Commercialising public research: New Trends
and Strategies
Directorate for Science, Technology
and Industry
Daniel Kupka
Setting the stage
Commercialising public research
• … is important for generating (more) economic growth
and jobs from innovation…
• … and i...
(Simplified) Knowledge transfer and
commercialisation system
Evaluation of Invention
Invention
Disclosure
IP Protection
Pa...
WHAT DOES THE DATA TELL
US? A SNAPSHOT
Invention disclosures relative
stable but slight drop after crisis
Invention disclosures, 2004-2011
Per USD 100m research ...
University patenting has increased for the
OECD area in 2001-05, but growth slowed
Patents filed by universities, 2001-200...
PRI patenting has increased between
2001-2005, but growth turned negative
Patents filed by public research institutes, 200...
In Europe, revenue from licensing is low
compared to the US and is not increasing
Licensing income, 2004-2011
As a percent...
Spin-off creation is higher in Europe, but
little evidence of growth and job effects
Creation of public research spin-offs...
Business-funded R&D in the higher
education sector , 2000-2011
%

Canada

Germany

France

Japan

United Kingdom

18
16

1...
Business-funded R&D in the
government sector , 2000-2011
%

Canada
Japan

Germany
United Kingdom

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

...
Co-authored publications can indicate the degree to which
business absorbs or integrates public sector knowledge
Industry-...
Mobility of people important for knowledge
diffusion and industry’s research productivity
Doctorate holders having changed...
After decades of reform in Europe and
emulation of Bayh-Dole around the world ...
… commercialisation outputs (at least wh...
Some observations…
• Narrow policy focus on 4 elements:
• the natural/physical sciences,
• patenting & licensing,
• facult...
Some observations…
• Mismatch between supply and demand: Firms
not always willing (e.g. high transaction and search
costs,...
TRENDS IN STRATEGIES
AND POLICIES
A practitioners’ view on the
commercialisation of public research
Legislative and
administrative
reforms

Supporting the
e...
Legislative initiatives related to
commercialisation and patenting
• Increased autonomy (i.e. University by-laws) allows t...
Legislative initiatives related to
commercialisation and patenting (2)
• “Grace Period”: trend towards expanding grace per...
Intermediaries and bridging institutions
• Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) have expanded their missions
• Convergence a...
Collaborative IP tools and funds
• Easing access to patent portfolios for start-ups and SMEs –
issue of “sleeping” patents...
Promoting Openness in Science
• Requirement to publish in digital format
– National: e.g. Spain (2011 Science, Technology ...
Spain: 2011 Science, Technology and Innovation Law, art. 37
The research staff whose research activity is financed largely...
Promoting Openness in Science
• Requirement to publish in digital format
– Institutional: e.g. US National Institutes of H...
Supporting the emergence of
entrepreneurial ideas form public research
Financing tools for different stages of research co...
Supporting the emergence of
entrepreneurial ideas form public research
Financing (national level)

• Rise in specific fina...
Source: European Investment Fund Presentation, April 2013
Supporting the emergence of entrepreneurial
ideas form public research (2)
• Lessening the burdens for spin-offs to licens...
Qualcomm’s IP investment programme

Source: Qualcomm Presentation
IMPLICATIONS AND
CHALLENGES
Implications and Challenges:
National S&T Policy
• Tailoring national policies or strategies is inherently
complex
• Polic...
Implications and Challenges:
National S&T Policy (2)
• The major channel for knowledge transfer remains the
placement of s...
Implications and Challenges:
Management of Universities and PRIs
• Allow the potential for commercialisation while retaini...
Implications and Challenges:
Management of Universities and PRIs (2)
• IP is still the foundation (“grammar”) on which new...
Implications and Challenges:
Management of Universities and PRIs (3)
• IF NOT (enough) research activity and quality, a TT...
Implications and Challenges:
Management of Universities and PRIs (4)
• Students and alumni are usually better entrepreneur...
Implications and challenges: TTOs
• Alternative models of technology transfer the road to
heaven? No one-size-fits-all
– E...
Tech company stopped graduate
recruitment following patent infringement

Source: www.patentlyo.com
Implications and Challenges:
Researchers
• Encourage to disclose research results that can be
accessed, used and reused by...
Thank you!

daniel.kupka@oecd.org

www.oecd.org/sti/innovation
Commercialising public research
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Commercialising public research

12,372

Published on

Commercialising public research: New trends and strategies

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
12,372
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
112
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Commercialising public research

  1. 1. Commercialising public research: New Trends and Strategies Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Daniel Kupka
  2. 2. Setting the stage
  3. 3. Commercialising public research • … is important for generating (more) economic growth and jobs from innovation… • … and is not easy, as public research and business are two different worlds, with different motives, rules and cultures. • Commercialisation has been at the centre stage of research policies in OECD countries for 20 to 30 years now (e.g. OECD (2003), Turning Science into Business)  What is it about?  Where are we with it?  What can we do to foster it?
  4. 4. (Simplified) Knowledge transfer and commercialisation system Evaluation of Invention Invention Disclosure IP Protection Patents Copyrights Trademarks Trade Secrets Public Research Results No invention Disclosure Market technology Benefits Social Economic Cultural Joint Publications Mobility Contract research Facility sharing Consultancy Start-ups by students and graduates etc. Environmental factors Institutional characteristics Organizational resources e.g. Country's industry characteristics, companies absorptive capacities e.g. University IP policies, Norms, research quality, university culture e.g. technology transfer expertise, relationships with companies Local and national S&T policies Researcher incentives/ characteristics e.g. motivation to disclose/share research results and data
  5. 5. WHAT DOES THE DATA TELL US? A SNAPSHOT
  6. 6. Invention disclosures relative stable but slight drop after crisis Invention disclosures, 2004-2011 Per USD 100m research expenditure Australia Canada Europe United Kingdom United States 50 40 30 20 10 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: OECD based on data from Australia’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2011 and 2012; European Commission, 2012; US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2008-2012; Canadian AUTM, 2008-2012; HEFCE, 2009-2012
  7. 7. University patenting has increased for the OECD area in 2001-05, but growth slowed Patents filed by universities, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 Patent applications under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per billion GDP (Constant 2005 USD (PPP)) 2006-2010 2001-2005 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.600 Average annual growth rates for OECD area (absolute numbers) 2001-05: 11.8% 2006-10: 1.3% 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 1. Patent applicant’s names are allocated to institutional sectors using a methodology developed by Eurostat and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). Owing to the significant variation in names recorded in patent documents, applicants are misallocated to sectors, thereby introducing biases in the resulting indicator. Only economies having filed for at least 30 patents over the period 2001-2005 or 2006-2010 are included in the Figures. 2. Data broken down by priority date and residence of the applicants, using fractional counts. 3. Hospitals has been excluded. Source: OECD Patent Database, February 2013.
  8. 8. PRI patenting has increased between 2001-2005, but growth turned negative Patents filed by public research institutes, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 Patent applications under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per billion GDP (Constant 2005 USD (PPP)) 2006-2010 2001-2005 0.250 0.200 0.150 Average annual growth rates for OECD area (absolute numbers) 2001-05: 5.3% 2006-10: -1.5% 0.100 0.050 0.000 1. Patent applicant’s names are allocated to institutional sectors using a methodology developed by Eurostat and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). Owing to the significant variation in names recorded in patent documents, applicants are misallocated to sectors, thereby introducing biases in the resulting indicator. Only economies having filed for at least 30 patents over the period 2001-2005 or 2006-2010 are included in the Figures. 2. Data broken down by priority date and residence of the applicants, using fractional counts. 3. Hospitals has been excluded. Source: OECD Patent Database, February 2013.
  9. 9. In Europe, revenue from licensing is low compared to the US and is not increasing Licensing income, 2004-2011 As a percentage of research expenditures Source: OECD based on data from Australia’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2011 and 2012; European Commission, 2012; US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2008-2012; Canadian AUTM, 2008-2012; HEFCE, 2009-2012
  10. 10. Spin-off creation is higher in Europe, but little evidence of growth and job effects Creation of public research spin-offs, 2004-2011 Per USD PPP 100m research expenditure Source: OECD based on data from Australia’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2011 and 2012; European Commission, 2012; US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2008-2012; Canadian AUTM, 2008-2012; HEFCE, 2009-2012
  11. 11. Business-funded R&D in the higher education sector , 2000-2011 % Canada Germany France Japan United Kingdom 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Source: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Database United States Total OECD
  12. 12. Business-funded R&D in the government sector , 2000-2011 % Canada Japan Germany United Kingdom 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 No data for US Source: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Database France Total OECD
  13. 13. Co-authored publications can indicate the degree to which business absorbs or integrates public sector knowledge Industry-science co-publications, 2006-10 % of industry-science co-publications in total research publication output Source: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, using Web of Science (WoS) database.
  14. 14. Mobility of people important for knowledge diffusion and industry’s research productivity Doctorate holders having changed jobs in the last 10 years, 2009 as % % Researchers Non-researchers 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source: OECD, Careers of Doctorate Holders Database. www.oecd.org/sti/cdh Total
  15. 15. After decades of reform in Europe and emulation of Bayh-Dole around the world ... … commercialisation outputs (at least what we can measure on a narrow set of indicators) seems to be levelling off in a number of countries. • Did we reach an “equilibrium” or a “plateau”, or have institutional and policy strategies changed?
  16. 16. Some observations… • Narrow policy focus on 4 elements: • the natural/physical sciences, • patenting & licensing, • faculty inventors; • little understanding of the broader determinants (“What should I do with my patents?”) • Limited evidence and metrics: current metrics just the tip of the iceberg; those available most relevant ones? • Governance and incentives: Do we have right individual incentives? No integrated national policy approach?
  17. 17. Some observations… • Mismatch between supply and demand: Firms not always willing (e.g. high transaction and search costs, research not relevant or of low quality) or capable of making use of public research results (e.g. lack of own absorptive capacity)
  18. 18. TRENDS IN STRATEGIES AND POLICIES
  19. 19. A practitioners’ view on the commercialisation of public research Legislative and administrative reforms Supporting the emergence of entrepreneurial ideas Incentives for collaboration TTO Capacities to link with the external environment through bridging and intermediary organisations
  20. 20. Legislative initiatives related to commercialisation and patenting • Increased autonomy (i.e. University by-laws) allows to negotiate different IP arrangements • Encouraging industry engagement through granting “free” of charge licenses on IP rights – e.g. Easy Access Innovation Partnership (Glasgow, Bristol and King’s College London), University of New South Wales and CERN • Legislative and administrative procedures targeting research personnel and faculty – Patents and commercialisation in tenure and promotion decisions in some US and Canadian universities (16 of 64) – “Student ownership” - University of Missouri
  21. 21. Legislative initiatives related to commercialisation and patenting (2) • “Grace Period”: trend towards expanding grace periods – Japan (2012): broader scope to include sales, any exhibitions, press releases, and broadcasting – Korea (2012): prolonged from six to 12 months • European Commission’s Recommendation on the management of IP and Code of Practice for universities and other PRIs – Set of general principles and minimum standards for the management of IP and good practice principles for collaborative and contract research – June 2012: Guidelines on the management of IP in international research collaborations
  22. 22. Intermediaries and bridging institutions • Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) have expanded their missions • Convergence across countries towards a common set of organisational and financial models • New bridging and intermediation structures – e.g. Innovation offices programme in Sweden • Replacing or improving TTO structures – Technology Transfer Alliances (e.g. Innovation Transfer Network (ITN) in the US, SATT in France, cTTO in Ireland, Regional Patent Agencies (RPAs) in Germany) – For-profit models – Internet-based models (e.g. Flintbox at University of British Columbia, “iBridge network”) – Free Agency model (theoretical)
  23. 23. Collaborative IP tools and funds • Easing access to patent portfolios for start-ups and SMEs – issue of “sleeping” patents – e.g. US DOEs Next Top Innovator, France´s CNRS PR2 – Enhanced Partnership SME Research • IP sharing agreements – e.g. UK’s Lambert Toolkit, Germany´s Model R&D cooperative Agreements, Denmark´s Schlüter model Agreements • Patent funds for SMEs and PROs – e.g. Japan’s Life Sciences IP Platform Fund, France’s Brevets, Korea’s IP cube partners, discussions for an “European Patent Fund”
  24. 24. Promoting Openness in Science • Requirement to publish in digital format – National: e.g. Spain (2011 Science, Technology and Innovation Law), New Zealand, US, Estonia) – Institutional: e.g. US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  25. 25. Spain: 2011 Science, Technology and Innovation Law, art. 37 The research staff whose research activity is financed largely with funds from the State Budget will issue a digital version of the final version of the contents which have been accepted for publication in research journals or periodicals serial as soon as possible but not later than twelve months after the official date of publication.
  26. 26. Promoting Openness in Science • Requirement to publish in digital format – Institutional: e.g. US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) – National: e.g. Spain (2011 Science, Technology and Innovation Law), New Zealand, US, Estonia) • Building knowledge repositories – e.g. EC: Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (DRIVER), Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe (OpenAIRE), etc. • New co-operative models – e.g. Lund University, the National Library of Sweden and Nordbib to adopt online guides to open access journals publishing
  27. 27. Supporting the emergence of entrepreneurial ideas form public research Financing tools for different stages of research commercialisation
  28. 28. Supporting the emergence of entrepreneurial ideas form public research Financing (national level) • Rise in specific financial schemes – Public support shifted from seed funding to the proof-of-concept (PoC) stage and funding for prototype development Financing (institutional level) • Setting up of own PoC and seed funds – In Europe, 73 university and PRIs oriented seed funds and 48 PoC funds – Wide heterogeneity in terms of how they function, governance and business models – Some funds also share features with private-sector patent and IP funds (e.g. Karolinska Development Fund)
  29. 29. Source: European Investment Fund Presentation, April 2013
  30. 30. Supporting the emergence of entrepreneurial ideas form public research (2) • Lessening the burdens for spin-offs to license-in university technology – equity shares or shares of future revenues; Patent assistance programmes • Crowd funding – hype or reality? – University of Utah’s TTO entered in 2013 an exclusive agreement with crowdfunding platform RocketHub • Corporate venturing (joint venturing, acquisitions and corporate venture capital (CVC)) – Recent years have seen an increase in corporate venturing activities – e.g. Qualcomm’s IP investment programme
  31. 31. Qualcomm’s IP investment programme Source: Qualcomm Presentation
  32. 32. IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES
  33. 33. Implications and Challenges: National S&T Policy • Tailoring national policies or strategies is inherently complex • Policy goals will differ according to countries’ public research environments – Academic excellence and commercial success are mutually reinforcing (“A rising tide lifts all boats”) – Countries on the research frontier may be most interested to increase firms’ absorptive capacity, while those further behind the research frontier may seek to reduce undesirable duplication of investment
  34. 34. Implications and Challenges: National S&T Policy (2) • The major channel for knowledge transfer remains the placement of students • Those who generate ideas and inventions (i.e. from professors to students), have relevant incentives • Change in incentive structures with agencies and ministries in charge of academic incentives • Government oversight of academic incentives could help here to remedy imbalances and conflicts
  35. 35. Implications and Challenges: Management of Universities and PRIs • Allow the potential for commercialisation while retaining the fundamental integrity of the research apparatus – Few universities give a clear policy mandate to innovation, IP and entrepreneurial strategies – Top-performing institutions are already learning how to operate broad commercial activities without undermining the integrity of core commitments (research and education) • Attempt (and experiment) to organise relationships with industry in new ways • Collaborative and contractual research and professional services are financially more important than patent licensing – they ensure also that needs of industry are well integrated in the research agenda of the university
  36. 36. Implications and Challenges: Management of Universities and PRIs (2) • IP is still the foundation (“grammar”) on which new forms of transfer and exchange are happening – How to implement strategies and policies that recognise different pathways and to link teaching, research and commercialisation without creating undue burdens to the research apparatus? – Patents and commercialisation in tenure and promotion decisions? • Rise of open access publishing – shifting of costs from the reader to the author and institution -> undesirable esp. for smaller universities with high proportion of publishing researchers – How does it affect negotiations with industry?
  37. 37. Implications and Challenges: Management of Universities and PRIs (3) • IF NOT (enough) research activity and quality, a TTO is NOT necessary • Alternative solutions: – Joint TTO services – Technical support services offered by govt. institutions and TTO Networks – Private counseling
  38. 38. Implications and Challenges: Management of Universities and PRIs (4) • Students and alumni are usually better entrepreneurs than professional researchers: need to develop an entrepreneurial spirit among students – Institutional co-financed student clubs? • How to create a eco-system for student and academic entrepreneurs when favourable local conditions are not present? – Smart programme design? – Creating “Centres of Excellence” for certain disciplines to attract talent, industry and star scientists (and hence capital)? • Where do get the funding (e.g. POC funds) in times of increased competition and diminished research funding?
  39. 39. Implications and challenges: TTOs • Alternative models of technology transfer the road to heaven? No one-size-fits-all – Emulating national “best practice” models usually backfire • Given tightening budgets, will we see an increased consolidation of TTO services towards hub-and spoke and for-profit models? • Focus of TTOs on generating income through licensing: Certain universities (in the US) have adopted aggressive strategies vis-à-vis business (“troll-like”) – With dubious social return; business can retaliate, reducing overall impact (e.g. student placement, contract research) – A risk elsewhere? Denmark: Science Ventures are for-profit. France: The SATT should generate positive net-income in ten years time
  40. 40. Tech company stopped graduate recruitment following patent infringement Source: www.patentlyo.com
  41. 41. Implications and Challenges: Researchers • Encourage to disclose research results that can be accessed, used and reused by future researchers as well as by TTOs and industry • Designing incentives to encourage data and invention disclosure is a difficult undertaking – Policy makers, agencies and TTOs need to take into account a range of variables and interests – Monetary incentives to researchers entail also risks! • How to create a more explicit link between the effort that is required to manage and share data and research results and career recognition and rewards? • no standard for the citation of data
  42. 42. Thank you! daniel.kupka@oecd.org www.oecd.org/sti/innovation

×