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

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

Entrepreneurial Culture $, Prestige, Opportunity 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 Project Demand Pull Project

Important training at Successful U. 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 Generic U. + Successful U. Academicians who work regularly with manufacturers in an entrepreneurial culture are much more likely to make technology disclosures. (Owen-Smith, 2001)

Corporate research $ should be a key indicator of TTO effectiveness. Federal vs. Corporate Research University Research $ Licenses from Federal $ Corporate $ $149.0B $16.9B 67% 19% 8.9 : 1 (9.6 : 1 for 2004) 3.5 : 1 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!

Steve Bauer smbauer@buffalo.edu 716-829-3141 x 117 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