History, Status, and Trends for Technology Transfer in U.S. Universities & The Stanford Model Presentation by Jon Sandelin Stanford University Office of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Summary Slide Management of Intellectual Property Rights Enterprises, R&D Organizations and Universities Wayne H. Watkins - University of Akron.
Advertisements

IP MANAGEMENT IN UNIVERSITIES
1 WIPO/INV/BEI/02/3.a The Role of Universities in the Innovation Cycle Document prepared by Ms. Kirsten Leute, Licensing Associate Office of Technology.
Cambridge Enterprise Commercialisation of technology out of University of Cambridge Sénat Delegation 14 March 2006 Boris Bouqueniaux.
1 UMass Dartmouth Conflicts of Interest Policies UMass Dartmouth Liz Rodriguez February 17, 2011.
Technology and Economic Development Intellectual Property Issues in Research Jim Baker Director Office of Technology and Economic Development
CONFIDENTIAL © 2012 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is confidential, proprietary and the property of.
IP Issues in Research Jim Baker, Executive Director Innovation, and Industry Engagement.
Stretch Your TTO’s Budget Michael Rondelli, J.D., M.B.A Director, Technology Transfer Office San Diego State University Research Foundation.
Industry – University Transactions: Rights to Future Intellectual Property Varda N. Main Director, Technology Licensing Rochester Institute of Technology.
North Carolina State University © 2014 Technology Transfer Outcomes February 27, 2014 Research Retreat Kelly B. Sexton, Ph.D. Director Office of Technology.
South Carolina Research Universities An Assessment of Commercialization and Entrepreneurial Activities.
LOWER SHORE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM Bringing the Benefits of Discovery to the World MAY 23, 2012 Wesley D. Blakeslee Executive Director Johns Hopkins.
EXPRESS LICENSE AGREEMENTS Ted Hagelin Crandall Melvin Professor of Law Kauffman Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Director, NY Science & Technology.
1 University Based Technology Transfer Steve Bauer Director, RERC on Technology Transfer State of the Science Conference RERC on Advancing Cognitive Technologies.
Technology Transfer at UIC © 2009 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Presentation to the Software Commercialization Symposium April.
Starting a Company from Research at the UW James A. Severson, Ph.D. Vice Provost, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer January 30, 2007.
Industrial Partnerships & Technology Transfer Keeping Your Name Out Of The Gossip Columns Of Nature and Science BC Cancer AgencyJ. D. Litster March 24,
Welcome P&P Topics for GFY 2002 Patent Awards Tech Transfer Cycle: Part III FOOD!!!! PATENTS & PIZZA June 4, 2001.
Commercialization of University Technology Innovation, Technology Transfer and Licensing Jack Turner, Associate Director M.I.T. Technology Licensing Office.
Intellectual Property: Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) Director, Office of Intellectual Property.
Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. (ISURF) and the Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (OIPTT) Kenneth Kirkland, Executive.
Industrial Affiliates Programs ABC Stanford University May 9, 2007.
Sustainable Smart Cities Symposium April 3, 2013 Richard B. Marchase Vice President for Research and Economic Development.
1 Wildcat Venture Management Technology Transfer Tactics Audio Panel September 30, 2008 Chicago, IL Copyright © 2008 Wildcat Venture Management, Inc.
Wyoming Research Products Center Intellectual Property and Licensing Services Senator Enzi’s Inventors Conference April 12, 2008 Davona K. Douglass, Acting.
Management of Intellectual Property at Iowa State University Contributing to Economic Development Kenneth Kirkland, Ph.D. Executive Director, Iowa State.
Technology Transfer at Rice
WIPO Dispute Resolution in International Science & Technology April 25, 2005 Ann M. Hammersla Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Massachusetts Institute.
University Intellectual Property Transfer Mechanisms: Adaptation and Learning Maryann P. Feldman Johns Hopkins University.
Tech Launch Arizona Tech Transfer Arizona Rakhi Gibbons, Asst. Director for Biomedical and Life Sciences Licensing.
Wisconsin Idea… “The boundaries of the University are the boundaries of the State”
A Basic Primer on Intellectual Property Kathryn Atchison, DDS, MPH Vice Provost, Intellectual Property and Industry Relations Associate Vice Chancellor.
Overview OTL Mission Inventor Responsibility Stanford Royalty Sharing Disclosure Form Patent View Inventor Agreements Patent.
Technology Transfer and Assessment of Intellectual Assets Gerald J. Siuta, Ph.D. President Siuta Consulting, Inc. ( Vice President.
Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing Katharine Ku October 1, 2012.
A Dual Role Principal (Rector) of Heriot-Watt University Chair of the regional economic development company.
10/19/2011F. B. Bramwell1.  Thanks to conversations with: ◦ HU Office of General Counsel  John Gloster  Dan McCabe ◦ University of Kentucky Intellectual.
+ Faculty Orientation UAMS BioVentures September 23, 2015 Christopher A. Fasel Associate Director of Licensing Patent Attorney UAMS BioVentures.
Organizing a Technology Licensing Office (TLO) Jon Sandelin Senior Associate Emeritus
Navigating the University Technology Transfer August 23, 2012 Christopher Moulding Sr. Manager, Technology Advancement and Licensing I’ve got an idea…now.
April 2003Takuji Hara, Kobe University 1 Roles of Technology Licensing Organizations (TLOs) in the Commercialization of Life Sciences ~ Japan ’ s Situation.
Tactics for Controlling Equity Dilution in University Startups July 20, 2011.
Life of a Stanford Invention. Functional Antibodies FM Sound Synthesis Recombinant DNA Google Notable Stanford Inventions.
Establishing a Russian National Organization for University Technology Transfer Managers Yekaterinburg December 10, 2003 Terry A. Young Consultant U.S.
“IP Universities” Istanbul, April 14 to 15, 2011 Albert Long Hall, BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY The U.S. Bayh- Dole Act Av. Uğur Aktekin The U.S. Bayh-
Technology Licensing at Stanford University
EURECA Conference: University of Nizhnij Novogorod n.a. Lobachevksij The Research University as Center of Regional Economic Cluster? Lessons from the EURECA.
Academic Technology Transfer Operations and Practice Knowledge Economy Forum IV Istanbul, Turkey March 22-25, 2005 Alistair Brett Oxford Innovation.
Wyoming Research Products Center Technology Transfer and Licensing Senator Enzi’s Inventors Conference April 20, 2013 Phillip Wulf, Intellectual Property.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 CHASE KASPER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Wayne Huebner Vice Provost for Research University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO presentation to: F 3 August 15, 2006 Research UMR: Serving the needs.
HOW DO PATENTING AND LICENSING AFFECT RESEARCH? JOAN S. LEONARD VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE The National Academies.
Technology transfer – The Hungarian experience Legal background Innovation Act: - Public R&D institutions are required to establish IP policy - IP created.
Ulf Sandmark KTH och Springboard Commercialization of research… To create an entrepreneurial culture To stimulate a deal flow of research that impacts.
University Licensing Dominique Kleyn 27 th June 2003.
Technology Transfer in The United States Paul Zielinski Director, Technology Partnerships Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology Chair,
Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology Nicholas S. Argyres and Julia Porter Liebeskind Journal of.
US University Patenting and Licensing: Historical Evolution and Recent Trends David C. Mowery Haas School of Business U.C. Berkeley.
Understanding Technology Transfer Katharine Ku March 2, 2006.
Research Administration Forum May 2005 Tom Hagerty Office of Technology Management.
2016/6/24 All rights Reserved. Copyright (c) 2008 The University of Tokyo University Corporate Relations, Intellectual Property Management and Technology.
Global Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Policies and Instruments Dr. Didier Kane The University of Texas at Austin (USA) IC² Institute – Global.
OTC FELLOWS PROGRAM INFORMATION SESSION Fall 2016.
Universities and the Commercial World
Nicholas S. Argyres and Julia Porter Liebeskind
Gilbert Nicolaon Kiev June 10, 2008
Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing (OTL)
Effects of Patenting and Technology Transfer on Commercialization
Presentation transcript:

History, Status, and Trends for Technology Transfer in U.S. Universities & The Stanford Model Presentation by Jon Sandelin Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing

Presentation Areas F Methods of Technology Transfer F Evolution of University T/T in the U.S. F Role of Bayh/Dole and AUTM F Current Status of University T/T in U.S. F Evolving Trends in the U.S. F Types of Industry-University Relationships at Stanford University

Methods of Technology Transfer F Graduated Students F Publications F Conferences F Visiting Scholars/Industry Visitor Programs F Industrial Affiliates Programs F Research Sponsorship and Faculty Consulting F Licensing to Established Companies and to Start-Up Companies

Stanford Office of Technology Licensing F Our mission: to promote the transfer of Stanford technology for society's use and benefit while generating unrestricted income to support research and education F Founded in 1970; $55k Royalties 1st Yr F To Date: 4,950 Invention Disclosures; 1,320 Issued Patents; 2200 Licenses; $552M in Royalties ($255M from C/B)

OTL FY2002 Results F 295 Invention Disclosures F $52.7M in Royalties –high of $61.2M in FY1998 –$0.4M from Sale of Equity F 111 Licenses Granted; 13 Start-Ups F Office Budget of $2.6M; Staff of 25 F $3M for Legal Fees ($1.5M reimbursed)

OTL Start-Ups F 115 to date; with 75% in last 5 years F 45% Medical; 35% Software/IT; 10% Sensors; 10% Other: Equity in 80% F 9 (so far) have failed F 15 (so far) Equity Sold for $22 Million –Abrizio (PMC-Sierra) = $9.7 Million –Amati (Texas Instruments) = $8 Million –Vxtreme (Microsoft) = $0.8 Million

Stanford Policies F Ownership of Intellectual Property –With University if: Part of University work responsibilities; or More than incidental use of University Resources F Income/Equity Sharing –Royalties: 15% to OTL, then 1/3 each to Inventors; Inventors Dept; Inventors School –Equity: 1/3 to Inventors; 2/3 to Special Fund

Start of Licensing Activity F 1920s: Wisconsin Alumni Res. Fdn. F 1930s: Iowa State Patents Foundation F 1940s: MIT; Kansas State Res. Fdn. F 1950s: University of Minnesota F 1960s: University of Utah; Salk Institute; F 1969: Stanford University F 1970s = 15; 1980s = 82; 1990s = 73

Historical Events F 1907: UC Berkeley; Cottrell Patent F 1912: Research Corporation founded by Frederick Cottrell F 1925: University of Wisconsin; Steenbock Patent; Formation of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

More Historical Events F 1927/29: Harvard University; Minot and Murphy invention; Committee Study; Decision not to patent F 1951: MIT; Forrester Patent; RCA Interference; Royalties in 1960/70s F 1969: Reimers launches Stanford TLO under Marketing Model; Cohen/Boyer $

Evolution of Patenting & Licensing in U.S. F Before few U. S. Universities were involved with Patenting & Licensing F Bayh/Dole Law enacted F 1980 to SUPA/AUTM facilitates convergence on Best Practices F 1990 to AUTM Annual Surveys document Rapid Growth in University Licensing Results

Bayh/Dole Law of 1980 F Option to Ownership of Government Sponsored Inventions (2 Years or 90 Days before Patent Bar Date) F If Option Exercised, Must Patent and Diligently Seek a Licensee F Must Share a Portion of Royalty Income with Inventors F Non-Exclusive Royalty-Free License to Government F Government Retains March In Rights F Preference to Small Business (under 500 employees) F U.S. Manufacture if Exclusive License in U.S.

Association of University Technology Managers F Formed in 1974 with 20 Members; Over 3000 Today F Becoming an International Association F Publications: Directory; Newsletter; Technology Transfer Manuel (3 Volumes); Journal; Educational Series; Annual Survey F Meetings: Regional; National (Orlando in Feb, 2003); International F Courses: Fundamentals of Licensing; Advanced Topics; Start-Up Business Formation; MultiMedia F Information at:

2000 AUTM Survey F $1,260 Million in Royalties F $60 Billion in Licensed Products Sales F 400,000 new Jobs F 13,032 new Invention Disclosures F 6,375 new Patent filings F 4,362 new Licenses (12% to Start-Up Companies)

Invention Disclosures

Patents Filed

Licenses Granted

Royalty Income

University Spin-Out Facilitation F Not a Promoted Activity at many U.S. Universities, but starting to change F Where “actively” done, typically by off- campus group e.g., ARCH; WRF; BCM Technologies, C2C -- but changing F No Generally Accepted Model as yet, but AUTM reacting: Courses; Publications F More Prevalent in Europe & Canada

Why Not Spin-Outs? F Fears of Institutional Conflict of Interest –Harvard Incident/1983 Pajaro Dunes Mtg F Labor Intensive Activity; Success in “Licensing-Friendly” Industries –Biotech; Pharmaceutical; Medical Devices F Limited Invention Disclosures with Start- Up Company Potential (but changing)  Few “Success” Stories (also changing)

Trends in the U. S.: Federal Government F Promotion of University/Industry Collaboration –1980 Bayh/Dole, Etc. –Advanced Technology Program (ATP) –STTR (SBIR extension to include Universities) F Promotion of Federal Labs/Industry Collaboration –1986 Federal Lab Technology Transfer Act F Tax Incentives to Entrepreneurs

Trends in the U.S.: Industry F Away from Basic Research and to Product-Connected Research F Downsizing of R&D Depts; PhD Graduates to Small Companies and Start- Ups F Acquisition as a Sourcing for New Products F Growing Acceptance of Licensing

Trends in the U.S.: Universities F Industry-Influenced Research –Affiliates/Super-Affiliates Programs –Inter (or Cross) Disciplinary Research Centers – Multi-Company Research Collaborations F PhD Graduates to SME’s and Start-Ups F Alliances with Overseas Universities –MIT/Cambridge; Stanford/Edinburgh; UC/Germany

Trends in the U.S.: TLOs F Licensing of Spin-Out/Start-Up Companies –“Qualifying” Inventions for Start-Up –Networking of Angel Investors –Concept2Company and Others F Invention Enhancement Funds F Licensing in the Physical Sciences –Portfolio Licensing with Very Low or No Earned Royalties

Trends in the U.S.: TLOs (2) F Industry Donation of Patents to TLOs F Marketing over InterNet F New Forms of License Agreements –Ready-to-Sign License Agreements –Hybrid Agreements (Patent/Copyright/Trademark) –“Package” Deals (Research/License/Consulting) –Equity only License Agreements

Trends in the U.S.: TLOs (3) F More Option Agreements F More Licensing of Tangible Research Products F Use of “Plain Language” in Writing Agreements F Loss of Staff to Industry/Training of New Hires F Time Spent on Conflict of Interest/Commitment Issues

Types of Industry-University Relationships F Sponsorship of Research F Donations and Gift Funding F Interdisciplinary Centers & Collaborations F Industrial Affiliate Programs F Licensing of University Intellectual Property F Classes for Company Employees F Visiting Scholars from Industry and Company Employees teaching at University F University-managed Science Parks/Incubators F Faculty Consulting

FY2002 Income from Industry F Sponsorship of Research: $42.5 Million F Donations and Gifts: $34.7 Million F Industrial Affiliates Programs: $17.2 Million F Licensing of University I/P: $52.7 Million F Classes for Company Employees: $10.4 Million F Total for FY2002 is $157.5 Million

Industry Funding by Category

Different T/T Models F Legal Model –Viewed as a Legal process –Based in the University Legal Office F Administrative Model –Viewed as an Administrative process –Based in existing administrative office F Business/Marketing Model –Viewed as a business within University –Independent organization within University

Evolution of T/T Models F 1991 –Legal Model: only a few –Administrative Model: Almost all –Business/Marketing Model: very few F 2003 –Legal Model: None –Administrative Model: Minority –Business/ Marketing Model: Majority

Business/Marketing Model F Independent Self-Funded Unit F Policies to encourage invention disclosure and inventor involvement F Hire people with entrepreneurial instincts and business experience F Empower people to make all decisions; Cradle to Grave involvement

THE END F Thank You for your Attention!