Dakota at Hoople (UNSD) commissioned a sculpture to honor the renowned composer P.D.Q. Bach. A well known faculty member from UNSD's Art Department produced the sculpture and was paid a handsome sum for the statue. The faculty member felt more than adequately rewarded for his work and thought no more about the statue after it was dedicated.
However, some years later, the faculty member was in a music store and noticed a display for the latest recording of P.D.Q. Bach's Ephygenia in Brooklyn which featured a picture of his statue. The same picture was on the front of every CD. Upon inquiry at the Office of the Vice President for Research, he learned that UNSD receives a royalty for every copy of the CD sold and has collected a sizeable sum from the recording company for the use of the picture of the statue.
The professor claimed that he should have received the royalties because the statue, and any images of it, were his regular academic work product (he is a sculptor, after all), which university policy recognizes as belonging to him. UNSD disagreed, stating that the work was specially commissioned and paid for by the university and therefore belongs entirely to the university. As such, the statue did not fall under the category of traditional academic work product and, hence, any royalties deriving from it are the property of UNSD.
Barrett, M. Intellectual Property. Larchmount, NY: Emanuel Law Outlines, 1991.
Fishman, A. S. The Copyright Handbook. Berkeley: Nolo Press, 1998.
Macrina, Francis L. Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases. American Society for Microbiology Press, 1995.
Miller, A., and R. Davis. Intellectual Property-Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright in a Nutshell. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1990.
Pressman, D. Patent It Yourself. Berkeley: Nolo Press, 1998.
Attachment 1
Tennessee Board of Regents
Attach additional sheets as needed.
1. Title of the Invention:
2. Inventor information:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
3. Funding
Please indicate any source of funding associated with the research leading to the invention:
ٱ Federal Government ٱ External, other than Federal Government
ٱ Internal ٱ None
If the invention was made wholly or in part as a result of external funding, please provide the following information:
Sponsoring Agency:__________________________
Contract or Grant Number: ____________________
Please attach a copy of the contract associated with the external funding.
4. Other support
For each of the inventors, were you specifically assigned to work on the invention by your supervisor? Did you work on development of the invention during your normal work hours?
Has the Institution provided support to the development of the invention by providing resources, materials or access to facilities and equipment? If yes, please describe.
5. Background of the Invention
Please list any prior work or reference from which this invention was derived.
Does the invention incorporate any materials provided by a third party? If so, please describe and provide a copy of the materials, if possible.
6. When was the invention conceived? If the invention has been reduced to practice (built or synthesized), when did that occur?
7. Invention Description:
Briefly summarize the nature and function of your invention. State such factors as: novelty which distinguishes your invention from existing technologies; what problem(s) it solves, and advantages over existing technologies; specific utility in the marketplace and potential commercial interests. Describe the current stage of development of the invention, enclosing any photographs or drawings of a prototype or conceptual design.
8. Prior Disclosures:
Has the invention been described in a printed publication in sufficient detail to allow a skilled person to understand and to make or use the invention? If so, please provide date of the publication and a copy of the article.
Have you presented any information about your invention at any conferences or meetings? If so, please provide the name of the conference or meeting, its date, a copy of any paper presented, and a copy of any visual aids used in the presentation.
Has there been any offer to sell the invention? If so, please describe when, where, to whom and whether the offer was accepted
.
Has the invention been used in public (for example, has there been testing of the invention witnesses by persons outside of the research team)? If so, please describe the circumstances, and indicate if non-disclosure statements were signed by persons witnessing the use.
9. Potential licensees
Please list any companies, and contacts within those companies, if known, which you believe might be interested in licensing this invention or sponsoring further research:
Inventor 1 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Inventor 2 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Inventor 3 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Inventor 4 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
I have reviewed and concur with the information contained in the statement.
________________________________________________
Department Chairman Signature and Date
________________________________________________
Dean of Inventor’s School Signature and Date
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS.
Attachment 2
Tennessee Board of Regents
Attach additional sheets as needed.
1. Title of the Work:
2. Author information:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
Name: ____________________________________
Position:___________________________________
Department:________________________________
E-mail:____________________________________
Phone:____________________________________
Nature of Contribution:
3. Funding
Please indicate any source of funding associated with the research leading to the work:
ٱ Federal Government ٱ External, other than Federal Government
ٱ Internal ٱ None
If the work was created wholly or in part as a result of external funding, please provide the following information:
Sponsoring Agency:__________________________
Contract or Grant Number: ____________________
Please attach a copy of the contract associated with the external funding.
4. Other support
For each of the inventors, were you specifically assigned to work on the invention by your supervisor? Did you work on development of the invention during your normal work hours?
Has the Institution provided support to the development of the invention by providing resources, materials or access to facilities and equipment? If yes, please describe.
5. Description of the Work
Briefly summarize the nature of the Work. Describe any commercial potential you see for the Work.
6. Potential Licensees
Please list any companies, and contacts within those companies, if known, which you believe might be interested in licensing this work:
Author 1 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Author 2 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Author 3 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
Author 4 Signature and date ____________________________________
Printed Name __________________________________________________
I have reviewed and concur with the information contained in the statement.
________________________________________________
Department Chairman Signature and Date
________________________________________________
Dean of Author’s School Signature and Date
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS.
| Please Click the Button Below to Confirm Completion of this Module. For The University of Memphis Faculty and Graduate Assistants ONLY! |