BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis

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 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• 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


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

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


LSU HAS A DECENTRALIZED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE CAMPUS OFFICES

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


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

DRAFT


LSU A&M HAS DEFINED A SET OF PEERS FOR COMPARISON2011 Performance, LSU Peers*

Research Expenditures ($M)

Invention Disclosures

Licenses Executed

New Patent Applications

Patents Issued

Peer Average per

Research Dollar Spent

LSU SystemPerformance

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 PeerPerformance

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


BRAC HAS MAINTAINED A CONSISTENT LIST OF PEERS SINCE 20072011 Performance, BRAC Peers*



Licenses Executed


Patents Issued

Peer Average per



413

12

96

33

51

20

N/A

.02

.42

.18

.25

.09


N/A

.03

.23

.08

.12

.05



249

83

130

56

698

9


*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


DRAFT


THE FOLLOWING UNIVERSITIES HAVE CENTRALIZED TECH TRANSFER OPERATIONS IN FOUNDATIONS2011 Performance, Non-Profit Foundations*



Licenses Executed


Patents Issued

Peer Average per



413

12

96

33

51

20

N/A

.02

.44

.17

.27

.09


N/A

.03

.23

.08

.12

.05



182

56

108

43

423

10


*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


DRAFT


ADDITIONALLY, BRAC COMPARED LSU TO THE BOTTOM 50TH QUARTILE OF PUBLIC AAU MEMBER SCHOOLS2011 Performance, AAU Member Schools*



Licenses Executed


Patents Issued

Peer Average per



413

12

96

33

51

20

N/A

.01

.28

.10

.16

.06


N/A

.03

.23

.08

.12

.05



147

45

81

31

696

4.5


*AAU Member Schools: http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476

Source: AUTM, Association of American Universities (AAU), 2011; BRAC analysis

DRAFT

http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476


BRAC HAS IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS THROUGH ITS RESEARCH AS A MEMBER OF THE LSU COMM. & TECH TRANSFER TASK FORCE

• 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


Reference Material

DRAFT


• 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

RESEARCH SHOWS THAT TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS EITHER CENTRALIZED OR DECENTRALIZED

Centralized Decentralized

DRAFT


IT IS COMMON PRACTICE AMONG UNIVERSITIES TO EITHER HAVE A CENTRALIZED INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL TTO

(1/2)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


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 noBRAC Peers 3 yes, 5 noOthers 4 yes, 1 no

DRAFT

15

BRAC.ORG

THANK YOU

Adam KnappPresident and CEO

Baton Rouge Area [email protected](225) 381-7125

BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis

Education

Transcript of BRAC Technology Transfer Analysis