1 / 28

OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Wayne E. Swann December 2004 Patents and Pizza Seminar Series

OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Wayne E. Swann December 2004 Patents and Pizza Seminar Series. Technology Transfer at APL. Technology Transfer Summary . APL 1998 Study - Benefits of Technology Transfer:. Broaden the public benefits derived from APL technology;

tamma
Download Presentation

OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Wayne E. Swann December 2004 Patents and Pizza Seminar Series

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Wayne E. Swann December 2004 Patents and Pizza Seminar Series Technology Transfer at APL

  2. Technology Transfer Summary APL 1998 Study - Benefits of Technology Transfer: • Broaden the public benefits derived from APL technology; • Create jobs and improve the economy of the community, state and nation; • Enhance APL’s image as a creative and innovative institution, and attract new talent and challenging work; and • Acquire unrestricted funds for future scientific research and technology development at APL and within JHU.

  3. Operations Staff/Organization; Scope of Activities Performance Metrics Historical Perspective; Comparisons The Environment APL; JHU; County; State Income and Expenditures Review; Self-Sufficiency Technology Transfer Summary

  4. OTT Operations Staff Organization Scope of Activities Technology Transfer Summary

  5. John Bacon, Technology Manager Donna Couturiaux,Office of Technology Transfer CoordinatorSusan Furney,Technology Programs AssistantKristin Gray, Assistant Director of Technology Transfer Leslie Martinelli,Administrative Assistant (part time) Heather Prettyman, Technology and Marketing Associate Randall Slagle, Technology Manager Wayne Swann, Director of Technology Transfer Norma Lee Todd, Director of Technology Programs OTT Operations: Staff

  6. OTT: Functional Organization Chart

  7. Tech Transfer Operations – Scope of Activities • Technology Transfer • Technology Licensing • Fund Technology Development • Facilitate Interactions with Industry • Facilitate New Company Formation • Improving Technology Transition – to USG Contractors - FST as Model • APL Leadership Activities • Technology Competitiveness • Innovation Output Metric analysis • Innovation Outcome Proxies – Licenses and Patent Citations Analysis • Science and Technology Council • S&T Staff Capabilities • APL/Business Area Profiles • In-Reach • Recognize, Reward, Promote Innovation and Innovative Work Environment • Dept. Tech Transfer Team; Teach Class • WSE – Student Technology Commercialization and Entrepreneurship program • Outreach/Economic Development • State: TEDCO/DBED;Tech Councils • HCEDA (NeoTech, Missions) • Businesses/Organizations • Enhance APL’s High-Tech Image - New APL CD Bus. Card

  8. Performance Metrics Historical Perspective Comparisons Technology Transfer Summary

  9. Innovation Output Comparison APL/AUTM Invention Comparison

  10. Innovation Output ComparisonAPL/AUTM Issued Patents An Additional 23 US Patents had already been allowed, and were awaiting issuance, by the USPTO at the end of GFY 2004

  11. Innovation Outcome Comparison APL/AUTM Technology Licenses

  12. Inventions 151* 669 Licenses 49* 130 Total US Patent Applications 238* 902 Issued US Patents 31 * 89 Start-up Companies 4* 14 License Income (Millions Received) $2.0 $9.4 Associated R&D (Millions Committed) $2.7 * $9.6 (~60% of R&D commitments already received) Technology Transfer Summary Performance Metric20045-Yr Total * Denotes all time high

  13. MetricAUTM RankPercentile Inventions 23rd 15th Licenses 23rd 15th Total US Patent Applications 6th 4th Issued US Patents 30th 19th Start-up Companies 21st 14th License Income 56th 36th Associated R&D Income 14th 9th Technology Transfer Summary 2004 Performance Metrics Update1 1 Latest AUTM Survey Data - Where APL would Rank out of 151 Research Universities in the US (including 94 of the top 100).

  14. APL Performance Metrics New Invention Disclosures 15 New Licenses 5.0 Total US Patent Applications 24 Issued US Patents 3.2 Start-up Companies 0.4 License Income (~$000) 200 Associated R&D (~$000) 270 OTT Performance Comparisons Output Per Full Time Tech Transfer Staff

  15. APL Inventions, Patents and License Profile

  16. Technology Transfer Status: Products • WAVES • (Shell; Multiple Licenses) • Survey Landform Analysis • (Optech >$100,000/year Royalties) QTViewer (3-D Color Modeling) (34 Licenses; Applied Imagery just formed) Polyscore (Windows) (Lafayette >$100,000/year Royalties)

  17. The Environment Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University Howard County State of Maryland Technology Transfer Summary

  18. Technology Transfer: The Environment • JHU • State of Tech Transfer at JHU • National search for leader • OTT/LTD - good relationship • Building relationship with WSE Entrepreneurship • APL • Inventions, Patents and Licenses are at all time highs (6/7 metrics) • Innovation is being recognized as being very important to APL • Tech Transfer 5 years later… • generally good • State • TEDCO “Tech Trans. Improvement - all progress at JHU, all from APL” • State - positive view of Howard Co. • Gap Remains - Funding of Start-ups • Significant Econ Dev. Value in TT • Fed Lab Tech Transfer issue remains • County • Local environment - Not Silicon Valley; center of B/W Tech Corridor • APL is the big player in the County • Focus on entrepreneurial environment • Opportunities – HCEDA partnerships - new Tech Leadership Consortium

  19. APL Technology Transfer Benefit to the Public • Five Year Data • 71 Different Technologies Licensed • 15 Commercial Products/Processes • 52 New Jobs Created From APL Start-ups Economic Development Impact One Piece: Salaries generated by new jobs • TEDCO New Job Multiplier and Average Salaries • >$5 Million Annual Salaries in Maryland Generated by APL Start-ups

  20. Income and Expenditures: 5 Year Review Licensing Income Operational Expenditures R&D Grants Technology Transfer Summary

  21. GFY 1999-2004 APL Income and Expenditure Summary Technology Transfer Program Royalties, R&D Income & Cost Reimbursements to APL Total APL Receipts $ 22,705,291 OTT, OPC, Patents, APL Grants & Income Distribution Costs Total Expenditures/Distributions $ 21,533,654 Net Income (loss) to APL $ 1,171,637 Dev Fund for GFY 2004 = ($248,775)

  22. Technology Transfer Status Income and Expenditures Summary: Tech Transfer Grants to APL Staff (GFY 2000-2004) APL Dev Fund Grants $ 1,503,183 Other Grant Funding (TEDCO, IRAD)$ 770,346 Total Received $ 2,273,529 Total of 119 Grants to APL Staff

  23. OTT Overhead Costs Does not include Patent Costs or Tech Transfer Grants to Departments

  24. Technology Transfer Status • DCAA/DCMA Disallowance has major impact on OTT/OPC • Average Licensing Income of $2 million/year is not enough for self-sufficiency • OTT needs to chart a different course on the road to self-sufficiency

  25. Technology Transfer at APL Maintain Performance Metrics The Road Ahead Achieve Self-Sufficiency

  26. The Road Ahead: Achieve Self-Sufficiency • Reduce Short Term Costs • Reduce activities that do not generate short term income • Reduce/Delay the number of new patent applications • Reduce OTT Operational Costs • Generate Short Term Licensing Income • Director of TT/ Tech Managers “Top 10” List • Implemented effort with A&F to promptly invoice • Activity Focused on Recovering Costs: • Recover Patent Costs – Improved A&F System; Terms • Recover (Disallowed) Costs - 15% Administrative Fee (Stanford, MIT); Licensing Expenses (IP Policy)

  27. Summary • Inventions, Licenses, Patents • Innovation increasing (very high) • License rate maturing/matured • Issued Patents maturing/costly • Approaching 2X AUTM Averages • Products are finding way to market • Start-ups take time - nurture/mature • OTT Operations • Administration, staffing, training, programs in place – workload high • Infrastructure (databases, etc.) functioning/improved efficiency • Expanding the impact (FST) • Focusing on Licensing Income • The Environment • Tech Transfer at APL – Generally good • JHU/LTD Transition – APL/OTT Licensing Joint JHU Inventions • County – Good Partnership with EDA • State – Want More Tech Transfer Value From Universities/Govt. Labs; • and view APL as model • Financing Operations • Income fluctuates (mostly fees) • Royalty base (& equity) immature • Transitioning costs to Dev. Fund • Cost cutting measures underway • DCAA allowance issues remain • Self-sufficiency not yet achieved

  28. OTT-- The First Five Years: Summary and Road Forward Questions Technology Transfer at APL The Road to Pizza!!!!

More Related