iBRIDGE CONVERSATION

In the “we couldn’t say it better ourselves” department, we’re posting here for your quick consumption a summary of the newly released FY 2005 AUTM U.S. Licensing Survey (thanks to the National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship e-letter)

“The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) has recently released its latest numbers on university technology transfer and commercialization. The data (from Fiscal Year 2005) show that the process of moving research into the marketplace seems to be getting smoother. In FY 2005, 527 new products were made available to the public and both invention disclosures and patent applications increased.

Total spending (based on reports from 228 institutions) reached $1.1 billion. Washington is still the primary investor as federal funds accounted for 67% of this research support. Private sector funds accounted for only 7% of the total. AUTM has also begun tracking how university spin-off companies obtain their start-up financing.

Friends and family continue to be the primary source of such investments, but this year’s survey also shows an increase in funding from angel investors, institutional support and from the federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR). Venture capital firms provide support for less than 20% of these start-up firms.”

Once in a while, a major rankings and policy report comes out that becomes a must-read (in part because the rankings are by turns comprehensive and laser-like in their focus and the authors enjoy respected reputations). And so it is with The 2007 State New Economy Index (full disclosure: the Kauffman Foundation cosponsored this report) prepared by Dr. Robert D. Atkinson and Daniel K. Correa, both with the Washington, DC-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

This report, which has appeared twice before in 1999 and 2002, is a sprawling affair and covers nearly every nook and cranny in regard to how the U.S. states rank relative to their technology, innovation, and entrepreneurial assets. 

For this post, rather than focus on the rankings exclusively, it may be more of interest to readers here to see what Atkinson and Correa say in regard to universities relative to technology transfer and entrepreneurial activity across the 50 states.

On this front, Atkinson and Correa proclaim that “innovative capacity (derived through universities, R&D investments, scientists and engineers, and entrepreneurial drive) is increasingly what drives competitive success in the New Economy.” And when it comes to understanding how to evaluate properly economic growth in a state, the authors offer the reminder that it’s not about job creation — instead, it’s about per capita income. And the driver for growth in this metric is “innovation, not [by] capital accumulation.” 

In regard to colleges and universities and their respective state economies, the authors make several pointed recommendations focused on how to build dynamic innovation and entrepreneurial-based economies. First, they urge states to “enhance the role of colleges and universities” in spurring regional innovation and growth. “Between 1991 and 2004,” say Atkinson and Correa, “the number of patent applications filed by United States universities increased from 13.7 applications per institution to 57.8, licensing income increased from $1.96 million per university to $7.06 million, and new university-based start-ups increased from 212 in 1994, to 462 in 2004.”

In addition, the authors urge states to match their investments in their universities to prevailing state industry clusters. The report also recommends universities create programs to develop and recruit “star” scientists (”more than 90 percent of of the most significant university R&D is performed by just 10 percent of the faculty”) as well as urges states to “focus on commercialization of research” out of its university-based labs (and cites Georgia Tech’s Advanced Technology Development Center and the Iowa State Innovation System as good examples of programs that spur connections between researchers and industry).

As the AUTM 2007 Annual Meeting roars along through this weekend in San Francisco, a new white paper simultaneously has been released that should be of interest to all involved in technology research and commercialization.

The paper is titled In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology, and was authored by a collection of technology transfer directors at some of the U.S.’s leading reseach universities (including Cal Tech, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford).

For a good overview of what’s contained in this report, take a look at this week’s SSTI Weekly Digest. Among the report’s contents, according to SSTI, is a nine-point set of principles for how university technology licensing should be undertaken today, and includes recommendations such as “(e)xclusive licenses should be structured in a manner that encourages technology development and use.” 

We want to alert readers to an important conference taking place at the Kauffman Foundation today. It’s the Big 12 Innovation and Capital Formation Conference (think of your favorite Big 12 college football club and then switch to some of the best research going on today in technology and research).

The Big 12 Center for Economic Development, Innovation, and Commercialization sponsored today’s conference.

Here’s the Web site for the conference in which you’ll see all of the things going on here, including an awards ceremony for rising research stars at each of these schools. There also are panels covering strategies for how universities can support its local entrepreneurs, capital formation strategies, the economic value of star faculty, and then the finale today is the university innovation showcase.

The keynote speaker at today’s lunch was Richard Caruso, PhD (photo above), chairman of Integra LifeSciences Corp. Dr. Caruso, in case you missed it, was named the overall Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year for 2006. More details forthcoming through the day.

The iBridge Network is more than pleased to help spread the word about one of the most important awards for innovators in the United States.

The award is the 34th Annual National Inventor of the Year Award to be presented June 11, 2007 by the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation (IPO Foundation).

The IPO Foundation currently is asking for nominations for candidates to win this prestigious award. The deadline to submit nominations is April 20, 2007. So who’s eligible (especially if you’re immediately ready to nominate a colleague or even yourself)? An inventor is eligible, according to the IPO Foundation, if the invention “originated in the U.S.,” is covered by a U.S. patent, and was patented since 2003 or recently commercialized.

And if you’re curious about criteria for judging nominees, they include concept originality, ingenuity in designing the concept, and societal benefit.

For direct and easy-to-read directions on submitting a nomination, visit the IPO Foundation nomination home page. Note that anyone can be nominated and you can nominate yourself (as noted above).

You can read about all of the past awardees on the IPO Foundation site, but the list includes inventors from a cross-section of industries including biomedicine, chemicals, advanced manufacturing, and pharmaceuticals.