Transcript Open innovation - Conference on Managing Intellectual Property in

International, Regional and National Strategies
of Public Institutions on the Role of TTO s to
Enhance University & Industry Relations
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGING
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN UNIVERSITIES
Istanbul, May 23 – 25, 2013
Boğaziçi University
Topics
30 Years After Bayh - Dole Act
University – Industry Partnership
Role of TTO s to Enhance University & Industry
Relations in Knowledge Based Knowledge Economy
WIPO TTO Projects and Capacity Building Related to
Technology Transfer
Bayh - Dole Act
Bayh - Dole Act, 1980, United States
uniform IP policy among federal agencies
funding research;
universities retain ownership to inventions
made under federally funded research;
universities are expected to disclose,
protect and to ensure commercialization
upon licensing;
benefit sharing – inventor, department,
university and TT process.
Bayh - Dole Act
Role of University TTO s – to focus on:
Massive Patenting
IP Commercialization
Exclusive Licensing to Industry
Start - ups
Royalty Flow
Myth about Return on Research Investment through
Commercialization of Research Results
Stanford University – about 50,000 000 $ licensing
income per year.
Bayh - Dole Act
US Universities the largest PCT filers among educational
institutions;
PCT Report for 2012 – US Universities account for 26 of the
top 50 educational institutions by the number of international
applications published in 2012, followed by institutions in
Japan (6) and the Republic of Korea (6);
First position – University of California – 351 international
applications;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – (168);
Harvard University – (146 ).
AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey:
FY2011
Highlights from the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2011
include:
591 new commercial products introduced
4,899 licenses executed
1,152 options executed
416 executed licenses containing equity
38,600 active licenses and options
670 new companies formed, 487 of which had their primary place of
business in the licensing institution’s home state
3,927 startup companies still operating as of the end of FY2011
30 Years After Bayh - Dole Act
Diferrent opinions about the impact of the Act on innovation in US and its applicability in other
countries;
Since 1980, US academic patenting, licensing, and associated revenues have steadily increased.
BD accelerated this growth by:
clarifying ownership rules;
simplifying bureaucratic procedures regarding commertialization of research results;
by changing norms toward patenting and licensing at universities.
Significan progress in certain areas of research – such as biotechnology and ICT.
.
Frequent Critics
Universities became more interested in business opportunities than public interest;
Exclusive licenses limited access to research results of public interest, such as research and
diagnostic tools;
Licensing of upstream research results diminished incentives for downstream research and
commercialization;
Commercial success is not a general trend, but the case of limited number of universities;
Huge public and venture capital investment in science influenced innovation in public sector,
not only BD Act application;
Licensing income represents only 5% of the research expenditure, and cannot be concerned
as return on research investment, etc.
30 Years After Bayh - Dole Act
BD Act – Model for technology transfer policies in number of countries, in
particular in emerging and developing countries that recently addoopted
their technology transfer strategies:
Brazil
South Afrika
India (“Indian Bayh – Dole Act”)
Is BD Act applicable as a “model that fits all”?
Each strategy should be customized, even when incorporating certain
principles contained in instruments such as BD Act.
30 years after – the context changed, in areas of:
IP Laws
Scientific Work
Model of Economy
Changing Value of Knowledge in Economy
Row Material Based Economy – Commodity Based Natural
Resources
Production Based Economy – Commodity Knowledge - Based
Physical Products
Knowledge Based Industrial Economy – Proprietary Knowledge Based Physical Product
Knowledge Based Knowledge Economy – IP – Based Intellectual or
Virtual Products and Services
Knowledge (valuable intangible) became in the same time input and
output in innovation process
“Ideas and innovations have become the most important
resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials”
The Economist 2005
From Row Material to Knowledge Based
Innovative Product – Branded Ethiopian
Coffee
Successful Story of Nespresso – Brand
and Concept
Knowledge Based Knowledge Economy
New Type of Products - Based
on Complex and Fast
Changing Technologies
Professional Specialization
Global Competitiveness
New Collaboration Partners
Global Mobility - Funds/People
New Business Models – “Open
Innovation”
New Knowledge Based
Businesses
Knowledge Based Businesses – Intangible
Assets Represent the Core Market Value of
Company
In 1975 IP and intangible assets
represented less than 20% of the
company's value.
Today, intangible assets represent more
than 80% of the companies market value.
Center for Business Innovation of E&Y –
Survey - 1981 – 2002
AT&T – 1981 – 120 billion$ market
cap, all in tangibles; 2002 – smaller
AT&T – 75 billion $ market cap – 50
billion in intangibles:
General Electrics – 400 billion$
market cap – less than 4 billion $ in
tangibles:
Microsoft – 300 billion $ market cap
– only 5 billion $ in tangibles
Pfizer – 260 billion $ market cap –
less than 10 billion $ in tangibles.
The Challenges of Adding Value to Products and Processes through
the Generation, Protection and Commercialization of Intangibles
Do we need to create everything internally?
Can we share the knowledge and cost with partners?
Why protecting?
Do we own the best business model for
commercialization of internally created intangibles?
What are the risks and benefits?
Changing vision of business innovation – from “closed
innovation” to “open or networked innovation”.
Open and Closed Innovation
Closed Innovation
Exclusive use of internal R&D;
Technology invented, protected,
developed, brought to the market
and distributed by the same
company;
Full internal control of the
innovation – from R to D to C;
Technology exploited only through
internal business model;
IP generators – mainly companies;
IP – barrier to entry – not source
of revenue;
Huge IP non-performing
portfolios;
Companies usually selling but not
buying IPR s;
Lack of IP market .
Open innovation
Use of internal and external R&D
and inventions;
Openness to external business
models;
Variety of IP generators and
collaborators – other companies,
public universities and R&D
institutions, users, customers,
suppliers;
Active IP asset management ;
Development of Intermediate IP
Markets;
IP - an asset which can (and should)
be managed through an adequate
business model in order to increase
value and become a reliable source
of revenue.
Changing Role of Academic Institutions
BEFORE
Education
Research
Publication
TODAY
IPR management
Fund raising
Branding
Evaluation of technology
Protection of research results
Due diligence
Technology marketing
Licensing negotiation
Collaboration with industry
Partnerships
Entrepreneurship development , by
establishing business incubation of spinoffs/start-ups
IP training for researchers
Administration of institutional
IP policy
Monitoring deals etc.
R&D Expenditure
Global R&D expenditure almost doubled in real terms from 1993 to 2009.
Most R&D spending still takes place in high-income countries – around 70
percent of the world total. They spend around 2.5 percent of their GDP on
R&D – more than double the rate of middle-income economies.
Low- and middle-income economies increased their share of global R&D
expenditure by 13 percent between 1993 and 2009. China accounts for
most of this increase – more than 10 percentage points.
Source: WIPO” World Intellectual Property Report – The Changing
Face of Innovation”
Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D
(GERD) – Trends (OECD Scoreboard 2011)
Israel has the highest GERD - in
excess of 4% of gross domestic
product (GDP).;
The OECD average stands at 2.3%;
The United States accounts for 41% of
OECD-area GERD;
Japan - 15% of OECD-area GERD,
and
Germany - 8%.
China’s domestic expenditure on R&D
is the equivalent of 12% of total OECD
GERD; it is therefore the world’s third
largest R&D performer.
The business sector - the main
performer of R&D in most economies nearly 70% of R&D performed in the
OECD area.
Israel’s business sector makes the
largest contribution to GERD, with
nearly 80% of total R&D, closely
followed by Japan and Korea.
Business R&D is exceeded by R&D in
the higher education sector only in
Turkey, Greece and Poland. Across
the OECD, higher education
OECD higher education R&D accounts
for nearly 17% of total GERD.
The government is the main performer
of R&D only in Argentina, where it
accounts for nearly 40% of GERD
IP Ownership
IP ownership has become more central to business and innovation
strategies on national and institutional level;
Demand for patents has risen from 800,000 applications worldwide
in the early 1980s to 1.8 million in 2009. This increase has occurred
in different waves, with Japan driving filing growth in the 1980s,
joined by the United States (US), Europe and the Republic of Korea
in the 1990s and, more recently, by China.
Middle – income countries are becoming an interesting destination
for IP protection – in the first place China.
Source: WIPO” World Intellectual Property Report – The
Changing Face of Innovation”
Public policies supporting commercialization of publically funded research
Source: WIPO” World Intellectual Property Report – The
Changing Face of Innovation”
Innovation Trends – Rise of Tradability of IP
Knowledge markets based on IP rights are on the rise, though still nascent;
The tradability of IP has increased;
More frequent licensing of IP rights;
International royalty and licensing fee (RLF) receipts increased from USD
2.8 billion in 1970 to USD 27 billion in 1990, and to approximately USD 180
billion in 2009 – outpacing growth in global GDP.
Source: WIPO” World Intellectual Property Report – The
Changing Face of Innovation”
University – Industry Collaboration
R&D and Universities - New Potential Solution for Needs
They are not competitors on the market;
Knowledge creators;
Leveraging on long term governmental investment in research and development;
New partnership supported strongly by government and society – as support for
national and regional economies.
EU – Commission Recommendation – April 10, 2008- Knowledge transfer
between universities and industry is made a permanent political and
operational priority for all public research funding bodies within a Member
State, at both national and regional level.
University – strong interest for collaboration with industries
Access to market technologies;
Funding;
Placement of Students;
Reputation;
Impact on local economic development and growth.
University – Industry Linkages
Even with technology transfer policies that are placing
universities - industry collaboration as one priority
objectives, the effective implementation of this goal
continues to be a great challenge.
EU Horizon 2020 Strategy – one of the objectives is
fostering regional R&D – industry collaboration.
What are collaboration problems?
University - Industry Linkages: Collaboration
Problems
Basic Problems
Prejudice on both sides;
Lack of information;
Lack of communication;
Inadequate incentives for collaboration:
Different approaches to:
IP ownership
Funding
Timing of deliverables
Problems Related to Structures and Organizations
Lack of Operational IP Market;
Limited Number of Alternative Sources of Funding Specifically Allocated for TT
Activities;
Complicated IP Valuation Processes;
Lack of Intermediary Organizations;
Scarcity of Technology Management Professionals;
Need for Efficient Incentive Policies – tax policies, immigration policies etc.
Role of TTO s to Enhance University & Industry Relations
in Knowledge Based Knowledge Economy
Understanding that academic institutions today are in relation with
“Knowledge Based Businesses” (KBB) and that their interest is to
shorten the time to market of innovative products and services ;
Therefore the priority subject of the collaboration with KBB would be
in the area of “intangible assets” ;
Almost all activities of academic institutions can be considered as an
intangible assets (knowledge, know – how, IP, scientific services,
etc.) – if properly managed;
New challenge for TTO s – how to develop, control and manage the
portfolio of intangible assets?
Role of TTO s to Enhance University & Industry
Relations in Knowledge Based Knowledge
Economy
Focusing on the needs of KBB
in the region as a part of
international world ( “act locally
– think internationally”)
Role of TTO s to Enhance University & Industry
Relations in Knowledge Based Knowledge
Economy
Partnership and Collaboration
Value chain is not any more
linear
Value Chain as a Network of
research and industry partners
with compatible assets
KBB
R&D
TTO
GOV
UNV
Role of TTO s to Enhance University & Industry
Relations in Knowledge Based Knowledge
Economy
“Openness” in collaboration
“Collaborative Innovation” –
requires permanent management
of portfolio of intangible assets
Important role of IP Institutional
Policies
Partners with / for
Government
Private Sector
Benefit of the Society
IP Institutional Policy
Asset Management
Strategy
Assets for Licensing
Research
Collaboration
Commercialization
Open Innovation
Sponsored research
WIPO TTO Projects and Capacity Building
Programs Related to Technology Transfer
INNOVATION
ECOSYSTEMS
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
- Innovation
Strategies/Policies
- Laws and Regulations
- Institutional Policies
- Supporting Regulations
- Bankruptcy Laws
- Immigration Policies
ORGANIZATIONS
AND
PROCESSES
- Clusters
- TTOs
- IP Hubs
- Incubators
- Technology Parks
- Intermediaries
- Knowledge Markets
HUMAN AND
KNOWLEDGE
CAPITAL
- Interdisciplinary Professions
- IP Experts
- Specialists
- Education
- Trainings
- Workshops
FUNDING
- Commercial and
Development Banks
- Governments
- Private Businesses
- Foundations
- Venture Capitalists
- Business Angels
WIPO Innovation Division’s Expertise
HUMAN AND
KNOWLEDGE
CAPITAL
INNOVATION
DIVISON
EXPERTISE
&
TRAINING
ORGANIZATIONS
AND
PROCESSES
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
FUNDING




Patent Drafting
IP Valuation
IP Marketing
Successful
Technology
Licensing
 IPR Management
in Universities and
PROs
WIPO Innovation Division’s Activities
HUMAN AND
KNOWLEDGE
CAPITAL
INNOVATION
PROJECTS
ORGANIZATIONS
AND
PROCESSES
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
FUNDING
 R&D Networks
- Colombia
- Western Africa
 TTO Project for
Arab Region
 Open Innovation
Platforms
Establishment of TTOs in Arab Region
Assists developing countries to create an innovation infrastructure to
support university-industry collaboration;
Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia;
Flexible framework – adjustable to needs of individual countries;
Each country “owns” its operation;
Second Phase – Arab Region Innovation Network !!!
Establishment of TTOs in Arab Region
Key operations
Transfer of knowledge
Setting up infrastructure
Creating intermediaries able to facilitate innovation and technology transfer
Two parts
Country-specific projects
Arab region innovation network
Innovation partnerships and networks
national, regional and interregional
Networked innovation model of
regional collaboration
Duration
26 months in each country
38 months for entire region
Establishment of TTOs in Arab Region – Project
Partners
Core Project Partners – Parties of the Framework
Project Agreement
Governments of Participating Countries;
Donor Partners;
Arab Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF);
WIPO (as executive agent).
Other Partners
Potential contributors with expert experience in
relevant areas ;
Professional associations;
Scientific foundations;
Private sector ;
Financial institutions;
NGOs;
International organizations;
Other partners.
Institutional IP Policies
Model of Intellectual Property Policy for Universities and
Research Institutions
Prepared by the WIPO Department for Transition and
Developed Countries
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/dcea/en/pdf/Tool_C
over_Model_Policy-Eng.pdf
Countries where WIPO has implemented capacitybuilding programs
Europe
Arab
Countries
Central
and Latin
America
Asia Pacific
Africa
Thank you !
Olga Spasic
Head
Innovation Structures Section
Innovation Division
[email protected]