Bringing University Research to the Marketplace

1. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace  Destination Discovery Binghamton University March 24, 2005

2. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace • M. Güven Yalcintas – Panel Chairman • Vice President, Technology Transfer Office,The Research Foundation of The State University of New York • Chuck Rancourt • Director, Office of Technology Commercialization, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute • Mark Coburn • Associate Provost and Director, Technology Transfer, University of Rochester • Scott S. MacFarlane • Senior Technology Manager, Office of Intellectual Property Management & Licensing, Cornell Center for Technology, Enterprise & Commercialization

3. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace • The heat of public expectation is being turned up around the role universities should play in supporting and growing local, state, regional and national economies through the introduction of new ideas and technologies to the marketplace. • Are the expectations realistic? • Can faculty conserve their freedom to engage in basic research and scholarship within traditional disciplines in this environment? • How and where will universities fit into a knowledge-based economy? • What can academics do to protect and capitalize on their applied research and scholarship without having to forsake academe for business and industry?

4. 5 Technology • Transfer Offices RF, Central Office SUNY System • 64 Campuses • 410,000+ students • 6,600+ fields of study

5. SUNY System • Centers of Advanced Technology • Ceramics (Alfred U.) • Integrated Electronics Engineering (Binghamton) • Biotechnology; Sensor Systems (Stony Brook) • Thin Film Technology (Albany) • Biomedical and Bioengineering (Buffalo) • Centers of Excellence • Bioinformatics (Buffalo) • Nanoelectronics (Albany) • Wireless Internet & Information Technology (Stony Brook)

6. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace Charles F. Rancourt

7. How? • Focus on traditional roles and what a university does best

8. Traditional academic roles • Research • Creation of new knowledge • Breakthroughs and basis research (about half of all basic research in U.S. conducted by universities) • Incremental technical advances • Education • Dissemination of knowledge • Graduation of students • Service • Transfer of knowledge and transfer of technology

9. Technology transfer today • Significant increases in invention disclosures (14,000), new patents filed (7,000), and new licenses and options executed (4,000) • Impact of Bayh-Dole

10. Other results • Retain entrepreneurial faculty • Attract outstanding graduate students • Contribute to the institutional reputation for innovation • Augment its research program through interaction with the private sector • Enhance its reputation for providing highly trained students for the industrial work force

11. Cannot do it alone • Build collaborations with other universities, government agencies and industrial companies

12. There are conflicting values but also common interest UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY Management ofKnowledge for Profit Knowledge for Knowledge’s Sake Teaching Profits Research Commercializationof New and UsefulTechnologies Service R&D Development ConfidentialityLimited Public Disclosure Academic FreedomOpen Discourse Source: Louis P. Berneman, 1999

13. Linking the university and the marketplace • Hiring of students, graduates, and faculty • Temporary exchange of researchers • Faculty consultancies • Industry-sponsored research contracts and grants • Research centers and consortia • Industrial liaison programs • Technology licensing • Start-up companies • Publications and conferences

14. Annual benefits • Approximately 600 new product introductions • Approximately $4 billion pre-production investment (40,000 jobs) plus approximately $20 billion in product sales (140,000 jobs)

15. Are universities able to meet public expectations about impact in the marketplace while preserving their traditional roles? YES!

16. Universities as Economic Engines: Spud Cannons in the Making? An argument for building shared, connected learning environments in regional clusters

17. A spud cannon as an analogy to a university? • The spud (potato) cannon uses the basic principle behind any reciprocating internal combustion engine. • Universities are like spud cannons in that they have the capability to take an idea and with a spark of creativity generate incredible insight many times over. • Is a university a spud cannon (economic engine) for regional economic development? • If yes, what are the roles of technology transfer in fueling that economic engine? • Oh, and before I forget to answer the question, are the expectations realistic or unrealistic for the university being an economic engine? Of course, it depends.

18. Underlying factors in collaborations • The influence of trust, problem solving and networking. • Their relative influence on core and non-core technology development and commercialization. • The relative importance of geographic proximity of firms to universities. • Contributions of university-industry collaboration are multidimensional.

19. Summary and conclusions • Universities are like spud cannons in that they have the capability to take an idea and with a spark of creativity generate incredible insight many times over. They need the ability to connect with industry to make those insights marketable. And industry needs their ideas! • Use the idea of the elements of building social capital in university-industry interactions to better view universities as significant catalysts of economic growth (e.g. not engines). • There are tangible and intangible benefits of university-industry collaboration. • What are the metrics for evaluation? What is a shared, connected learning environment? • Finally, how far can we launch that spud?

20. Cornell Center for Technology, Enterprise & Commercialization (CCTEC) Scott Macfarlane Senior Technology Manager

21. The Path for Commercializing Cornell’s Laboratory Innovations Cornell Laboratory Inventions CCTEC Commercial Services and Products

22. The CCTEC Umbrella Office of IP Management & Licensing Ithaca & Weill Office of Economic Development Cornell Research Foundation

23. IPM&L OED TLED • Venture creation • University-corporate collaboration • Technology “grafting” Technology-led Economic Development (TLED) Harnessing synergy under the CCTEC umbrella

24. The CCTEC Mission To enhance Cornell’s educational and research enterprise and contribute to the greater public good by creatively managing Cornell’s intellectual property assets to: • Develop and disseminate Cornell technology • Encourage and reward innovation • Elevate Cornell’s standing as a world-class learning community • Attract and retain talented faculty and students • Foster corporate partnerships • Provide and support entrepreneurial opportunities and activities • Enhance the competitiveness of corporations • Create economic benefits at the local, regional and national levels • Generate significant financial benefits to the Cornell family • Facilitate the engagement of Cornell researchers with industry

25. Routes to Commercialization Start-up Examples Technology Transfer Examples • Canine parvovirus vaccine • Two-photon microscopy • Ligase chain reaction • Gene gun • Rice actin promoter • SB1 chicken herpes virus vaccine • Software and algorithms for CT • Harpin technology • Phytase • Low-cost Mozzarella cheese • Monolithic polymers for LC

26. Andhill Applied Genetic Technologies Corp. ArgiNOx Pharmaceuticals Avera Pharmaceuticals The Better Health Company Bigwood Systems Con-Cept II, LLC Cytogel, Inc. Hybrid Silica Technologies, Inc. Metabolon, Inc. Mitegen, LLC Nanofluidics, Inc. Phytex, LLC. Phytobials, LLC Q Therapeutics, Inc. Re-Markable Paint Company SightSpeed, Inc. Tetragenetics, Inc. Vet-Aire, Inc. Start-ups in 2003 - 2004

27. In the Pipeline: • Aria Biomedical, LLC • achronix Semiconductor, LLC • CFMEMS • CoVan Therapeutics • DNANO, Inc. • IntElect • Novomer • PharmEfficient • Radioactive Power Systems • Remote Science, Inc. • S4 Peptides • Silicon Light Source • SiPhotonics • Sustainable Pharmaceutics

28. University’s unique role in technology creation & development • The university as a commons • Public good as primary mission (education, research, outreach, technology) • Public funding • Long-term vision (“high risk” research; paradigm shifts) • Technology steward • Stable ownership • Serves any good collaborator • Fundamentally different from industry • Public expectations of tech transfer (Bayh-Dole; economic development)

29. University principles guide IP & tech transfer: • Academic freedom (no secrets, no censorship, no barrier to science) • Education and research are primary; technology secondary; financial return tertiary • Foster inventiveness, technology development & dissemination • Technology should serve the public good (private gain as means to this end) • University not a market participant • Technology transfer a mandate (Bayh-Dole) • Technology creators deserve a fair share of return (alleviates tax-payer burden) • University maintains some control (IP) • Sovereignty

30. Balancing Public Good vs. Practical concerns in IP Licensing • Internal tensions: $ vs. altruism • Non-exclusive or exclusive? • (widespread access vs. investment incentive) • Exclusive: requires incentives/disincentives • Significant upfront fees • Effective royalties • Appropriate minimums ** • Patents costs • Diligence milestones • Legal and responsible use • Exclusive variations • Field of use • Sublicense incentives • Return of rights • consortia • Non-exclusive with “sliding scales” of terms

31. The Path for Commercializing Cornell’s Laboratory Innovations Cornell Laboratory Inventions CCTEC Commercial Services and Products

32. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace • The heat of public expectation is being turned up around the role universities should play in supporting and growing local, state, regional and national economies through the introduction of new ideas and technologies to the marketplace. • Are the expectations realistic? • Can faculty conserve their freedom to engage in basic research and scholarship within traditional disciplines in this environment? • How and where will universities fit into a knowledge-based economy? • What can academics do to protect and capitalize on their applied research and scholarship without having to forsake academe for business and industry?

33. Bringing University Research to the Marketplace • Questions? • Summary

34. Thank You Bringing University Research to the Marketplace Destination Discovery Binghamton University March 24, 2005