Date post: | 26-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jason-carpenter |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 1
I A
Technology Transfer andCommercialization Partnerships
Diane Palmintera, President
Innovation [email protected]
Presented to The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology15 August 2007
Copyright pending Innovation Associates Inc. 2007
The statements and recommendations herein are solely those of the presenter and do not represent
those of any other individual, institution or agency.
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 2
Federal Policies to Stimulate University Technology Transfer
I A
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 accelerated university
technology transfer by establishing a uniform federal
invention policy that permitted universities to retain title to
inventions developed through federally funded research.
At least 158 U.S. universities* conduct technology transfer
activities including filing patents, trademarks and
copyrights, and executing licenses. Most also provide
some support to launch startups.
*(Represents the number of firms responding to the 2005 AUTM Licensing Survey.)
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 3
Universities are a source of licensed innovations and business startups. Based on the latest AUTM Licensing SurveyTM:
I A
Since FY 1998 (to FY 2005), 3,641 new products based on
academic inventions have been introduced to the market.
In FY 2005, universities executed 4,201 licenses and
options.
Since FY 1980 universities and research institutions have
launched 5,171 new companies; and in FY 2005 alone, 400
startups were launched.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 4
In the past two decades, technology transfer and commercialization activities in universities have sky- rocketed.
I A
From FY 1996-2005, universities have more than
quadrupled the total number of active licenses, and almost
doubled the number of licenses executed each year.
From FY 1996-2005, universities have more than doubled
the number of startups launched each year.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 5
I A
Source: AUTM Licensing Survey™, FY 1996, FY 1997, FY 1998, FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005; Innovation Associates..
Note: Licenses Executed represents the number of total licenses/options executed during the specified year as reported by the institution in response to the AUTM Licensing Survey™. The number of institutions reporting to the AUTM Licensing Survey™ varies each year; N equals the total number of institutions reporting for the specified year. The number of institutions reporting to the AUTM Licensing Survey™ varies for each year: 1996 N=131, 1997 N=132, 1998 N=132, 1999 N=139, 2000 N=142, 2001 N=142, 2002 N=156, 2003 N=165, 2004 N=164, 2005 N=158. .
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
Graph 1 Licenses and Options Executed by U.S. Universities
(FY 1996-2005)
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 6
I ATechnology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
Source: AUTM Licensing Survey™, FY 1996, FY 1997, FY 1998, FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005; Innovation Associates. Note: Startups Launched represents the number of startup companies formed during the specified year that were dependent upon the licensing of the institution’s technology, as reported by the institution in response to the AUTM Licensing Survey™. The number of institutions reporting to the AUTM Licensing Survey™ varies each year; N equals the total number of institutions reporting for the specified year.
Graph 2Startups Launched by U.S. Universities
(FY 1996-2005)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 7
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
U.S. Startups Averaged over Five Years (FY 2000-2004)*
I A
MIT stands out from the others – it launched an average of 24 startups per year.
The top 10 U.S. universities were:1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology2) University of California3) California Institute of Technology4) Georgia Institute of Technology5) Stanford University6) University of Michigan7) University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana8) University of Pennsylvania9) University of Southern California10) University of Minnesota
*(AUTM; Innovation Associates)
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 8
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
We get a different picture when we take into account research expenditures.
I A
In FY 2005, the top 10 U.S. universities executing licenses, relative to research expenditures were*
1) Iowa State University2) Brigham Young University3) Duquesne University4) North Carolina State University5) University of Oregon6) University of Toledo7) New Jersey Institute of Technology8) Western Kentucky University9) Stevens Institute of Technology10) Montana State University
*(AUTM; Innovation Associates)
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 9
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
I A
In FY 2005, the top 10 U.S. universities launching startups, relative to research expenditures were
1) Brigham Young University2) Stevens Institute of Technology3) University of North Carolina at Charlotte4) University of Texas, Arlington5) Duquesne University6) University of Akron7) University of Toledo8) Catholic University9) Creighton University10) Arizona State University
*(AUTM; Innovation Associates)
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 10
Successful technology transfer outcomes are built on substantial, excellent and strategically focused research.
I A
R&D expenditures at U.S. universities have increased
dramatically – expenditures in FY 2004 were five times
higher than in FY 1984.*
Federal government has been the main source of funding,
representing 64% of university research expenditures in FY
2004.*
HHS funded a little more than half of all research
expenditures.*
*(NSF/Division of Science Resources Statistics)
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 11
I A
Life sciences represented 60% of all research expenditures
to U.S. universities, and its share has grown steadily.*
About 5% of research expenditures in U.S. universities came
from industry. Until FY 2005, industries’ share of university
research expenditures had declined for several consecutive
years; in FY 2005, the share was about the same as in FY
1983.**
*(NSF/Division of Science Resources Statistics); **(NSF InfoBrief, NSF 07-311, January 2007).
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 12
I A
Technology transfer outcomes (except license income)
correlate significantly with research expenditures at U.S.
universities.
Logically, U.S. patents represent the highest correlation.
Cumulative active licenses and licenses executed also
highly correlate with research expenditures.
Startups positively correlate with research expenditures.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 13
I A
Source: AUTM Licensing Survey™; Innovation Associates. Note: Pearson correlations (r =) of technology transfer outcomes with FY 2005 research expenditures. Outcomes are reported by U.S. universities and colleges responding to the FY 2005 AUTM Licensing Survey™.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
Technology Transfer OutcomesU.S. Universities
FY 2005
CorrelationTo ResearchExpenditures
Licenses & Options Executed (N=151)
.779
Cumulative Active Licenses (N=150)
.804
Startups Launched (N=147) .667
U.S. Patents Issued (N=150) .846
Patent Applications (N=150) .733
License Income (N=150) .196
Table 1
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 14
I A
Many universities successful in technology transfer (T2)
have identified and targeted core research strengths, and
developed strategic plans to build and leverage those
strengths.
This is particularly important for universities that have more
modest research expenditures. Universities such as
Brigham Young U., U. of Akron (polymers), Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (engineering), and Alfred U. (ceramics)
have been successful in T2 despite modest budgets.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 15
Multiple internal and external factors affect the university’s success in technology transfer.
I A
Leadership from the university President is often seen in
universities successful in technology transfer. Moreover,
hiring and reward systems impact outcomes as well as
support for an “entrepreneurial culture.”
Universities that understand and are responsive to
differences in corporate missions, timeframes and
communication styles are more likely to have successful
research collaborations and T2 outcomes.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 16
I A
Building on-going relationships with corporations can
facilitate licensing activities, sometimes years later.
Building positive relationships with corporations can
involve promoting flexible and responsive research
collaborations, participation on advisory committees and in
entrepreneurial activities, providing product development/
improvement services and facilities, etc.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 17
Entrepreneurial-engaged universities provide or facilitate access to a range of services.
I A
Universities successful in commercializing technologies
and launching startups understand that engineers and
scientists make poor business people and address this
weakness.
Entrepreneurial-engaged universities provide, or facilitate
access to sources of risk capital, management capacity
building, incubation and networking. They also connect
these activities to startups being launched by technology
transfer offices.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 18
I A
Successful technology transfer offices often have close
linkages to private seed/venture capital firms. Successful
offices facilitate linkages between researchers and these
firms, early in the process.
Entrepreneurial universities sponsor or encourage linkages
to enterprise forums or “springboards” that screen, mentor
and showcase promising academic entrepreneurs to
potential investors.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 19
I A
An increasing number of U.S. universities have seed capital
funds that invest in university-based entrepreneurs.
Effective funds not only provide capital but also build
management capacity.
Some universities also have commercialization funds
designed to advance research to near-market stages.
Incubators and research parks provide “platforms” for other
entrepreneurial services.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 20
I A
Entrepreneurs-in-residence and mentors provide invaluable
input and guidance.
Business plan competitions are popular mechanisms to
mentor and showcase university entrepreneurs to potential
investors.
Networking opportunities may be the most important
element – they facilitate invaluable interaction between
entrepreneurs, service providers, and potential investors,
partners and customers.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 21
Corporate and Foundation Partners
I A
Foundations play an important role by funding Innovation
Centers and entrepreneurial activities in some universities
and regions. (Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and others.)
Successful entrepreneurs as well as major corporations
have become major funding sources for centers on
entrepreneurship and new/enhanced S&T programs. (MIT,
BYU, ISU, RPI, and others.)
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 22
I A
Corporations primary support is sponsored research, but
that support is waning in some universities. This may be
caused, in part, by institutions tightening the technology
transfer reins.
Other seemingly unrelated industry services such as
extension services build credibility and trust that may have
long-term payoffs including increased technology transfer
outcomes.
Corporate involvement can have a “down-side” by exerting
too much influence over the direction of some institutions’
research.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 23
Community and State Partners
I A
By providing funding for R&D Centers, particularly industry-
university centers, some states have effectively leveraged
federal funds. (NYSTAR’s CAT program is a good example.)
Communities often provide funding, zoning, etc. to support
incubators, and states play a larger role in supporting
research parks in and around universities.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 24
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
I A
In some states, fund-of-funds and other funds and
incentives focus on increasing seed capital and filling early-
stage capital gaps.
Angel funds can supplement other forms of funding but
often do not provide critical business
mentoring/substitution needed.
State governors and legislatures have become increasingly
interested in leveraging academic institutions for economic
development purposes. In some cases, this has influenced
the focus of the institutions’ commercialization activities.
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 25
The Federal Government as a Partner
I A
The federal government’s primary role involves funding a
full range of research in universities. This research feeds
the technology transfer pipeline and has a direct impact on
the extent and type of commercial outcomes.
The federal government traditionally has been reluctant to
support the “commercialization side” of research despite
its rising expectations regarding commercialization
outcomes. This is true for SBIR/STTR and other programs.
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 26
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
I A
This funding reluctance also holds true for “softer”
research-related activities such as partnerships and
initiatives in which outcomes are not easily quantified.
Some federal programs are outmoded and could more
effectively support technology transfer and entrepreneurial
development. (NSF EPSCoR and SBA SBDCs are two
examples.)
Some federal programs that have provided useful services
have been eliminated, cut or annually threatened. (OTA,
ATP, MEP)
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 27
Outstanding Issues & Factors that Impede Commercialization
I A
“Valley-of-Death” gaps:
• technology maturation, acceleration, and adaptation
• early-stage capital
• business/management capacity in S&T startups
Conflicting goals between corporations and universities
Wide gap in technology transfer capacity among different
regions and institutions – institutions such as HBCUs are
left out
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 28
What is Needed
I A
Provide greater support and flexibility for
commercialization in federal programs such as SBIR/STTR
Implement initiatives that promote experimentation and
pilots to address various “valley-of-death” gaps
Increase federal incentives to promote regional approaches
to innovation and technology transfer
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 29
I A
Implement mentoring programs in technology transfer and
entrepreneurial development that transfer knowledge from
top universities to emerging universities
Develop entrepreneurial mentoring programs that tap
successful entrepreneurs to act as entrepreneurs-in-
residence and provide ad-hoc advisory services
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 30
I A
Create incentives to stimulate early-stage capital
investments, particularly in areas that now have little
access to such capital
Educate academic institutions, state legislatures,
corporations, and others regarding technology transfer
Develop better metrics to guide institutions and policy
makers
Collect, evaluate and disseminate best practices
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 31
I A
Enhance linkages between federal agencies and university
technology transfer to increase transitioning opportunities
Broaden the view of innovation and give greater
recognition to a wide range of institutions that contribute
to innovation and the transfer of knowledge
Promote better linkages between institutions that provide
different levels and types of innovation-related value
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 32
I A
Technology Transfer and Commercialization Partnerships
Funded by NSF/PFI, this report highlights lessons, recommendations, and cases on emerging academic institutions. (Coming in September 2007)
Accelerating Economic Development Through University
Technology Transfer and Commercialization
This report focuses on the best practices of nine nationally-known research universities. It explores their technology transfer and related entrepreneurial activities, and community and state infrastructure.
Download From IA’s Website:
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 33
I A
Partners on a Mission: Federal Laboratory Practices Contributing to Economic Development
Funded by DOC/OTA, this report shows innovative federal laboratory practices that support technology transfer and promote economic development.
Developing High-Tech Communities: San Diego
This exhaustive study on San Diego demonstrates how one community quickly converted its threatened economy into one of the nation’s most robust, high-tech economies. Funded by SBA/Office of Advocacy.
Download From IA’s Website:
Technology Transfer & Commercialization Partnerships
www.InnovationAssociates.us copyright pending Slide 34
I A
INNOVATION ASSOCIATES
Providing Services to
Federal Government, States, Communities, Universities
and Private Sector
Web: www.InnovationAssociates.us
Email: [email protected]
703.925.9402