October 2010 - Michigan Energy Forum - Robin Rasor

773 views
736 views

Published on

With over $1 billion in research invested annually at Michigan universities, technology transfer to entrepreneurs and established companies can play a major role in transforming Michigan's economy. Join representatives of the Association of University Technology Managers, the University of Michigan Venture Center, MSU Technologies, and Wayne State Technology Commercialization to learn how you can leverage tech transfer and sponsored research in your energy venture.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
773
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

October 2010 - Michigan Energy Forum - Robin Rasor

  1. 1. Managing our Cultures: Successfully Licensing Technologies Robin L. Rasor President Elect Association of University Technology Managers Director of Licensing University of Michigan
  2. 2. Outline • What is AUTM? • What are companies looking for? • How do we do a deal? • Who are our stakeholders? • Where does U Michigan fit in? • Licensing Components
  3. 3. Association of University Technology Managers • AUTM is a community of over 3500 technology transfer professionals working in academic, research, government, legal and commercial settings • Dedicated to transferring research from academic/research institutions for the benefit of the public through commercial avenues
  4. 4. Stakeholders University Stakeholders • The Inventor • The Department • The College • The University • The State • The Nation • The World
  5. 5. Role of the Inventor The Inventor • They are all different; they may want: Additional research funding $$ Consulting Glory Benefit the public • Some are hands-off; some are engaged • Some are entrepreneurial Form their own companies Take leave of absences • All get a share in the revenues
  6. 6. The Department The Dept/College • Royalties can mean unrestricted revenue for research/education: No overhead “Found money” Hard to plan for • How to incentivize the inventors
  7. 7. The College and University The University • Royalty Income Can: Pay for the Tech Transfer Office Translational Funds Other Research • “Big Hits” can pay for buildings, endowed chairs, centers, etc.
  8. 8. The Nation The State and Nation JOBS (hopefully high paying) + Products for the benefit of the Public
  9. 9. The World The World Global Health Global Warming Reduced Reliance on Oil
  10. 10. Stakeholder Conflicts Stakeholder Conflicts • Dollars vs. Deals • Royalties vs. Research Funds • Startups vs. Established Licenses • Licensees in Your State vs. Other States • Access in Developing Countries
  11. 11. How Does UM rank Nationally? Research Exp. Invention Patent Issued New Startups Annual Revenue Licensing Total ($MM) Reports Applications Patents Agreements ($MM) FTEs FTEs U-M ’09** 1,016.6 MIT 522 JHU 500 (?) MIT 122 U Wash 205 MIT 20 MIT 89.1 U Wisc 19 U Wisc 69 U-M ’08** 929.0 Stanford 400 U IL 367 Stanford 121 Stanford 107 UCB 14 U MN 83.3 MIT 18 Stanford 43 UCSF 885.0 U-M ’09 350 Penn 341 U Wisc 85 MIT 98 UCSD 14 Stanford 62.5 U Wash 16 UMN 42 U Wisc 882.0 U IL 363 MIT 282 U-M ‘08 75 JHU 92 U-M ‘08 13 UCSF 62.4 U MN 14 U Wash 41 UCLA 871.0 U Wisc 350 U Wisc 270 U-M ’09 72 U-M ‘08 91 Duke 12 U Wash 47.0 JHU+APL 13 U IL 36 UCSD 842.0 U Wash 349 U Wash 226 U Wash 56 U-M ’09 78 JHU+APL 12 UCLA 32.8 Cornell 12 UCLA 32 JHU 836.0 Penn 332 Cornell 222 Cornell 54 U Wisc 68 Stanford 12 U-M ‘08 25.0 Penn 12 MIT 31 Duke 767.0 UCSD 330 UCLA 221 U IL 54 Cornell 65 U CO 11 UCSD 22.7 UCD 12 Cornell 30 U Wash 765.0 UCLA 314 U CO 188 UCSD 45 U MN 64 U IL 11 U-M ’09 18.3 UCSF 11 Penn 29 Penn 708.0 U-M ‘08 306 UCSD 180 Penn 44 U IL 61 U Wash 9 JHU 11.2 OSU 10 UCSD 29 OSU 703.0 JHU 305 U-M ’09 151 UCLA 42 Pitt 58 U-M ’09 8 U IL 10.3 Stanford 10 U-M ’09 27 Penn State 701.0 Pitt 244 U-M ‘08 132 JHU 40 U CO 58 Cornell 5 UCD 8.0 UCLA 10 U-M ‘08 27 Stanford 688.0 Cornell 242 UCB 102 Duke 38 Penn 49 Penn 5 Cornell 6.8 U IL 9 JHU+APL 24 U MN 683.0 U CO 237 Pitt 100 U MN 37 UCSF 49 Pitt 3 Pitt 6.7 UCSD 9 Duke 21 MIT 660.0 U MN 217 UCD 93 Pitt 36 UCSD 43 U MN 1 Penn 6.6 U-M ’09 8 UCD 20 Cornell 654.0 UCSF 200 UCSF 76 UCB 36 UCLA 38 OSU n/a U CO 6.1 U-M ‘08 8 UCSF 18 UCD 643.0 UCD 181 U MN 58 UCSF 35 UCD 24 Penn State n/a UCB 5.2 Duke 7 Pitt 18 Pitt 596.0 UCB 155 Duke n/a Penn State 28 UCB 23 U Wisc n/a Duke n/a Pitt 7 OSU 17 UCB 592.0 Duke n/a OSU n/a U CO 28 Duke n/a UCD n/a OSU n/a UCB 7 U CO 16 U IL n/a OSU n/a Penn State n/a UCD 21 OSU n/a UCLA n/a Penn State n/a U CO 5 Penn State 11 U CO n/a Penn State n/a Stanford n/a OSU 15 Penn State n/a UCSF n/a U Wisc n/a Penn State 4 UCB 10 * Source: Tech transfer offices, USPTO, NSF. Data subject to potential revision ** Original U-M expenditures updated to include Faculty Group Practice research 11
  12. 12. Licensing Components • Financial terms – Upfront payments and milestone payments – Royalty rates – Equity – Patent expenses
  13. 13. Licensing Components • Other financial considerations – Sublicensing – Research Contract – Student Fellowships – Equipment – Other
  14. 14. Licensing Components • Negotiated non-financial terms – Due diligence milestones – Patent prosecution • Control • Challenges – Confidentiality – Reporting – Insurance – Warranties
  15. 15. Licensing Components: Summary • Living document • Total value of the deal • Continued progress toward commercial development of the product is important • Don’t get “hung up” on one term • Eventually the royalty component is a small part of the cost of the product • Global health provisions • Creative terms/Flexibility • Establishing a relationship

×