TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership

Steve Bauer

Director

RERC on Technology Transfer

Acknowledgement

This is a presentation of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology

Transfer, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research of the Department of Education under grant number H133E9800025. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the

grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S Department of Education.

Discussion

• Generic U. TTO

• Academic (Supply Side)

• Industry (Demand Side)

• Case: “Disability” Products

Generic U. Tech Transfer Office

• What do they care about?– Revenue

• License, options income supports TTO• Sole focus on commercialization • Home runs• Health sciences

– Control Intellectual Property• Access to faculty expertise, research infrastructure

• What don’t they care about?– Patents, research funding, corporate funding

Generic U. Tech Transfer Office

• What they do– Manage technology portfolios

• What they don’t do– Cast broad nets for technology disclosures

• Successful U. TTO doesn’t either

Academicians (Supply Side)

• What (can) they provide?– Technology disclosures– Knowledge of market, technology, industry

• Market research

– Primary lead on licensing opportunities – Expertise

• Necessary to license early stage research

All the Raw Materials. Key to TTO Efficiency and Effectiveness.

Academicians (Supply Side)

• What do they care about?– Efficient, effective, visible, helpful TTO

• Revenue

• Patents

– Academic prestige for commercial activity – Research funding– Corporate research

Entrepreneurial Culture$, Prestige, Opportunity

Business (Demand Side)

• What do they care about?– Efficient, effective, visible, helpful TTO

• Technology

• Business culture

– Corporate research• Efficient (predictable) handling of new IP

• Easy (predictable) access to expertise

• Easy (predictable) access to research infrastructure

• Easy (predictable) access to cheap labor

Business (Demand Side)

• Non-IP Research– Market research

• Customer needs• Design requirements

– Prototype / software development– Prototype / software testing– Design validation– Clinical trials– Collaborative grant development (SBIR, STTR)

T2RERC Fortune 500 Project Supply Push ProjectDemand Pull Project

Where They Meet

• Business Culture – Corporate lead

• Roles

• Deliverables

• Timeline

– New intellectual property– Product development cycles– Communication– Accountability

Important training at Successful U.

Where They Meet

• Technology licensing, $

• Corporate Research, Research $

• Non-IP Research, Research $

• Entrepreneurial Culture

Academicians who work regularly with manufacturersin an entrepreneurial culture are much more likely

to make technology disclosures.

(Owen-Smith, 2001)

Generic U.

Successful U.

+

Federal vs. Corporate Research

Federal $ Corporate $ Federal $ Corporate $

$149.0B $16.9B 67% 19%

8.9 : 1

(9.6 : 1 for 2004)3.5 : 1

University Research $ Licenses from

Based on a Five Year Study (Thursby, 2001)

Corporate research $ should be a

key indicator of TTO effectiveness.

Disability: What’s the Problem?

• Generic U. TTO– Unfamiliar technologies

• Preconceptions

• Low tech, simple, uninteresting

– Unfamiliar markets• Small… [trans-generational…]

– Unfamiliar industries• Small… [eyeglasses…]

– No $, no effort Generic U. TTO is “the problem.”

Conclusion• Successful U. TTO

– Broker and facilitator, not central figure– Focus on customer needs

#1: Business

#2: Academicians

– Efficient, effective, visible, helpful– Entrepreneurial culture– Business culture– Corporate $ […] as metric– Singles, doubles… mow the grass…

They don’t “need” you!

Thank You!

Steve Bauer

smbauer@buffalo.edu

716-829-3141 x 117

T2RERC Public Policy Project is examining university licensing that benefits people with and aging into disability.

Selected References• AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey: FY 2004• Bauer S.M., Lane J.P. "Convergence of Assistive Devices and Mainstream Products:

Keys to University Participation in Research, Development & Commercialization,“ Technology and Disability, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2006 (in press)

• Bauer S.M., “Demand Pull Technology Transfer,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 28, Nos. 3/4, August 2003, pp 285-303

• Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W., “To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success in Technology Transfer,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, January 2001, pp 99-114

• Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer, URL: http://cosmos.buffalo.edu/t2rerc

• Technology Assessment of the U.S. Assistive Technology Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security Strategic Analysis Division, February 2003

• Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., “Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, January 2001, pp 59-72