This document discusses technology transfer and commercialization. It defines technology transfer as bringing research results to public use through commercialization. The key stakeholders are identified as the general public, research community, and the market. The technology transfer process involves moving innovation from research labs to the market through licensing, spin-outs or start-ups. Licensing and spin-outs are described as the main commercialization strategies, along with their advantages and risks. A case study on the MateCat machine translation tool is provided to illustrate this process.

1. Transfer of technology to market and commercial exploitation of results
Alessandro Cattelan, Translated srl
[alessandro@translated.net]

2. What is technology transfer?
Stakeholders in technology transfer
Technology transfer process
Opportunity recognition
Strategies for the transfer of technology
A real-life case study: MateCat
Overview

3. The commercial development of research ideas and intellectual property into commercially viable products or processes that meet defined market needs
[Dr Nick Bourne, Deputy Director and Head of Commercial Development, University of Cardiff]
What is technology transfer?

4. Technology transfer aims at bringing the results of research laboratories to public use and benefits. The conversion of scientific findings into commercial products or processes is a way to bring innovative technologies to the society.
Think of it as a bridge
Research Labs
Society

5. Innovation

6. The process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will pay.
[http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html]
Innovation

7. http://youtu.be/ibfrzjb_fB0
Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property and Science - The Innovation Lifecycle

8. Stakeholders
The patient
The research scientist
The R&D specialist
The drug developer
The IP attorney

9. General public.
Users and consumers who will benefit from the innovation and technology transfer
Research community.
Researchers who carry out the scientific work needed to create innovation
Market.
Entrepreneurs, technology transfer offices, attorneys who make commercialization possible

10. General public: Technology transfer brings innovation to public use and benefit, improving people’s lives.
Research community: Technology transfer attracts funding and generates revenue for universities and research centres.
Market: Technology transfer creates opportunities to start new companies, create new jobs and generate wealth.
Advantages

12. Technology transfer process
University, Research centres
Technology Transfer
Licensing
Spin-out
Start-up
Market

13. Opportunity recognition
Searching for valuable technological applications and designing a viable route to deliver those applications in the form of tradable products and goods.
[C. Franzoni, Opportunity recognition in technology transfer organizations, Int Entrep Manag J, 2007, 3:51-67]

14. 2 + 2 ≠ 4

15. Technology Transfer Organizations
Industrial liaison offices, Campus ventures, Offices for Technology transfer: they act as an intermediary between the faculty members and firms or other potential investors interested in acquiring the technological assets.
[C. Franzoni, Opportunity recognition in technology transfer organizations, Int Entrep Manag J, 2007, 3:51-67]

16. Technology Transfer Organizations
TTOs tasks include:
Screening of prior-art
Filing patent applications
Licensing
Procurement of research sponsorship or other research agreements with firms
Creation of spin-off companies
[C. Franzoni, Opportunity recognition in technology transfer organizations, Int Entrep Manag J, 2007, 3:51-67]

17. Strategies for the transfer of technology
Innovation discovered or created at universities or research centres
Licensing
Spin-out
Start-up

18. Licensing
Most common way to transfer technology from the university sector to the market.
University may charge an initial payment and receive royalties for the right to use intellectual property
The university and academic capitalise on the technology but do not have to commit lots of time to commercialization
[Andy Lockett et al., Technology transfer and Universities’ Spin-Out Strategies, Small Business Economics, 2003, 20:185-200]

19. Licensing
Drawbacks:
Licensing agreements are only applicable to assets that can be protected by intellectual property law
University may not be able to capture the full value of their technology
[Andy Lockett et al., Technology transfer and Universities’ Spin-Out Strategies, Small Business Economics, 2003, 20:185-200]

20. Spin-out
Spinning out a company means a more direct involvement in the commercialization of the new technology
Equity ownership from interested parties from within and outside the university (external managers/entrepreneurs)
Taking equity in a spin-out company produces a greater average return in the long run compared to licensing
[Andy Lockett et al., Technology transfer and Universities’ Spin-Out Strategies, Small Business Economics, 2003, 20:185-200]

21. Spin-out
Risks:
Commercially inexperienced academic inventors may focus too much on the technical aspects of the innovation to the detriment of business dimensions
If the academic inventor does not leave the university, he/she will have to balance academic and business functions
[Andy Lockett et al., Technology transfer and Universities’ Spin-Out Strategies, Small Business Economics, 2003, 20: 185-200]

22. Start-up
The start-up model is, to some extent, similar to the spin-out model
Main difference is that entrepreneurs and managers come from outside the university
Risks for starting up a company fall entirely on the entrepreneur and the new company

23. Start-up
Technology is acquired purchasing licenses or selling shares of the start-up (equity ownership)
Funding to develop the technology and build the company is provided by investors (angel investors or venture capitalists) or by revenue generated by the company

24. A real-life case study: MateCat
Project funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme
Three-year long project with partners from academia and industry:
oFondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy
oTranslated srl, Italy
oUniversité du Maine, France
oUniversity of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

25. here comes the ugliest slide of all

26. Project goals
Effectively and ergonomically integrate Machine Translation (MT) within the human translation workflow. Develop an enhanced web-based CAT tool that will offer new MT capabilities, such as automatic adaption to the translated content, online learning from user corrections, and automatic quality estimation.
The project builds on state-of-the-art MT and CAT technologies created by the project members, such as Moses, the most popular open source statistical MT toolkit, and MyMemory, the world’s largest Translation Memory (TM) built collaboratively via MT and human contributions.
Our ultimate goal is to create new CAT technology that will significantly enhance the productivity and user experience of professional translators. Hence, progress of MateCat will be systematically assessed involving professional translators, working on real translation projects, and evaluating the utility and usability of our solutions.

27. Current status
MateCat has been released as open source software and has been used by third parties to build ad hoc solutions (e.g. CasmaCat)
The technology has been used to translate over 35 million words in little more than a year
Funding for the EU project will end in October 2014

28. Life after funding
Create a new company to continue development and commercialization
Offer shares of the company to academic partners for their research
Raise capital or generate revenue to finance the start- up

29. Any questions?