TechnologyTransferInitiative
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
DavidL.Gulley,PhD
Director,TechnologyTransferOffice
TableofContents
Introduction
1. AcademicInstitutions...............................................................................................................1
1.1. R&DExpendituresforHigherEducationInstitutionsinPuertoRico................................1
2. TechnologyTransferMetrics....................................................................................................3
2.1. PeerSelection...................................................................................................................4
2.2.R&DExpenditures.............................................................................................................5
2.3. TTOStaffing.......................................................................................................................6
2.4.Disclosures,Licensing,andLicenseIncome.......................................................................7
2.5.LegalFeesandPatenting..................................................................................................9
2.6.PatentProtectionandPatentsIssued.........................................................................10
2.7.Start-ups.........................................................................................................................12
PuertoRicoScience,TechnologyandResearchTrust
TechnologyTransferInitiative
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
Introduction
ThePuertoRicoScience,TechnologyandResearchTrust(Trust)TechnologyTransferinitiativeis
aimed at designing, creating and implementing an agile and effective structure to foster the
commercializationoflocallydevelopedscientificinventionsanddiscoveries.
Through this initiative the Trust seeks to establish a Technology Transfer Office (TTO) that
servesasanumbrellaentitytomoveinnovationsfromacademiatotheprivatesector.Thegoal
ofthisTechnologyTransferinitiativeisthecreationofnewproductsandcompanies,expansion
ofemployment,andfuelingeconomicactivityinPuertoRico.
Benchmarking academic institutions and their technology transfer performance and
opportunitiesrequiresadetailedunderstandingofthreeareas:
• research&developmentperformance,
• technologytransfermetrics,and
• theuseofbestpractices
This benchmarking document presents technology transfer metrics and the use of best
practices.Research&developmentbenchmarkingispresentedseparately.
1. AcademicInstitutions
ResearchanddevelopmentexpendituresarereportedannuallybyeachinstitutiontotheU.S.
National Science Foundation and reported by the NSF National Center for Science and
EngineeringStatisticsinanannualHigherEducationResearchandDevelopmentSurvey.Only
those individual campuses reporting to NSF are included. The latest data available is FY2013
(July2013-June2014).Summarytablesarepresentedthataggregateinformationfor:
• UniversityofPuertoRicoSystem(UPR)campuses
- Mayagüez,MedicalSciences,andRioPiedras
• AnaG.MéndezUniversitySystem(SUAGM)campuses
- Metropolitana,Turabo,anddelEste
• PonceHealthScienceUniversity(PHSU)
• UniversityCentraldelCaribe(UCC)
1.1. R&DExpendituresforHigherEducationInstitutionsinPuertoRico
Research and development at institutions of higher education provide researchers with the
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
1
fundsnecessarytopursuenewknowledge,addressspecificorbroadissues,andmakethatnew
knowledge and those solutions available to their scientific colleagues, the private sector, and
thepublic.
To facilitate this transfer of knowledge, publication in academic journals and presentation at
academic conference are encouraged and key to making the results widely available. As the
result of the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act (Pub.L. 96-517, 1980) universities and their researchers have
beenincentivizedtoalsotransfertheresultsoffederallyfundedresearchtotheprivatesector
through a technology transfer process that involves the protection (e.g., patenting) and
licensing of intellectual property. As a result, technology transfer offices were established in
universities and a new profession emerged that links science to business, with the goals of
developingnewproductsandprocessesandbenefittingthepublicatlarge.
Five-YearTrends
Puerto Rico’s universities compete with all U.S. universities for federal funds to support
research programs. In 2013, Puerto Rico’s universities spent1$140 million on research and
development, a 23% increase over a five-year period. Expenditures from the one-time
AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009(ARRA)havedecreasedthrough2013.
The public University of Puerto Rico System (UPR) consistently achieved the highest ranking,
producing about 75% of all R&D expenditures at Puerto Rico’s universities. In addition, its
expendituresincreasedfrom$97.9millionin2009to$105millionin2013,a7%increase.The
most rapid increases in R&D expenditures were from the Ana G. Méndez University System
(SUAGM),from$1.7millionto$16.3million,andthePonceHealthSciencesUniversity(PHSU),
from$7.1millionto$12.3million,whileUniversidadCentraldelCaribe(UCC)showedaslight
decline.
1
R&Ddataismeasuredby“expenditures”,i.e.,thefundsactuallyspentonresearch.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
2
2. TechnologyTransferMetrics
The protection of intellectual property (IP) is fundamental in attracting private sector
businesses,entrepreneursandinvestors.Businesses(licensees)desireacompetitiveadvantage
throughalicensethattransfersrightstoexploittheIP.WithoutIPprotection,discoveriesand
inventions may be publicly available through publication in journals, presentations at
conferences,orothermethodsofpublicdisclosure.
Thegoalofatechnologytransferofficeistoworkcloselywithresearcherstofacilitatetimely
disclosureofpotentialinventions.Therearethreekeystoaneffectiverelationship:
• Educateresearchersabouthowtorecognizearesearchdiscoveryandwhentodisclose
thefindingstothetechnologytransferoffice.
• Synchronize the filing of IP protection/patents so as not to impede the researchers
abilitytopublish.
• Build confidence in the researchers the technology transfer process will be robust,
unbiased,andtimely.
Benchmarking technology transfer metrics of Puerto Rico’s higher education institutions can
clarify past efforts, but most importantly build an effective approach to a future Technology
TransferOffice(TTO).WhiletheUPRSystemhasahistoryofIPprotectionthroughitsOfficeof
IntellectualPropertyandCommercialization,itslicensing(transfer)effortshaveproducedfew
licensesandnotbeenthemainfocusofactivitytodate.AtthistimetheUPR,SUAGM,PHSU,
andUCCallhaveindividualsservinginrolesthatcanfacilitatetechnologytransfer.
Withtheuniversities’R&Dprofiles,howshouldaTTObestructuredandresourced?
Arationalbusinessapproachistobenchmarkpeerhighereducationinstitutionswithasimilar
R&Dprofileandusestandardtechnologytransfermetricsasfuturebenchmarks.
TheAssociationofUniversityTechnologyManagers(AUTM)isanon-profitassociationof3,200
individual members who work in academic, research, government, legal and commercial
settings. AUTM promotes and supports technology transfer through education, advocacy,
networking and communication. Each year, AUTM conducts its Licensing Activity Survey to
quantify tech transfer and for more than two decades, has been the leader in collecting,
synthesizing,anddisseminatingacademictechnologytransferdata.AUTM’s2013data2isused
tocompletethisbenchmarkingsection.
The collection of data continues to evolve with the profession. Early numerical measures
includedthenumberofpatentsfiled,licenseagreementsexecutedandnewcompaniesformed.
Laternumericalmeasuresincludedrevenuesfromlicensefees,royaltiesandcashfromequity
investments paid to the academic institutions and the numbers of products successfully
2
AUTMLicensingActivitySurveyFY2013http://www.autm.net/FY_2013_Licensing_Activity_Survey/15156.htm
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
3
introduced to the market. Non-numerical results have also been collected, such as the
university's ability to retain entrepreneurial faculty, attract outstanding graduate students,
contributetotheinstitutionalreputationforinnovation,augmentitsresearchprogramthrough
interaction with the private sector and enhance its reputation for providing highly trained
studentstotheworkforce.
Thefollowingsectionsinclude:
• Peeruniversityselection
• R&Dexpenditurecomparisons
• Technologytransferstaffing
• Disclosures,licensing,andlicenseincome
• Legalfeesandpatenting
• Patentprotectionandpatentsissued
• Start-ups
2.1. PeerSelection
A review of the 2013 AUTM Licensing Survey for the U.S. and Canada was completed and
includedmetricsandstatisticsfor196technologytransferofficesatuniversitiesandresearch
institutes.Fromthisthepeersamplewaslimitedto:
• Publicorprivateinstitutionsofhighereducation
• Institutionswithmedicalschools
• AgroupwithaverageR&DexpenditurecomparabletoPuertoRico’s$140.6million
Inthepeergroupthereare15universities,10intheU.S.and5inCanadawithanaverageR&D
expenditureof$141.4million,eachwithanoperationaltechnologytransferoffice(TTO).
OfnoteistheaverageyeartheTTOwasestablished(1989)whichreflectsthe1980Bayh-Dole
ActintheU.S.andthedevelopmentofindustry-liaisonofficesinCanadatofacilitatetechnology
transferandindustryengagements.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
4
PeerSelectionComparison2013
State/
Province
Medical
School
YearTTO
Started
Country
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
SK
Yes
1990
Canada
$169,940,758
TuftsUniv.
MA
Yes
1978
USA
$163,454,769
GeorgetownUniv.
DC
Yes
1993
USA
$158,889,918
WestVirginiaUniv.
WV
Yes
1999
USA
$151,751,731
OklahomaStateUniv.
OK
Yes
1995
USA
$144,120,753
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
WI
Yes
1984
USA
$143,807,297
Univ.ofManitoba
MB
Yes
1983
Canada
$143,759,552
DalhousieUniv.
NS
Yes
1990
Canada
$142,839,369
TempleUniv.
PA
Yes
1989
USA
$136,605,865
TulaneUniv.
LA
Yes
1985
USA
$135,375,143
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
AR
Yes
1994
USA
$135,000,000
Univ.deSherbrooke
QC
Yes
1986
Canada
$129,730,364
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
NL
Yes
1987
Canada
$127,980,608
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
FL
Yes
1985
USA
$126,700,000
DrexelUniv.
PA
Yes
1995
USA
$111,043,330
1989
$141,399,964
Institution
Average
TotalR&D
Expenditures
Definitions
TotalResearchExpenditures:TOTALRESEARCHEXPENDITURESincludeexpenditures(notnewawards)madebytheinstitutioninthesurvey
year in support of its research activities that are funded by all sources including the federal government, local government, industry,
foundations,voluntaryhealthorganizations(i.e.,AHA,ACS,etc.),andothernonprofitorganizations.Indirectcostsshouldbeincluded.
2.2.R&DExpenditures
In comparing peer R&D expenditure sources between federal sources and industry sources,
thereareimportantsimilaritiesanddifferences:
• Federalsources:61%forpeergroupcomparedto66%forPuertoRico
• Industrysources:8%forpeergroupcomparedto2%forPuertoRico
ThisdifferenceinindustryengagementpresentsanopportunityforPuertoRico’sinstitutionsto
engagetheprivatesector.Aninitialstepmaybetoreviewfacultyincentivesforundertaking
sponsoredprojectsandbalancingwithteachingloads.Pastevidenceshowsthereisdisconnect
betweenresearchtaxcreditsanduniversityengagement.3
3
GeorgiaTech-PuertoRicoInnovationInstituteforaTechnology-InspiredEconomy,PhaseIIPre-Proposal(2013).PuertoRicoScience,
TechnologyandResearchTrustdocument.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
5
PeerR&DExpenditureSourceComparison2013
TotalR&D
Expenditures
Institution
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
$169,940,758
TuftsUniv.
FederalR&D
Expenditures
$82,253,613
$7,273,619
$163,454,769
$124,973,856
$9,393,514
GeorgetownUniv.
$158,889,918
$117,395,509
$5,918,636
WestVirginiaUniv.
$151,751,731
$90,832,387
$13,229,297
OklahomaStateUniv.
$144,120,753
$44,508,332
$11,349,773
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
$143,807,297
$115,822,263
$7,648,218
Univ.ofManitoba
$143,759,552
$74,657,414
$8,027,349
DalhousieUniv.
$142,839,369
$85,990,466
$26,637,803
TempleUniv.
$136,605,865
$92,144,866
$6,014,719
TulaneUniv.
$135,375,143
$110,935,226
$16,056,874
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
$135,000,000
NA
NA
Univ.deSherbrooke
$129,730,364
$57,375,196
$8,642,366
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
$127,980,608
$42,164,231
$23,024,614
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
$126,700,000
$76,500,000
$6,600,000
DrexelUniv.
$111,043,330
$88,549,795
$4,605,199
$141,399,964
$86,007,368
$11,030,142
Average
IndustryR&D
Expenditures
Definitions
Federal R&D Expenditures: RESEARCH EXPENDITURES: FEDERAL GOVT. SOURCES include expenditures made in the survey year by the
institutioninsupportofitsresearchactivitiesthatarefundedbythefederalgovernment.Expendituresbystateandlocalgovernmentsshould
beexcluded.
IndustryR&DExpenditures: INDUSTRIAL SOURCES include expenditures made in the survey year by the institution in support of its research
activitiesthatarefundedbyfor-profitcorporations,butnotexpendituressupportedbyothersourcessuchasfoundationsandothernonprofit
organizations.
2.3. TTOStaffing
PeerTTOsarematureorganizationsandintegralunitsoftheuniversity.LicensinguniversityIP
is one important function, if not the most important. Overall in 2013, the U.S. and Canadian
TTOsreported:
• $64.2billioninR&D
• 2,363FTEstaffofwhich1,118arelicensingand1,245areother
Theresultingratiois$27.1millionofR&Dexpenditure/FTE,andtheratiooflicensingstaffto
otherstaffisabout1:1.Thesetrendshavebeenconsistentsincethemid1990swithvariations
shownintypeofinstitution(e.g.,medicalschools,size,approach).Amongthepeergroupwith
anaverageR&Dexpenditure($141.4million)andanaverageof6FTE,theaveragesshow:
• TotalTTOStaffing:$23.6millionR&Dexpenditure/FTE
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
6
•
•
LicensingFTEs:$35.3millionR&Dexpenditure/FTE
OtherFTEs:$70.7millionR&Dexpenditure/FTE
Thepeergroupshowsmorelicensingstaff,whichmaybeexplainedbytheapproachtakenby
smallerTTOs,wherethoselicensingstaffalsoperform“other”duties.
PeerTTOStaffingComparison2013
Institution
LicensingFTEs
OtherFTEs
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
10
3.8
TuftsUniv.
6
1
GeorgetownUniv.
5
4
WestVirginiaUniv.
0
1
OklahomaStateUniv.
5
2
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
3
0
Univ.ofManitoba
5
2
DalhousieUniv.
7
3
TempleUniv.
3
1
TulaneUniv.
2
2
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
1
3.5
NA
NA
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
3
1
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
5
6
DrexelUniv.
5
3
4
2
Univ.deSherbrooke
Average
Definitions
Licensing FTEs: Person(s) employed in the TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICE whose duties are specifically involved with the licensing and
patentingprocessesineitherfullorfractionalFTEallocation.Licensingexamplesincludelicenseesolicitation,technologyvaluation,marketing
oftechnology,licenseagreementdraftingandnegotiation,andstart-upactivityefforts.
OtherFTEs:Person(s)employedintheTECHNOLOGYTRANSFEROFFICEineitherfullorfractionalFTEswhosedutiesandresponsibilitiesareto
provideprofessional,administrative,orstaffsupportofTECHNOLOGYTRANSFERACTIVITIESthatarenototherwiseincludedinLICENSINGFTEs.
Such duties might include management, compliance reporting, license maintenance, negotiation of research agreements, contract
management, accounting, MTA activity, and general office activity. General secretarial/administrative assistance to the TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFEROFFICEmayalsobeincludedinthiscategory.
2.4.Disclosures,Licensing,andLicenseIncome
Whilepeergrouptechnologytransfermetricsarereadilyavailableandconsistent,PuertoRico’s
technology transfer metrics are not publicly available. UPR provides some basic information
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
7
aboutpatenting,butitisnotup-to-date.TheBenchmarkingBestPractices(surveyandon-site
visit,June2015)willcollectmetricsforthoseinstitutionsparticipatingandprovideafoundation
forfuturepeercomparisons.Peeraveragesinclude:
• 59disclosures,
• 9agreements(licensesandoptions),and
• agrosslicenseincomeof$3.5million
Peeraveragecomparisonsshow:
• 1disclosure/$2.4MintotalR&Dexpenditure
• 9.8disclosures/FTE,with14.75disclosures/LicensingFTE
• 6.5disclosures/agreement
• $59,149ingrosslicenseincome/disclosure
• $387,755ingrosslicenseincome/agreement
It is important to note that the “disclosure to agreement” and “gross license income”
comparisonsarenotdirectlyrelatedbutshowanannualtotal.
PeerDisclosure,AgreementandIncomeComparisons2013
Invention
Disclosures
Received
Institution
LicensesIssued
OptionsIssued
GrossLicense
Income
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
42
13
2
$10,035,969
TuftsUniv.
94
5
6
$5,696,395
GeorgetownUniv.
62
1
2
$8,576,039
WestVirginiaUniv.
31
2
1
$159,430
OklahomaStateUniv.
50
10
2
$2,203,775
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
42
2
1
$241,547
Univ.ofManitoba
48
6
0
$2,027,238
DalhousieUniv.
44
3
3
$232,111
TempleUniv.
60
4
1
$11,506,822
TulaneUniv.
57
7
2
$3,836,253
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
33
4
2
$1,137,124
Univ.deSherbrooke
27
9
0
$5,701,880
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
19
4
1
$89,632
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
124
11
6
$797,883
DrexelUniv.
148
10
14
$104,879
6
3
$3,489,798
Average
59
Definitions
InventionDisclosures:INVENTIONDISCLOSURESincludethenumberofdisclosures,nomatterhowcomprehensive,thataremadeintheyear
requestedandarecountedbytheinstitution.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
8
LicensesandOptions:CountthenumberofLICENSEorOPTIONAGREEMENTSthatwereexecutedintheyearindicatedforalltechnologies.
Eachagreement,exclusiveornon-exclusive,shouldbecountedseparately.Licensestosoftwareorbiologicalmaterialend-usersof$1,000or
moremaybecountedperlicense,oras1licenseor1/eachforeachmajorsoftwareorbiologicalmaterialproduct(atmanager'sdiscretion)if
the total number of end-user licenses would unreasonably skew the institution's data. Licenses for technology protected under U.S. plant
patents (US PP) or plant variety protection certificates (U.S. PVPC) may be counted in a similar manner to software or biological material
productsasdescribedabove,atmanager'sdiscretion.MaterialTransferAgreementsarenottobecountedasLicenses/Optionsinthissurvey.
GrossLicenseIncome:LICENSEINCOMERECEIVEDincludes:licenseissuefees,paymentsunderoptions,annualminimums,runningroyalties,
termination payments, the amount of equity received when cashed-in, and software and biological material end-user license fees equal to
$1,000ormore,butnotresearchfunding,patentexpensereimbursement,avaluationofequitynotcashed-in,softwareandbiologicalmaterial
end-userlicensefeeslessthan$1,000,ortrademarklicensingroyaltiesfromuniversityinsignia.LICENSEINCOMEalsodoesnotincludeincome
receivedinsupportofthecosttomakeandtransfermaterialsunderMaterialTransferAgreements.
2.5.LegalFeesandPatenting
Legalfeesandpatentingareindicatorsofthelevelofinvestmenttheuniversitymakestoward
protectingitsIPandthelegalfeesreimbursedasaresultofsuccessfullicensing.Aswithother
technology transfer metrics, these are not available for Puerto Rico institutions but will be
includedintheJune2015BenchmarkingBestPracticessurvey.
Peeraveragecomparisonsshow:
• $15,177inlegalfees/disclosure
• 0.89patentapplications/disclosure
• $16,895inlegalfees/patentapplication
• $313,980inlegalfeesreimbursed/$895,455inlegalfees=35%reimbursementratio,
notdirectlycorrelatedtothereportingyear’sfees,butanannualtotal.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
9
PeerLegalFeesandPatentingComparisons2013
Invention
Disclosures
Received
Institution
LegalFees
LegalFees
Reimbursed
TotalPatent
Applications
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
42
$628,659
$138,891
25
TuftsUniv.
94
$3,440,801
$1,732,545
127
GeorgetownUniv.
62
$1,409,718
$191,311
76
WestVirginiaUniv.
31
$207,652
0
20
OklahomaStateUniv.
50
$450,482
$270,058
32
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
42
$329,012
$196,721
27
Univ.ofManitoba
48
$715,305
$22,121
37
DalhousieUniv.
44
$378,554
$231,628
23
TempleUniv.
60
$651,825
$140,656
47
TulaneUniv.
57
$1,268,381
$600,668
48
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
33
$650,923
$456,110
28
Univ.deSherbrooke
27
$232,197
$219,215
0
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
19
$117,512
$11,542
8
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
124
$1,650,000
$176,555
197
DrexelUniv.
148
$1,300,800
$321,673
104
59
$895,455
$313,980
53
Average
Definitions
LegalFees:LEGALFEESEXPENDITURESincludetheamountspentbyaninstitutioninexternallegalfeesforpatentsand/orcopyrights.These
costsincludepatentandcopyrightprosecution,maintenance,andinterferencecosts,aswellasminorlitigationexpensesthatareincludedin
everydayofficeexpenditures(anexampleofaminorlitigationexpensemightbethecostofaninitiallettertoapotentialinfringerwrittenby
counsel).Excludedfromthesefeesissignificantlitigationexpense,e.g.,anyindividuallitigationexpensethatexceeds5%oftotalLEGALFEES
EXPENDITURES.Theyalsodonotincludedirectpaymentofpatentingcostsbylicensees.
Legal Fees Reimbursed: LEGAL FEES REIMBURSEMENTS include the amount reimbursed by licensees to the institution for LEGAL FEES
EXPENDITURES(seedefinitionforLEGALFEESEXPENDITURES).LEGALFEESREIMBURSEMENTSpaidvialumpsumpaymentsofcostsincurredin
prioryearswhenanewlicenseissignedANDregularreimbursementsofnewcostsincurredafterthelicenseissigned.Donotincludeamounts
deductedfromLICENSEINCOMEpriortointernaldistributionbecauseLEGALFEESEXPENDITUREShavenotbeenpreviouslyreimbursed(e.g.,
technologieslicensednon-exclusively.)
Total Patent Applications: TOTAL PATENT APPLICATIONS include (1) the first filing of the patentable subject matter (NEW PATENT
APPLICATIONS,U.S.orForeign),and(2)U.S.patentcontinuations,divisionals,orreissues,buttypicallydoesnotincludeCIP
2.6.PatentProtectionandPatentsIssued
BenchmarkingpatentprotectionandpatentsissuedaregoodindicatorsoftheTTO’spatent
strategytoutilizetheU.S.provisional,U.S.non-provisional(utility),foreign(e.g.,PCT),andthe
ratioofpatentapplicationstopatentsissued.Patentsissuedmayreflectapatent-granting
agenciestrendsaswellasthequalityofthepatentapplication.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
10
Peeraveragecomparisonsshow,ofnewpatentapplications:
• About70%areforU.S.provisionalpatents
• About20%areforU.S.utilitypatents
• About10%areforforeignpatents(e.g.,PCTs)
Thereisa46%ratioofU.S.utilitypatentapplicationstoU.S.patentsissued,notdirectlyrelated
butanannualtotalthatreflectsfilingsfrom3+yearsprior.
PeerPatentProtectionandPatentsIssuedComparisons2013
Foreign
Patent
Applications
Provisional
Patent
Applications
Issued
US
Patents
3
2
17
7
0
0
59
30
40
1
0
39
18
20
15
0
5
5
32
15
1
0
14
12
MedicalCollegeofWisconsinResearchFoundation
27
11
0
0
11
8
Univ.ofManitoba
37
30
3
11
16
9
DalhousieUniv.
23
50
7
27
16
3
TempleUniv.
47
19
0
0
19
9
TulaneUniv.
48
42
3
0
39
4
Univ.ofArkansasforMedicalSciences
28
29
6
3
20
0
Univ.deSherbrooke
0
0
0
0
0
0
MemorialUniv.ofNewfoundland
8
14
4
6
4
1
Univ.ofCentralFlorida
197
96
20
0
76
71
DrexelUniv.
104
95
26
8
61
23
53
36
4
26
13
TotalPatent
Applications
NewPatent
Applications
Univ.ofSaskatchewan
25
22
TuftsUniv.
127
59
GeorgetownUniv.
76
WestVirginiaUniv.
20
OklahomaStateUniv.
Institution
USUtility
Patent
Applications
Average
6
Definitions
NewPatentApplications:NEWPATENTAPPLICATIONSFILEDarethefirstfilingofthepatentablesubjectmatter.NEWPATENTAPPLICATIONS
FILEDdonotincludecontinuations,divisionals,orreissues,andtypicallydoesnotincludeCIPs.AU.S.PROVISIONALAPPLICATIONfiledinthe
surveyyearwillbecountedasnewunlessitisarefillingofanexpiringU.S.PROVISIONALAPPLICATION.IfaU.S.PROVISIONALAPPLICATIONis
convertedinthesamesurveyyeartoaU.S.UTILITYAPPLICATION,thenthatcorrespondingU.S.UTILITYAPPLICATIONfiledinthesurveyyear
shouldnotbecountedasnew.
USUtilityandProvisionalApplications:TOTALU.S.PATENTAPPLICATIONSFILEDincludesanyfilingmadeintheU.S.duringthesurveyyear,
includingprovisionalapplications,provisionalapplicationsthatareconvertedtoregularapplications,newfilings,CIPs,continuations,divisionals,
reissues,andplantpatents.Applicationsforcertificatesofplantprotectionshouldalsobeincluded.TOTALU.S.PATENTAPPLICATIONSFILED
shouldalsoincludePCTapplicationswherethePCTapplicationisthefirstnon-provisionalfilingwheretheU.S.isdesignated.IfaU.S.utility
application is filed by entering the national phase of a PCT application in the U.S., that should also be included in TOTAL U.S. PATENT
APPLICATIONSFILED.However,aPCTapplicationthatdoesnotdesignatetheU.S.(e.g.,becauseitfollowsapreviousU.S.utilityapplicationoris
filedatthesametimeasaU.S.utilityapplication)wouldnotbeincluded.
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
11
2.7.Start-ups
Beginning in the mid 1990s, start-up companies have become increasingly important to
technologytransferofficefunctionsandtherelationshiptolocaleconomicdevelopmentefforts.
UniversityIPtendstobeveryearlystageandrequiresfurtherdevelopmenttoattractinterest
fromlargerestablishedcompanies.Asprivateequityinvestmentintechnologybecamemore
common, opportunities to invest early and seek substantial returns also became more
common.Universitiesrespondedbychangingpoliciesandpracticestoaccommodatestart-ups.
Start-ups are new companies established to develop and commercialize university IP under a
license. These start-ups are positioned to raise private funds for early stage development of
the IP. Typically, start-ups proceed from an option agreement to a license when university
policy and practices guidelines are met. These may include a business plan, identified
management (e.g., other than the university employee founder), approved conflict
managementplan,andalevelofcommittedfunding.
Peeraveragecomparisonsshow:
• $70.7millioninR&Dexpenditure/start-upformed(licensed)
• 3%ratioofstart-ups/totaldisclosures,notdirectlyrelatedtodisclosuresfromthesame
period,butanannualtotal
• 33%oflicenseswereforstart-ups,directlyrelatedtothelicenseagreementsexecuted
duringtheperiod
BenchmarkingTechTransferSummary
November2015
12