• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis
 

BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis

on

  • 653 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
653
Views on SlideShare
252
Embed Views
401

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 401

http://sites01.lsu.edu 401

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis Presentation Transcript

    • 1 BRAC.ORG Peer Data Review on Technology Transfer and Commercialization Presented in draft form to the LSU Commercialization and Technology Transfer Task Force of The Transition Advisory Committee July 11th, 2013 DRAFTDRAFT
    • 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber • The LSU Board of Supervisors has initiated a re-organization review of the LSU system, creating LSU 2015 with the goal of bringing together various resources to create a single, globally competitive LSU • The board activated the Transition Advisory Team to begin to move the institution toward a new structure • The LSU Commercialization and Technology Transfer Task Force is a sub- committee of the Transition Advisory Team • The purpose of the task force is to review the current structure of the LSU Office of Intellectual Property and offer suggestions to improve the way in which technology transfer and commercialization is conducted at LSU • BRAC has researched how other universities manage technology transfer as part of its role on the task force • The task force has evaluated different structures for technology transfer. This presentation evaluates data related to other universities and peer groups DRAFT
    • 3 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL THAT PROMOTES INNOVATION AND SPURS ECONOMIC GROWTH Technology transfer is a multi-faceted process of delivering discoveries from concept to commerce for public benefit Conduct feasibility analysis and valuation of invention disclosures Assess patentability of inventions based on several factors Market intellectual property portfolio to industry Coordinate between stakeholders during the technology transfer and commercialization process © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Technology transfer is a secondary activity in support of the research enterprise Research is a primary university mission Universities conduct tech transfer to benefit the public; reward, retain & recruit good faculty; support the research enterprise; promote economic growth; and generate income to support further research From BRAC’s perspective, technology transfer is an important mechanism for private sector wealth creation as a result of a research university presence Source: LSU System, Honorée, 2012 DRAFT
    • 4 LSU HAS A DECENTRALIZED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE CAMPUS OFFICES © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Currently, each LSU campus (including the Agricultural Center and Pennington Biomedical Research Center) houses its own technology transfer office Further, the LSU Board of Supervisors has sole approval authority for all intellectual property licenses Source: LSU System, Honorée, 2012 DRAFT
    • 5 THE TASK FORCE HAS EXAMINED ALTERNATIVES THAT UTILIZE NON- PROFIT FOUNDATIONS FOR CENTRALIZED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER • A non-profit foundation with a centralized technology and commercialization process may offer several benefits - A shorter period from disclosure to licensing - Centralized marketing - Access to more experienced attorneys (because the Louisiana process caps attorneys’ fees at $125 per hour) - Greater accountability – there is currently no oversight among the many different tech transfer offices - The ability to work around choice-of-law provisions in contracts and agreements - More support for faculty to engage them in research process • Several universities have foundations established to manage technology transfer, including: - Georgia Tech, U. of Georgia, U. of Tennessee, U. of Wisconsin at Madison, Purdue, Iowa State, and U. of Arkansas, to name a few © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber DRAFT
    • 6 LSU A&M HAS DEFINED A SET OF PEERS FOR COMPARISON 2011 Performance, LSU Peers* © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Research Expenditures ($M) Invention Disclosures Licenses Executed New Patent Applications Patents Issued Peer Average per Research Dollar Spent LSU System Performance 413 12 96 33 51 20 N/A .01 .39 .16 .19 .08 LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent N/A .03 .23 .08 .12 .05 Licensing Income ($MM) Average Peer Performance 168 54 80 34 449 6 Startups 4 5 .01 .01 *LSU Self Identified Peers: U of Tennessee, Texas A&M, UMD at College Park, U of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Purdue, North Carolina State, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Iowa State, U of Georgia, Virginia Tech., Mississippi State, U of Arkansas, Colorado State Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis DRAFT
    • 7 BRAC HAS MAINTAINED A CONSISTENT LIST OF PEERS SINCE 2007 2011 Performance, BRAC Peers* © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Research Expenditures ($M) Invention Disclosures Licenses Executed New Patent Applications Patents Issued Peer Average per Research Dollar Spent LSU System Performance 413 12 96 33 51 20 N/A .02 .42 .18 .25 .09 LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent N/A .03 .23 .08 .12 .05 Licensing Income ($MM) Average Peer Performance 249 83 130 56 698 9 Startups 4 7 .01 .01 *BRAC Peers: University of Michigan, Texas A&M, UMD at College Park, U of Virginia, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of Georgia, Georgia Tech., U of Florida Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis DRAFT
    • 8 THE FOLLOWING UNIVERSITIES HAVE CENTRALIZED TECH TRANSFER OPERATIONS IN FOUNDATIONS 2011 Performance, Non-Profit Foundations* © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Research Expenditures ($M) Invention Disclosures Licenses Executed New Patent Applications Patents Issued Peer Average per Research Dollar Spent LSU System Performance 413 12 96 33 51 20 N/A .02 .44 .17 .27 .09 LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent N/A .03 .23 .08 .12 .05 Licensing Income ($MM) Average Peer Performance 182 56 108 43 423 10 Startups 4 4 .01 .01 *Non-Profit Foundations: Georgia Tech., U of Georgia, U of Tennessee, U of Wisconsin at Madison, Purdue, U of Arkansas, Colorado State, Virginia Tech., U of Nebraska at Lincoln, Iowa State, U of Virginia Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis DRAFT
    • 9 ADDITIONALLY, BRAC COMPARED LSU TO THE BOTTOM 50TH QUARTILE OF PUBLIC AAU MEMBER SCHOOLS 2011 Performance, AAU Member Schools* © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber Research Expenditures ($M) Invention Disclosures Licenses Executed New Patent Applications Patents Issued Peer Average per Research Dollar Spent LSU System Performance 413 12 96 33 51 20 N/A .01 .28 .10 .16 .06 LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent N/A .03 .23 .08 .12 .05 Licensing Income ($MM) Average Peer Performance 147 45 81 31 696 4.5 Startups 4 5 .01 .01 *AAU Member Schools: http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476 Source: AUTM, Association of American Universities (AAU), 2011; BRAC analysis DRAFT
    • 10 BRAC HAS IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS THROUGH ITS RESEARCH AS A MEMBER OF THE LSU COMM. & TECH TRANSFER TASK FORCE © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber • The state’s financial situation makes tech transfer challenging for LSU. Research expenditures are lower than all peer groups. • The cap on attorney fees imposed by the State Attorney General puts LSU at a disadvantage in hiring top intellectual property attorneys. • Of LSU’s self identified peers, more than half have an autonomous foundation structure. • When the data is normed per research dollar spent, LSU performs at the average of its peers in the number of startups generated. • LSU is outperforming its peers on licensing income. • LSU is underperforming its peers on invention disclosures, licenses executed, and patent applications by roughly 50 percent. DRAFT
    • 11 Reference Material © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber DRAFT
    • 12 • Often housed in one location, though may have satellites offices • Key staff members are granted the authority to approve licenses • Staff is often cross-trained in various fields of intellectual property to better serve inventors and researchers • Can be housed within the university system, but may also be formed as a separate non-profit entity • Completely housed within the university • The Board of Supervisors sets policy and approves licenses • The ‘main office’ establishes work-policies and writes document templates • Each school (A&M, Agriculture, etc.) has a separate Technology Transfer Office with dedicated staff • The groundwork is done in each office, with approval being sent to the central office for review and Board of Supervisors for final approval © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber RESEARCH SHOWS THAT TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS EITHER CENTRALIZED OR DECENTRALIZED Centralized Decentralized DRAFT
    • 13 IT IS COMMON PRACTICE AMONG UNIVERSITIES TO EITHER HAVE A CENTRALIZED INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL TTO (1/2) © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber University Centralized Internally/Externally vs. Decentralized/System Foundation (Y/N) UMD at College Park Centralized Internally No GA Tech Centralized Externally: GA Tech Research Corporation Yes University of Georgia Centralized Externally: U of GA Research Foundation, Inc. Yes U of Florida Decentralized/System: Office of Technology and Licensing – system sets policy, OTL full authority to execute contracts No Florida State U Decentralized/System: Office of Research– system sets policy, OR full authority to execute contracts No U of Tennessee Centralized Externally: U. of Tennessee Research Foundation Yes U of Texas at Austin Decentralized/System: Office of Technology Commercialization full authority to execute contracts; system sets policy No Texas A&M Decentralized/System: Office of Technology Commercialization full authority to execute contracts; system sets policy No Auburn University Centralized Internally No UNC Chapel Hill Centralized Internally No U of Wisconsin - Madison Centralized Externally: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) Yes U of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Centralized Internally: Office of Technology Management No DRAFT
    • 14 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber University Centralized Internally/Externally vs. Decentralized/System Foundation (Y/N) Purdue Centralized Externally: Purdue Research Foundation Yes NC State at Raleigh Centralized Internally No Iowa State U Centralized Externally: Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. Yes Mississippi State Centralized Internally No U of Arkansas Centralized Externally: Technology Development Foundation Yes Colorado State U Centralized Externally: CSU Ventures, Inc. Yes Virginia Tech Centralized Externally: VA Tech Intellectual Properties, Inc. Yes U of Nebraska at Lincoln Centralized Externally: NUTech Ventures Yes UC Berkley Decentralized/System: Office of Intellectual Property & Industry Research Alliance No U of Michigan Centralized Internally No U of Virginia Centralized Externally: U.Va. Innovation Yes U of South Carolina Centralized Internally No IT IS COMMON PRACTICE AMONG UNIVERSITIES TO EITHER HAVE A CENTRALIZED INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL TTO (2/2) Decentralized: 5 Centralized: 18 Non-Profit Foundations: LSU Peers 8 yes, 5 no BRAC Peers 3 yes, 5 no Others 4 yes, 1 no DRAFT
    • 15 BRAC.ORG THANK YOU Adam Knapp President and CEO Baton Rouge Area Chamber knapp@brac.org (225) 381-7125