Tech Transfer model at SUNY

576 views

Published on

Marseille MET3 Conference presentation. 2nd April 2012.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
576
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
17
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tech Transfer model at SUNY

  1. 1. Tech Transfer at SUNY Scott MacfarlaneSUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY
  2. 2. State University of New YorkSUNY
  3. 3. New YorkThe Empire State .
  4. 4. State University of New York• Largest system in US• 64 campuses SYRACUSE, NY• 465,000 students• 88,000 faculty• 7,660 degree programs• $10.7B budget
  5. 5. SUNY Research
  6. 6. SUNY Research Foundation• Separate corporation supporting almost $1B in SUNY research thru: – Research contract administration – Commercialization support services
  7. 7. SUNY Innovation Assets Upstate  MedicalBuffalo  Hub Albany  Hub Stony Brook  Hub Binghamton  Hub Downstate  Medical
  8. 8. SUNY TTO Hubs Buffalo  Hub
  9. 9. SUNY TTO Hubs Buffalo  Hub
  10. 10. SUNY TTO Hubs Buffalo  Hub
  11. 11. SUNY TTO Hubs Buffalo Hub
  12. 12. SUNY 2010 Tech Transfer Performance• $891,199,555 in research expenditures• 50 Licenses and options (554 active licenses)• 16 Licensing FTEs• 260 Invention disclosures• 5 startups• 114 new patents (55 issued)• $13,124,377 License income
  13. 13. How does SUNY compare?SUNY Stanford• $891,199,555 research • $805,973,770 research• 16 Licensing FTEs • 17 Licensing FTEs• 50 Licenses • 90 Licenses• 260 disclosures • 467 disclosures• 5 startups • 12-15 startups• 114 new patents, 55 • 376 new patents, 180 issued issued• $13,124,377 income • $65,466,286 income We could do better
  14. 14. Why not better already? SUNY has been in an unvirtuous cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt
  15. 15. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Fewer disclosures = fewer patentable inventions on which to file patents
  16. 16. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Inadequate funding = fewer patentable inventions filed as patents – SUNY spends only 1/3 of AUTM average
  17. 17. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Academic focus = fewer disclosures and bigger gap between lab and market
  18. 18. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Fewer patents filed and big gap between lab and market = fewer licenses
  19. 19. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Fewer licenses = less revenue and fewer relationships with companies – Less money to support patenting and TT
  20. 20. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Fewer disclosures, fewer licenses, and less revenue = less funding – No reason to increase funding for TTOs
  21. 21. Unvirtuous Cycle Inadequate  funding Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Fewer  Less disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed Academically  Big gap  research  between  focus lab & mkt • Failure to patent and pursue disclosed inventions discourages innovators – Discouraged innovators are less interested in commercialization, and file fewer disclosures
  22. 22. SUNY IS NOT ALONE
  23. 23. Most University TTOs Do Poorly• 60% of TTOs earned less than $3M 60%• More than 50% of TTOs bring in less money than their operating costs Stanford, $65M• Only 16% of TTOs are self-sustaining SUNY, $13M
  24. 24. What is SUNY doing to improve? Creating a virtuous cycle • More disclosures • More patents (more money) • More licenses • More revenue
  25. 25. Creating VIRTUOUS Cycle SUFFICIENT funding MORE  MORE  MORE  MORE  MORE disclosures patentable  patents  licenses revenue/inventions inventions filed INDUSTRIAL NARROW research  gap focus between  lab & mkt
  26. 26. Creating a Virtuous Cycle• Generating more invention disclosures – More TTO outreach and involvement – Proactive customer service – Creating structured academic research collaboration opportunities
  27. 27. Academic Collaborations• SUNY REACH – 5 SUNY medical campuses – Attracted over $8M in grant funding in 2 yrs – Cancer, infectious diseases, CNS, diabetes/cardiac• Hill Collaboration – Syracuse U., ESF, Upstate, ~$20k per project• IIBMST – Technion, Upstate, National Cheng Kung University
  28. 28. Creating a Virtuous Cycle• Changing to greater industrial focus – ‘Friendly’ negotiation strategy for research contracts – Hiring VP of Industry Relations – Building opportunities for industrial collaborations
  29. 29. Industrial Collaborations• Create more interactions with business
  30. 30. CNSECollege of Nanoscale Science and Engineering• University-Industry $14B collaboration – $1B from NY State – 74 000 m2, 300 nm wafer cleanroom (85,000 sq ft) • Under construction - 46 000 m2 for 450 nm wafer fab
  31. 31. CNSECollege of Nanoscale Science and Engineering• University-Industry $14B collaboration – $1B from NY State – 74 000 m2, 300 nm wafer cleanroom (85,000 sq ft) • Under construction - 46 000 m2 for 450 nm wafer fab – 2,600 employees / 200 students – 300 companies (Intel, IBM, SEMATECH, TSMC, …)
  32. 32. Creating a Virtuous Cycle• Changing to greater industrial focus – ‘Friendly’ negotiation strategy for research contracts – Hiring VP of Industry Relations – Building opportunities for industrial collaborations – Supporting entrepreneurship • Faculty student training (PSW) • Simplified licensing (‘express’-type) • Incubators and Entrepreneur-in-Residences
  33. 33. SUNY Incubators CNY BRC
  34. 34. Creating a Virtuous Cycle• Filing the invention pipeline – Generating more invention disclosures • More TTO outreach and involvement • Proactive customer service – Filing more patents • Reducing patent costs – In-house patent agents (UB) – Using patent attorney as editor not writer • Increasing budget for patenting (parity with avg) • Commercially driven patent strategy
  35. 35. Why file more patents?• More inventions to license• Become better place to technology shop• Increasing probability of big winner Generating More Than $1 Million 203 1 of 189 2010 Cumulative Active Licenses 38,270
  36. 36. Why file more patents?• More inventions to license• Become better place to technology shop• Increasing probability of big winner – Most successful offices are successful because of one or several big winners – Very successful licenses generate ‘buzz’• Picking winners is hard, maybe impossible
  37. 37. Why file more patents?• Story told by former Amersham More inventions to license employee: In the mid 1980s, Cetus Corp. • Become better place to technology offered to sell PCR patent portfolio to  shop Amersham for $20,000. Amersham• Increasing probability of big winner declined, their evaluating scientists  – Most successful offices are successful saying, “This is very interesting, but who  because of one or several big winners really needs millions of copies of DNA?”  – Very successful licenses generate ‘buzz’• Three years later Cetus sold the  Picking winners is hard, maybe impossible patents to Roche for $300 million.
  38. 38. Winners are rare and hard to pick More startups = more winners Applera GenVec GE 1,100 licenses
  39. 39. Creating a Virtuous Cycle• ‘Bridging the Gap’ from lab to market – Technology Accelerator Fund • Projects that reach ‘inflection point’ • $500,000/year, Up to $50,000 per project • Competitive, among all SUNY campuses – Product Generation Group • Start with idea, end with product • Industry and university participants (Upstate, SU) • Prototyping funds and support
  40. 40. La Fin

×