1 OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Wayne E. Swann December 2004 Patents and Pizza Seminar Series Technology Transfer at APL

2 Broaden the public benefits derived from APL technology; Create jobs and improve the economy of the community, state and nation; Enhance APL’s image as a creative and innovative institution, and attract new talent and challenging work; and Acquire unrestricted funds for future scientific research and technology development at APL and within JHU. Technology Transfer Summary APL 1998 Study - Benefits of Technology Transfer:

3 Technology Transfer Summary  Operations  Staff/Organization; Scope of Activities  Performance Metrics  Historical Perspective; Comparisons  The Environment  APL; JHU; County; State  Income and Expenditures  Review; Self-Sufficiency

4 OTT Operations Staff Organization Scope of Activities Technology Transfer Summary

5 John BaconJohn Bacon, Technology Manager Donna Couturiaux, Office of Technology Transfer Coordinator Susan Furney, Technology Programs Assistant Kristin Gray, Assistant Director of Technology Transfer Donna Couturiaux Susan Furney Kristin Gray Leslie MartinelliLeslie Martinelli, Administrative Assistant (part time) Heather PrettymanHeather Prettyman, Technology and Marketing Associate Randall SlagleRandall Slagle, Technology Manager Wayne SwannWayne Swann, Director of Technology Transfer Norma Lee ToddNorma Lee Todd, Director of Technology Programs OTT Operations: Staff

6 OTT: Functional Organization Chart

7 In-Reach Recognize, Reward, Promote Innovation and Innovative Work Environment Dept. Tech Transfer Team; Teach Class WSE – Student Technology Commercialization and Entrepreneurship program Outreach/Economic Development State: TEDCO/DBED;Tech Councils HCEDA (NeoTech, Missions) Businesses/Organizations Enhance APL’s High-Tech Image - New APL CD Bus. Card APL Leadership Activities Technology Competitiveness  Innovation Output Metric analysis  Innovation Outcome Proxies – Licenses and Patent Citations Analysis Science and Technology Council  S&T Staff Capabilities  APL/Business Area Profiles Technology Transfer Technology Licensing Fund Technology Development Facilitate Interactions with Industry Facilitate New Company Formation Improving Technology Transition – to USG Contractors - FST as Model Tech Transfer Operations – Scope of Activities

8 Performance Metrics Historical Perspective Comparisons Technology Transfer Summary

9 Innovation Output Comparison APL/AUTM Invention Comparison

10 Innovation Output Comparison APL/AUTM Issued Patents An Additional 23 US Patents had already been allowed, and were awaiting issuance, by the USPTO at the end of GFY 2004

11 Innovation Outcome Comparison APL/AUTM Technology Licenses

12 Inventions 151* 669 Licenses 49* 130 Total US Patent Applications 238* 902 Issued US Patents 31* 89 Start-up Companies 4* 14 License Income (Millions Received) $2.0$9.4 Associated R&D (Millions Committed) $2.7*$9.6 (~60% of R&D commitments already received) Performance Metric Yr Total * Denotes all time high Technology Transfer Summary

Performance Metrics Update 1 Metric AUTM Rank Percentile Inventions23 rd 15 th Licenses 23 rd 15 th Total US Patent Applications 6 th 4 th Issued US Patents30 th 19 th Start-up Companies21 st 14 th License Income 56 th 36 th Associated R&D Income14 th 9 th 1 Latest AUTM Survey Data - Where APL would Rank out of 151 Research Universities in the US (including 94 of the top 100). Technology Transfer Summary

14 APL Performance Metrics New Invention Disclosures 15 New Licenses 5.0 Total US Patent Applications 24 Issued US Patents 3.2 Start-up Companies 0.4 License Income (~$000) 200 Associated R&D (~$000) 270 OTT Performance Comparisons Output Per Full Time Tech Transfer Staff

15 APL Inventions, Patents and License Profile

16 Technology Transfer Status: Products Survey Landform Analysis (Optech >$100,000/year Royalties) WAVES (Shell; Multiple Licenses) QTViewer (3-D Color Modeling) (34 Licenses; Applied Imagery just formed ) Polyscore (Windows) (Lafayette >$100,000/year Royalties)

17 The Environment Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University Howard County State of Maryland Technology Transfer Summary

18 County Local environment - Not Silicon Valley; center of B/W Tech Corridor APL is the big player in the County Focus on entrepreneurial environment Opportunities – HCEDA partnerships - new Tech Leadership Consortium State TEDCO “Tech Trans. Improvement - all progress at JHU, all from APL” State - positive view of Howard Co. Gap Remains - Funding of Start-ups Significant Econ Dev. Value in TT Fed Lab Tech Transfer issue remains JHU State of Tech Transfer at JHU  National search for leader  OTT/LTD - good relationship Building relationship with WSE Entrepreneurship Technology Transfer: The Environment APL Inventions, Patents and Licenses are at all time highs (6/7 metrics) Innovation is being recognized as being very important to APL Tech Transfer 5 years later… generally good

19 APL Technology Transfer Benefit to the Public Five Year Data  71 Different Technologies Licensed  15 Commercial Products/Processes  52 New Jobs Created From APL Start-ups Economic Development Impact One Piece: Salaries generated by new jobs  TEDCO New Job Multiplier and Average Salaries  >$5 Million Annual Salaries in Maryland Generated by APL Start-ups

20 Income and Expenditures: 5 Year Review Licensing Income Operational Expenditures R&D Grants Technology Transfer Summary

21 Royalties, R&D Income & Cost Reimbursements to APL Total APL Receipts$ 22,705,291 OTT, OPC, Patents, APL Grants & Income Distribution Costs Total Expenditures/Distributions$ 21,533,654 Net Income (loss) to APL$ 1,171,637 GFY APL Income and Expenditure Summary Technology Transfer Program Dev Fund for GFY 2004 = ($248,775)

22 Technology Transfer Status Income and Expenditures Summary: Tech Transfer Grants to APL Staff (GFY ) APL Dev Fund Grants$ 1,503,183 Other Grant Funding (TEDCO, IRAD) $ 770,346 TotalReceived$ 2,273,529 Total of 119 Grants to APL Staff

23 OTT Overhead Costs Does not include Patent Costs or Tech Transfer Grants to Departments

24 Technology Transfer Status  DCAA/DCMA Disallowance has major impact on OTT/OPC  Average Licensing Income of $2 million/year is not enough for self-sufficiency  OTT needs to chart a different course on the road to self- sufficiency

25 Maintain Performance Metrics Technology Transfer at APL The Road Ahead Achieve Self-Sufficiency

26 The Road Ahead: Achieve Self-Sufficiency  Reduce Short Term Costs  Reduce activities that do not generate short term income  Reduce/Delay the number of new patent applications  Reduce OTT Operational Costs  Generate Short Term Licensing Income  Director of TT/ Tech Managers “Top 10” List  Implemented effort with A&F to promptly invoice  Activity Focused on Recovering Costs:  Recover Patent Costs – Improved A&F System; Terms  Recover (Disallowed) Costs - 15% Administrative Fee (Stanford, MIT); Licensing Expenses (IP Policy)

27 Summary Financing Operations Income fluctuates (mostly fees) Royalty base (& equity) immature Transitioning costs to Dev. Fund Cost cutting measures underway DCAA allowance issues remain Self-sufficiency not yet achieved The Environment Tech Transfer at APL – Generally good JHU/LTD Transition – APL/OTT Licensing Joint JHU Inventions County – Good Partnership with EDA State – Want More Tech Transfer Value From Universities/Govt. Labs; and view APL as model Inventions, Licenses, Patents Innovation increasing (very high) License rate maturing/matured Issued Patents maturing/costly Approaching 2X AUTM Averages Products are finding way to market Start-ups take time - nurture/mature OTT Operations Administration, staffing, training, programs in place – workload high Infrastructure (databases, etc.) functioning/improved efficiency Expanding the impact (FST) Focusing on Licensing Income

28 OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Questions Technology Transfer at APL The Road to Pizza!!!!