|
Published by: Business Insights
Published: Feb. 1, 2009 - 126 Pages
Table of Contents
- Technology transfer strategies
- Executive Summary
- An introduction to technology transfer
- Technology transfer trends
- Geographical differences
- Structuring the function
- Bridging the funding gap
- Chapter 1 An introduction to technology transfer
- Summary
- Introduction
- Defining technology transfer
- A brief history
- Key issues
- Geographical differences
- Structuring the function
- Bridging the funding gap
- Chapter 2 Technology transfer trends
- Summary
- Introduction
- Technology transfer funding trends
- US
- Europe
- Canada
- Technology transfer outcome trends
- US
- Europe
- Canada
- Technology transfer return on investment trends
- US
- Europe
- Canada
- Technology transfer league tables
- Healthcare measures
- Technology transfer trends
- Trends by research budget
- Trends by age
- Trends by office size
- Key trends
- Geographical differences
- Structuring the function
- Bridging the funding gap
- Chapter 3 Geographical differences
- Summary
- Introduction
- Country-level regulations
- IP ownership
- Technology transfer
- Institutional location
- Technology transfer in the US
- IP ownership
- Technology transfer
- Technology transfer in Europe
- IP ownership
- Technology transfer
- Technology transfer in the rest of the world
- Japan
- Canada
- Australia
- Recommendations
- Chapter 4 Structuring the function
- Summary
- Introduction
- Structural issues
- Commercial returns
- Operational effectiveness
- Culture and process
- Independence
- In-house, non-profit model
- Case study: University of California
- Case study: K.U.Leuven
- Case study: City of Hope
- Independent, non-profit model
- Case study: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
- Case study: Arizona Technology Enterprises
- Case study: Isis Innovation
- Independent, for-profit model
- Case study: IP Group
- Case study: Fusion IP
- Case study: IPSO Ventures
- Recommendations
- Chapter 5 Bridging the funding gap
- Summary
- Introduction
- The funding gap
- Technology transfer start-ups
- Bridging the gap
- Translational research
- University seed capital
- Alternative venture capital
- Recommendations
- Chapter 6 Appendix
- Research sources
- Bibliography
- List of Figures
- Figure 1.1: The technology transfer process
- Figure 2.2: Average research expenditure for US Universities, Hospitals and Research Institutions, 1997-2006
- Figure 2.3: Average US Technology Transfer Office staffing levels, 1997-2006
- Figure 2.4: Distribution of European Technology Transfer Offices by staffing levels, 2006
- Figure 2.5: Average research expenditure for Canadian Universities, 1996-2006
- Figure 2.6: Canadian venture capital investments and fundraising, 2003-2006
- Figure 2.7: Average number of invention disclosures received by US Technology Transfer Offices, 1997-2006
- Figure 2.8: Average number of patents processed by US Technology Transfer Offices, 2001-2006
- Figure 2.9: Average number and value of US Technology Transfer licenses, 2004-2006
- Figure 2.10: US Technology Transfer licenses by exclusivity, 2006
- Figure 2.11: US Technology Transfer licenses by size of partner, 2006
- Figure 2.12: Average change in European Technology Transfer outcomes, 2004-2006
- Figure 2.13: Average number of innovation disclosures and patents processed by Canadian Technology Transfer Offices, 1996-2006
- Figure 2.14: Average license revenue received by Canadian Technology Transfer Offices, 2000- 2006
- Figure 2.15: Rate of return for invention disclosures received by US Technology Transfer Offices,1997-2006
- Figure 2.16: Rate of return for patents processed by US Technology Transfer Offices, 2001-2006
- Figure 2.17: Rate of return for US Technology Transfer licenses, 2004-2006
- Figure 2.18: Rate of return for innovation disclosures and patents processed by Canadian Technology Transfer Offices, 1996-2006
- Figure 2.19: Rate of return for Canadian Technology Transfer licensing, 2000-2006
- Figure 2.20: Surrogate outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by research budget, 2006
- Figure 2.21: Technology transfer outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by research budget, 2006
- Figure 2.22: Surrogate outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by year established, 2006
- Figure 2.23: Technology transfer outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by year established, 2006
- Figure 2.24: Surrogate outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by office size, 2006
- Figure 2.25: Technology transfer outcomes for the top 10 US university technology transfer offices ranked by office size, 2006
- Figure 4.26: Technology Transfer Office services provided to European universities, 2006
- Figure 4.27: Technology Transfer Office services provided to other European public institutions, 2006
- Figure 4.28: IP Group’s academic partners
- Figure 5.29: The technology transfer ‘funding gap’
- List of Tables
- Table 2.1: Milken Institute University Biotechnology Publication Rankings, 1998-2002
- Table 2.2: Milken Institute University Biotech Patent Rankings, 2000-2004
- Table 2.3: Milken Institute University Biotechnology Publication and Patent Rankings, 1998- 2004
- Table 2.4: Top 20 universities by healthcare US patent grants, 2006-07
- Table 2.5: Top 10 hospital and research institutions by healthcare US patent grants, 2006-07
- Table 2.6: Top 10 US university technology transfer offices by research expenditure, 2006
- Table 2.7: Top 10 US hospital and research institution technology transfer offices by research expenditure, 2006
- Table 3.8: Cross country technology transfer survey results
- Table 4.9: University of California technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.10: K U Leuven technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.11: City of Hope technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.12: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.13: Arizona Technology Enterprises technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.14: ISIS Innovation technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.15: IP Group technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.16: Fusion IP technology transfer summary, 2008
- Table 4.17: IPSO Ventures technology transfer summary, 2008
AbstractReport Overview
Technology transfer is a long-established part of early-stage research within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Although technology transfer offices have traditionally been associated with inefficiency and a lack of commercial judgment, recent trends have shown improvements in staffing, expertise and service levels. However, the tech transfer function has recently suffered from ‘funding gaps’ for promising new technologies. A clear disparity exists between current service offerings and demand levels amongst investors/industry partners, while the lack of an established model for effective technology transfer function and significant regional variations are major obstacles to future progress.
‘Technology Transfer Strategies’ is a new, uniquely themed report published by Business Insights that provides a comprehensive examination of the major trends in technology transfer activity in the US, Canada and Europe. The report provides a detailed country-level analysis of technology transfer and associated intellectual property technology regulations, in addition to evaluating the key approaches to office structuring and strategies to negotiate the ’funding gap’. A series of in-depth interviews also document the experiences and insights of 11 tech transfer experts, and their recommendations for successful technology transfer strategies are revealed.
Key Findings
The number of new technology transfer licensing agreements ‘earned’ for every $1 billion of research expenditure has fallen from 115 to 109 between 2004 and 2006. However, the rate of return for licensing revenues per $1 million research expenditure has increased over the same period, from $34,806 to $40,837.
The efficiency of technology transfer outcomes varies across major regions. The UK produces the highest rate of invention disclosures, licensing agreements and new start-ups. The US produces the greatest rate of new patent grants, while Canada generates the most new patent applications. US institutions also generate the greatest technology licensing returns from research investments.
A common industry complaint about interactions with technology transfer offices is ‘a lack of understanding about customer needs’. Tech transfer executives are often viewed to better understand the merits of scientific over commercial solutions.
Generating a successful initial public offering (IPO) has become more difficult, putting increased pressure on associated royalty rates and spin-out terms. As venture capitalists become more conservative, moving new technologies from federal funding to proof-of-concept is increasingly challenging.
Use this report to...
- Identify the latest trends in technology transfer and compare the relative efficiencies of different regions with this report’s detailed survey data of technology transfer performances in the US, Canada and Europe.
- Compare the progress of leading peer-group universities and institutions by using this report’s league table assessment of leading technology transfer offices including healthcare patent data and overall technology transfer outcomes.
- Benchmark the best practices of leading technology transfer offices in the US and Europe by using in-depth case studies that examine successful strategies and approaches to office structuring.
- Assess the strategic recommendations and future predictions of technology transfer specialists based on insights from interviews with eleven experts from universities, hospitals, research institutions and independent companies, in addition to contributions from venture capital and pharmaceutical industry executives.
Explore issues including.
The funding gap. The difficulty of translating basic research to commercial licensing opportunities has never been greater, particularly as VCs and industry clients become more risk averse.
Defensive strategies. Moving technologies beyond basic research to proof of concept is expensive but has become a necessary step in the current technology transfer environment
Cultural differences. Technology transfer offices are positioned between the academic and business worlds, and must balance the non-profit and for-profit worlds accordingly.
Integration vs independence. Recent trends, particularly in the UK, have seen a move towards establishing independent technology transfer offices in order to facilitate greater levels of professionalism and commercialism.
Discover...
- How do intellectual property rights differ by geography?
- How does the availability of potential collaborators and licensing partners differ by geography?
- How does the availability of human resources vary by geography?
- What are the alternative models for delivering technology transfer?
- What impact does each model of tech transfer delivery have upon commercial returns, operational effectiveness and culture/process?
- What are the key lessons from current technology transfer best-practices?
- How does the funding gap influence returns from technology transfer?
- What strategies can effectively combat the funding gap?
Get Full Details About This Report >>
|
|
US: 800.298.5699
Int'l: +1.240.747.3093
|
|
|
