AUTM Website Helps Commercialize University Technologies

Posted under 2012, AUTM, BIO International Convention, Blog, commercialization, Companies, Diagnostics, Funding, Global Technology Portal, licensing, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, Patently BIOtech, Pharmaceuticals, Public Policy, Startups, Technology Transfer, Universities, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

By Robin L. Rasor, CLP, RTTP, AUTM President

As president of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), I’m in a unique position of hearing from university technology managers who want more opportunity to interact with industry, and industry members who want to identify the latest breakthrough innovations. Industry investors and their academic licensing counterparts already come together for dealmaking at the AUTM Annual Meeting and at the BIO International Convention, but now we have a new resource to further augment in-person networking.

This month AUTM launched the AUTM Global Technology Portal (GTP)—a website which is a “one stop shop” for companies to search university technologies available for licensing and tell universities about their needs. The GTP will make it easier for universities and corporations to find each other and begin licensing and partnership discussions. If you’re not searching for anything specific, you can simply browse organizations, capabilities, or available technologies. You can also search by keyword and set up email alerts to learn about future related postings. If there is a particular university you’re interested in, you can even “follow” that university and get alerts when it posts new data.

You can also use the GTP to learn more about a university’s startup companies, providing a great opportunity for collaboration, investment, or an acquisition. No other database consolidates information about university startups. There is no cost to search the GTP. Should you find a technology, capability, or startup you are interested in, simply click to connect with the representative of that organization.

In addition to the information on universities, the GTP also has a “Needs” section to allow companies and government labs to tell the AUTM community about what research and technology needs they have to help find viable solutions.

In its first week the GTP already has nearly 6,500 available technologies listed. We expect even more information to be posted in the coming weeks by our 3,000+ members, representing over 150 global research institutions.

With the increased amount of networking and partnerships among our members at universities and in industry, we’re confident this new resource will result in more interactions and ultimately in further commercialization of academic technology, leading to products and processes that benefit everyone.

NIH Licensing Efforts Target Start-Ups

Posted under Blog, Companies, Diagnostics, Funding, license, licensing, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, National Institutes of Health, NIH, Patently BIOtech, Pharmaceuticals, Public Policy, start up company, Startups, Universities, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new short-term licensing arrangement they hope will encourage licensing of NIH and FDA inventions to start-up companies.  The NIH Start-Up Exclusive License Agreements targets start-up companies less than 5 years old, with less than $5M in raised capital, and fewer thans than 50 employees.  By offering an exclusive license, they hope to accelerate the technology transfer process.  However, this temporary pilot program runs only until September 30, 2012.

The most unique aspect of this program is the one-year exclusive license for $2000 with the option to amend to a permanent exclusive license.  Through the use of this mechanism, the NIH is creating a one year trial period where the parties can come back to the table and reevaluate where they stand before they enter a more standard license agreement that includes milestone payments, performance benchmarks, royalties, etc.

We will soon see whether this program garners enough interest in a tough economy to be effective.

Exclusive Licenses Do Not Discourage Follow On Research

Posted under Blog, Companies, Diagnostics, Funding, licensing, Medical Devices, Medical Supply, patent, Patent and Trademark Office, Patently BIOtech, Pharmaceuticals, Public Policy, Startups, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Universities, USPTO, Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

A recent study presented at the Patent Statistics for Decision Makers Conference organized at the United States Patent Office questions the logic behind a nonexclusive license preference often found in U.S. government technology transfer policy.

In “The Role of Exclusive Licensing in Follow-on Research of Academic Patented Inventions” presentation the authors demonstrate that, contrary to the belief by some, exclusive licensing does not impede future research.

The authors ask two questions.  First, does exclusive licensing affect licensee follow-on research?  Second, does exclusive licensing affect non-licensee follow-on research?  The first question addresses the concern that a company will take a license of a university invention and not develop it.  The second question addresses the concern that follow-on research will not occur without the license thereby limiting the amount of knowledge available.  And the results…

With respect to the first question, the researchers find that exclusive licensee patent citations increase significantly after exclusive licensing.  In other words, the company or entity that receives the exclusive license continues to research and invent as evidenced by the numerous patents that follow based on the licensed technology.

With respect to the second question, the authors find that non-licensee citations increase significantly after exclusive licensing.  In other words, even the people/companies that have no license to the technology continue to research and invent as evidenced by their numerous patents that follow based on the licensed technology.

Maybe it is time to rethink the rationale behind a government lab preference for non-exclusive licenses.