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
3 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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
4 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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
5 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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 $125 per hour)
- Greater accountability – there is currently no oversight among the many different tech transfer offices
- The ability to work around choice-of-law provisions in contracts and agreements
- More support for faculty to engage them in research process
• Several universities have foundations established to manage technology transfer, including:
- Georgia Tech, U. of Georgia, U. of Tennessee, U. of Wisconsin at Madison, Purdue, Iowa State, and U. of Arkansas, to name a few
DRAFT
6 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
LSU A&M HAS DEFINED A SET OF PEERS FOR COMPARISON2011 Performance, LSU Peers*
Research Expenditures ($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 ($MM)
Average PeerPerformance
168
54
80
34
449
6
Startups 4 5 .01 .01
*LSU Self Identified Peers: U of Tennessee, Texas A&M, UMD at College Park, U of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Purdue, North Carolina State, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Iowa State, U of Georgia, Virginia Tech., Mississippi State, U of Arkansas, Colorado State
Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis
DRAFT
7 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
BRAC HAS MAINTAINED A CONSISTENT LIST OF PEERS SINCE 20072011 Performance, BRAC Peers*
Research Expenditures ($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
.02
.42
.18
.25
.09
LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent
N/A
.03
.23
.08
.12
.05
Licensing Income ($MM)
Average PeerPerformance
249
83
130
56
698
9
Startups 4 7 .01 .01
*BRAC Peers: University of Michigan, Texas A&M, UMD at College Park, U of Virginia, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of Georgia, Georgia Tech., U of Florida
Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis
DRAFT
8 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
THE FOLLOWING UNIVERSITIES HAVE CENTRALIZED TECH TRANSFER OPERATIONS IN FOUNDATIONS2011 Performance, Non-Profit Foundations*
Research Expenditures ($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
.02
.44
.17
.27
.09
LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent
N/A
.03
.23
.08
.12
.05
Licensing Income ($MM)
Average PeerPerformance
182
56
108
43
423
10
Startups 4 4 .01 .01
*Non-Profit Foundations: Georgia Tech., U of Georgia, U of Tennessee, U of Wisconsin at Madison, Purdue, U of Arkansas, Colorado State, Virginia Tech., U of Nebraska at Lincoln, Iowa State, U of Virginia
Source: AUTM, 2011; BRAC analysis
DRAFT
9 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
ADDITIONALLY, BRAC COMPARED LSU TO THE BOTTOM 50TH QUARTILE OF PUBLIC AAU MEMBER SCHOOLS2011 Performance, AAU Member Schools*
Research Expenditures ($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
.28
.10
.16
.06
LSU Performance Per Dollar Spent
N/A
.03
.23
.08
.12
.05
Licensing Income ($MM)
Average PeerPerformance
147
45
81
31
696
4.5
Startups 4 5 .01 .01
*AAU Member Schools: http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476
Source: AUTM, Association of American Universities (AAU), 2011; BRAC analysis
DRAFT
10 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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
11 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
Reference Material
DRAFT
12 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
• 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
13 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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
14 © Copyright 2013 Baton Rouge Area Chamber
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
Top Related