MindMind--toto--Market:Market:A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer A Global Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer

and Commercializationand Commercialization

National Press ClubNational Press ClubWashington, D.C.Washington, D.C.

Ross DeVolRoss DeVolDirector, Regional EconomicsDirector, Regional Economics

Director, Center for Health EconomicsDirector, Center for Health Economics(310) 570 4615(310) 570 4615

rdevol@milkeninstitute.orgrdevol@milkeninstitute.orgwww.milkeninstitute.orgwww.milkeninstitute.org

September 20, 2006 September 20, 2006

Overview

• Role of National Innovation Policies• Faculty Research Quality• Incentives and Culture • Human Capital Investment in OTT • Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem• Measures on Commercialization Outcomes

University Biotechnology Publication Subfields

Biology Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology MultidisciplinaryBiochemistry and BiophysicsExperimental Biology MicrobiologyCell and Developmental BiologyMolecular Biology and Genetics

University Biotechnology Publication Indicators

Defined

1 Number of Publications – (40% Weight)Size indicator that reflects the number of each university's biotech publications.

2 Activity – (20% Weight)Concentration indicator measured by the number of publications in qualifiedsubfields as percentage of total publications of a specific university, dividedby the world’s publications in that specific field, as a share of the world’s totalpublications.

3 Impact – (40% Weight)Quality indicator that reflects the number of citations of a university in aspecific subfield as a percent share of the number of total publications of theuniversity in that field, divided by the total citations of the world in thatspecific field, as a share of the world’s total publications in that field.

9. University of Washington

1. Harvard University

21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

30. University of Toronto

23. Universites de Paris (I-XIII)

3. University of London

2. University of Tokyo

6. Univ of CA, San Diego

5. Univ. of Pennsylvania

7. Johns Hopkins University

10. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles

8. Washington University

29. SUNY at Yeshiva University

28. Univ. of NC at Chapel Hill

22. Univ. of TX at Dallas

27. Cornell University26. Case Western Reserve University

25. Univ. of CA, Berkeley

24. Columbia University

12. Stanford University

11. Yale University

13. Rockefeller University

14. Univ. of WI, Madison

16. Baylor College of Medicine

18. Duke University

19. Osaka University

20. Kyoto University

17. Univ. of Oxford

15. Univ. of Cambridge

4. Univ. of CA, San Francisco

University Biotechnology Publication Ranking

Top 30, 1998-2002

Top 1011-2021-30

29. Yeshiva University

University Biotech Patent Methodology

U.S. Issued Patents

Compare relative strength and

quality of portfolios

ApplyBiotech filter

to all U.S. patents

• Semantic filter based on key attributes and characteristics of biotechnology• Relevant class codes

Analyses

Identify college/ university patents

and unify/standardize assignees

ApplyNano-

technology filter

Identify citing organizations and

dependencies

• Semantic filter based on key attributes and characteristics of nano-technology• Relevant class codes

Compare relative strength and

quality of portfolios

Analyses

Source: ipIQ

University Biotech Patent Indicators

Defined

1 Biotech Patents Issued in U.S. – (65% Weight)The absolute number of biotech patents takes into account all Type 1 utility patents issued in the U.S. patent system.

2 Current Impact Index(CII) – (15% Weight)The Current Impact Index shows the impact of a company’s patents on the latest technological developments. The CII is a measure of how often the previous five years of a company’s patents are cited by patents issued in the most recent year, relative to all U.S. patents.

3 Science Linkage – (10% Weight)Science Linkage is a measure of the extent to which a company’s technology builds upon cutting-edge scientific research. A higher number indicates that a company is closer to the cutting edge than its competitors.

4 Technology Cycle Time(TCT) – (10% Weight)

Technology Cycle Time is an indicator of a firm’s speed in turning leading-edge technology into intellectual property. A tendency to cite older patents is an indication that a company utilizes older technology. The average TCT is a short as three or four years in rapidly evolving industries, such as electronics, and as long as fifteen years in industries that change more slowly.

11. Harvard University

28. MA Institute of Technology

8. Univ of CA, San Diego15. Univ. of Pennsylvania

3. Johns Hopkins University

23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles

22. Washington University

5. Cornell University

7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley

6. Columbia University

4. Stanford University

18. Yale University

9. Univ. of WI, Madison

2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco

27. Univ.of Minnesota

29. Univ. of Chicago

1. University of Texas

16. Rockefeller University

20. Thomas Jefferson University

26. University of Utah

17. CA Institute of Technology

30. Univ. of Alabama

25. Univ. of British Columbia

10. University of London

12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem

13. University of Michigan14. McGill University

19. Univ. of Melbourne

21. Tel-Aviv University

24. University of Oxford

University Biotech Patent Ranking

Top 30, 2000-2004

Top 1011-2021-30

University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index

Top 10 U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004

Rank Institution Name

PatentsIssuedScore

LicensesExecuted

Score

LicensingIncomeScore

StartupsScore

OverallScore

1 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT) 95.17 79.89 90.64 100.00 100.002 University of California System 97.26 85.25 95.16 83.24 96.593 California Institute of Technology 100.00 70.77 87.12 86.60 92.944 Stanford University 91.56 84.28 93.76 77.02 92.655 University of Florida 84.82 71.41 92.57 69.26 86.116 University of Minnesota 78.92 77.46 91.02 69.24 85.557 Brigham Young University 66.87 80.60 86.13 77.57 85.418 University of British Columbia 74.36 74.09 82.73 77.42 84.239 University of Michigan 82.70 72.25 77.98 74.89 82.54

10 New York University 73.68 63.30 100.00 58.16 81.63

Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%

University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index

11-25 Cont’d, U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004

Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%

Rank Institution Name

PatentsIssuedScore

LicensesExecuted

Score

LicensingIncomeScore

StartupsScore

OverallScore

11 Georgia Institute of Technology 76.80 60.51 72.79 83.41 80.9512 University of Pennsylvania 76.41 72.05 83.95 67.15 80.8313 University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana, Champaign 72.80 74.55 77.60 72.72 80.3514 University of Utah 77.08 70.80 81.56 66.01 79.4015 University of Southern California 70.77 79.81 70.37 75.72 79.2816 Cornell Research Fdn., Inc. 86.31 75.99 77.99 61.51 78.6917 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53 75.11 79.41 68.48 78.5218 Harvard University 78.82 76.06 87.54 52.45 77.6819 University of California, San Francisco 88.60 11.63 99.73 62.39 77.1920 North Carolina State University 78.41 73.80 74.40 64.77 76.9421 SUNY Research Foundation 79.51 64.36 84.63 58.01 76.9022 W.A.R.F./University of Wisconsin 87.59 86.65 90.52 38.99 76.8623 McGill University 77.47 68.76 72.12 69.24 76.8024 University of Washington/Wash. Res. Fdn. 75.11 76.10 88.49 50.03 76.5425 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 78.48 76.86 71.14 64.21 76.00

AUTM and ASTP University Performance Measures

Per Million Research Expenditures, 2004

U.S. Canada Europe U.S./Canada U.S./EuropeAverage Research Expenditures (US$ Mil.) 225 178 100

Invention Disclosures 0.40 0.14 0.32 2.98 1.25Patent Applications 0.25 0.06 0.12 4.21 2.06Patents Granted 0.09 0.01 0.04 6.09 2.38Licenses Executed 0.11 0.07 0.09 1.58 1.25Licensing Income (US$) 27,825 12,934 11,988 2.15 2.32Startups Established 0.01 0.01 0.03 1.74 0.37

Per Million Research Expenditures Ratio

U.S. University Licensing Income

Actual vs. Fitted, 2003

Universities in Descending Order

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US$ Millions

Actual ValuesFitted Values

Simulation 2 - Income Attributed to Office of Technology Transfer

Top 10 U.S. Universities based on Labor Cost Value, 1997- 2003 Average

Actual Licensing Income

Simulated Licensing Income

UniversityUniversity of California System 99.7 83.2 224 156 20 14.8Massachusetts Institute of Technology 33.4 28.3 103 79 22 19.1University of Washington 26.1 22.7 91 75 7 5.7Stanford University 50.6 47.4 133 117 12 10.5University of Wisconsin 25.5 19.4 116 86 3 1.8Johns Hopkins University 8.8 6.0 101 83 6 4.3University of Michigan 5.9 3.7 55 44 7 5.5State University of New York 14.6 11.1 39 27 5 3.8Harvard University 19.3 16.9 68 58 3 2.3University of Minnesota 17.8 13.7 84 67 7 5.8U.S. Total 639.14 505.84 2,734 2,101 247 197

Actual Licenses Executed

Simulated Licenses Executed

Actual Startups

Simulated StartupsUS$ Millions

Conclusions: National Innovation Policy and Culture

• Commitment to Financing University Research• University Mission Must Include

Commercialization• IP Protection System Is Important• Industry Involvement Critical to Success

Conclusions: National Innovation Policy and Culture, Cont’d

• Entrepreneurial Support and Financing Key• Human Capital Investment Essential• Biotechnology Cluster Formation Promotes

National Success

Conclusions: University Level Findings

• Faculty– Research Capacity– Entrepreneurial Incentives and Culture– “Star Scientist”

Conclusions: University Level Findings, Cont’d

• OTT– Professional OTTs Generate High Returns– Age of OTT Office (Networking Effect)– Critical Mass Required for Returns– Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem

Significant– Exclusive Licensing Important for Spinouts and

Startups– Without OTT, Commercialization Occurs, Just Not

as Efficiently

Conclusions: Overall

• Gaps Remain between Research Quality and Commercialization Outcomes

• Commercialization Increasing Over Time• U.S. Tops in Research and Commercialization• Other Countries Making Sizeable Investments