Technology Transfer Tactics recently interviewed me on the issue of whether poster presentations jeopardize a tech transfer office’s commercialization efforts.

I wanted to share the interview because the article raised some interesting questions.  Of course, universities have long been dealing with the challenges of having to reconcile the competing interests of the educational/research institution’s desire to publish and provide educational opportunities to students vs. the intellectual property protection/commercialization goals of a tech transfer office.  However, this article addressed a unique aspect of that conflict, which I think will be of interest to blog readers.

Forbes published an interesting article last week which named the universities in this country with the most successful tech transfer programs in terms of rate of return (“ROI”), according to a 2006 survey.

At the top of the list was New York University.  Forbes reported as follows:

[New York University] generates $157 million in research-related income on $210 million in research and development (R&D) expenditures–tops the list with a 75% yield. . . . While Remicade has generated the bulk of NYU’s licensing income in the last decade, some 20 other biomedical technologies kick off royalties as well–and 15 more are in clinical trials. . . . Other hot areas include computer science, agriculture and nanotechnology. NYU also takes stakes in start-ups, including Perceptive Pixel, developer of the touch-screen map that CNN uses in its election coverage.

Next on the list was Wake Forest University, which had a 41% ROI.  According to Forbes, Wake Forest’s success was due in part to several patents, which generated more than $1 million in licensing revenue and the development of several key technologies, including the V.A.C. System, a mechanical vacuum technology that promotes wound-healing, which was licensed to San Antonio-based Kinetic Technologies, and a virtual endoscopy machine, which was licensed to GE Medical, a unit of General Electric.

Other successful programs included the Stevens Institute of Technology, Ohio University, Brigham Young University, and University of Rochester.

Interestingly enough, the University of California System (which includes all of its various institutions and campuses around the state) only came in fourteenth on the list, even though it reportedly generates more in total revenue from research than all other U.S. universities.  According to Forbes, out of the University of California System’s $48 million licensing program, about $24 million was incurred from royalties paid on a mere five patents.

The full Forbes‘ list of the top 15 most successful tech transfer programs in 2006 is as follows:

1. New York University, $210 million in research expenditures, $157 million in research related income, 75% yield

2. Wake Forest University, $146.3 million in research expenditures, $60.5 million in research related income, 41% yield

3. Stevens Institute of Technology, $28 million in research expenditures, $4.56 million in research related income, 16% yield

4. Ohio University, $24 million in research expenditures, $3.26 million in research related income, 13% yield

5. Brigham Young University, $26 million in research expenditures, $3.07 million in research related income, 11.7% yield

6.  University of Rochester, $355 million in research expenditures, $38 million in research related income, 11% yield

7.  University of Minnesota, $596 million in research expenditures, $56 million in research related income, 9.4% yield

8. University of Florida, $459 million in research expenditures, $42.9 million in research related income, 9.3% yield

9. Stanford University, $699 million in research expenditures, $61.3 million in research related income, 8.7% yield

10. Northwest University, $348 million in research expenditures, $29.9 million in research related income, 8.6%

11. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, $269 million in research expenditures, $20.1 million resarch related income, 7.5%

12. University of Massachusetts, $409.9 million in research expenditures, $27.2 million in research related income, 6.7% yield

13.  University of Utah, $246.5 million in research expenditures, $16.3 million in research related income, 6.6% yield

14.  University of California System, $3.04 billion in research expenditures, $193.4 billion in research related income, 6.4 % yield

15.  University of South Alabama, $20.6 million in research expenditures, $1.2 million in research releated income, 5.9% yield

Forbes published an interesting article last week which named the universities in this country with the most successful tech transfer programs in terms of rate of return ("ROI"), according to a 2006 survey.

At the top of the list was New York University.  Forbes reported as follows:

[New York University] generates $157 million in research-related income on $210 million in research and development (R&D) expenditures–tops the list with a 75% yield. . . . While Remicade has generated the bulk of NYU’s licensing income in the last decade, some 20 other biomedical technologies kick off royalties as well–and 15 more are in clinical trials. . . . Other hot areas include computer science, agriculture and nanotechnology. NYU also takes stakes in start-ups, including Perceptive Pixel, developer of the touch-screen map that CNN uses in its election coverage.

Next on the list was Wake Forest University, which had a 41% ROI.  According to Forbes, Wake Forest’s success was due in part to several patents, which generated more than $1 million in licensing revenue and the development of several key technologies, including the V.A.C. System, a mechanical vacuum technology that promotes wound-healing, which was licensed to San Antonio-based Kinetic Technologies, and a virtual endoscopy machine, which was licensed to GE Medical, a unit of General Electric.

Other successful programs included the Stevens Institute of Technology, Ohio University, Brigham Young University, and University of Rochester.

Interestingly enough, the University of California System (which includes all of its various institutions and campuses around the state) only came in fourteenth on the list, even though it reportedly generates more in total revenue from research than all other U.S. universities.  According to Forbes, out of the University of California System’s $48 million licensing program, about $24 million was incurred from royalties paid on a mere five patents. 

The full Forbes‘ list of the top 15 most successful tech transfer programs in 2006 is as follows:

1. New York University, $210 million in research expenditures, $157 million in research related income, 75% yield

2. Wake Forest University, $146.3 million in research expenditures, $60.5 million in research related income, 41% yield

3. Stevens Institute of Technology, $28 million in research expenditures, $4.56 million in research related income, 16% yield

4. Ohio University, $24 million in research expenditures, $3.26 million in research related income, 13% yield

5. Brigham Young University, $26 million in research expenditures, $3.07 million in research related income, 11.7% yield

6.  University of Rochester, $355 million in research expenditures, $38 million in research related income, 11% yield

7.  University of Minnesota, $596 million in research expenditures, $56 million in research related income, 9.4% yield

8. University of Florida, $459 million in research expenditures, $42.9 million in research related income, 9.3% yield

9. Stanford University, $699 million in research expenditures, $61.3 million in research related income, 8.7% yield

10. Northwest University, $348 million in research expenditures, $29.9 million in research related income, 8.6%

11. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, $269 million in research expenditures, $20.1 million resarch related income, 7.5%

12. University of Massachusetts, $409.9 million in research expenditures, $27.2 million in research related income, 6.7% yield

13.  University of Utah, $246.5 million in research expenditures, $16.3 million in research related income, 6.6% yield

14.  University of California System, $3.04 billion in research expenditures, $193.4 billion in research related income, 6.4 % yield

15.  University of South Alabama, $20.6 million in research expenditures, $1.2 million in research releated income, 5.9% yield        

Biotech companies are running into roadblocks when they enter into deals with the UC System, according to a report this week by the San Francisco Business Journal. 

According to the San Francisco Business Journal, the key problem is that it simply takes too long to get the deal done.  The San Francisco Business Journal reported:

"Most of us would prefer not to work with" the UC System, [Don] Francis [chairman and executive director of the South San Francisco nonprofit Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases and co-founder of Vaxgen, Inc. of South San Francisco] said at a recent UCSF forum on product development partnerships

Francis recalled VaxGen’s late-stage AIDS vaccine trials that included UC sites. Because UC lawyers pushed for intellectual property rights for the system — though VaxGen had done the research and was only conducting paid-for trials at UC — agreements took months rather than weeks to complete, Francis said. In fact, UC was the last series of clinical sites to sign on. 

It’s fixable. . . . but unless changes are made, he said, UC will drive away companies.

The other significant problem, according to the San Francisco Business Journal, is that the UC leadership is just too risk-adverse.  The San Francisco Business Journal reported:

Deals must pass "the Chronicle test," said Jack Newman, a UC Berkeley graduate and now senior vice president of research at Amyris Biotechnologies Inc. in Emeryville. In other words, UC system lawyers want to be sure no one — those pesky media types, in particular — can accuse them of giving away too much value.

As an IP attorney who regularly handles deals with universities and companies in the private sector, my personal experience has been that deals with universities in general do tend to take an excrutiatingly long time to get finalized and signed.  Typically, the time period far exceeds the normal negotiating period in the private sector. 

Why is this? 

Well, in all likelihood, it is because the universities operate on a different timeclock.  Businesses are often anxious to get deals signed, so that they can move on to a different set of problems and concerns.  However, universities frequently operate on a different schedule and set of priorities–there just is not the same level of pressure to get the deal closed in a specific period of time that you have in the private sector.  I suspect that if you took a survey of all of the tech transfer offices around the country, you would find that the UC System’s turnaround time is fairly representative of what you find at other university tech transfer offices.

I would be interested in hearing from others of you in the blogosphere who have experience with doing deals with universities: what has your experience been with the turnaround time?  Has your experience been similar to mine or have you found that any particular universities are operating at a much faster timetable?  I will, of course, share any feedback I receive on this topic. 

The Silicon Valley Chapter of Licensing Executives Society ("LES") recently sponsored an event in whch representatives from Stanford and the University of California ("UC") offered tips on licensing with the Stanford and UC systems.  Katharine Ku of Stanford University and Viviana Wolinsky of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory each gave an excellent presentation, outlining their respective university’s policies and procedures, as well as some of the issues of concern currently facing each organization.  Nader Mousavi of Wilmer Hale, which hosted the event, also participated.

What were some of the insights on their employers’ respective licensing programs that the two speakers shared?

Regarding the issue of exclusive licensing terms, Ku indicated that Stanford prefers fixed terms of exclusivity.  In contrast, Wolinsky indicated that UC is generally more willing than Stanford to agree to exclusive licenses that run for the full term of the patent.

On the issue of royalty rates, the speakers agreed that the range often runs from 3 to 6 % of net sales.  Wolinsky shared that the UC system is willing to consider royalty stacking, if this is brought up in the negotiations, and that UC may be willing to reduce the royalty rate on each license to half of what would otherwise be agreed to. 

On the issue of sublicensing, the speakers agreed that a royalty based on net sales from sublicensees is the current standard for UC and Stanford license agreements, replacing the once-common standard of a royalty based on sublicense income (which, in all honesty, I have never seen used in the licensing negotations I have been involved with).  The panel advised that in cases where sublicense income is used as the standard for the sublicensing royalty rate that the following should be excluded: research and development payments, equity, patent reimbursements, other research and development materials and equipment, and the fair market value of cross-licenses. 

The speakers highlighted an important distinction in how UC and Stanford prefer to handle patent prosecution in exclusive licenses.  The UC position is that the university controls all patent prosecution, whereas the preferred Stanford position is that the licensee controls all patent prosecution.  In both cases, the universities require that the exclusive licensee pays for the costs; however, UC prefers that the licensee reimburse UC for the patent prosecution costs, whereas Stanford prefers that the licensee pay the costs directly.

How do the universities deal with patent enforcement?

Ku indicated that Stanford’s default position is that Stanford has the right to enforce the patents, and that the licensee can step in if Stanford declines to enforce the patents.  Ku further stated that if the licensee enforces the patents, any damages recovered should cover costs first and then the balance should be treated as net sales/sublicense income. 

In contrast, Wolinsky stated that UC’s default position is the same as Stanford’s position, except that any damages recovered should go to the party bringing suit. 

Both Stanford and UC require university consent prior to any settlement, and provide the right to name the university as a party for standing.

How are Stanford and UC dealing with the recent MedImmune v. Genentech decision?

UC is taking the most unforgiving position on this issue.  According to Wolinsky, the position is that UC is drafting language into the license to state that if a licensee disputes the validity of a patent, the patent terminates.

In contrast, the Stanford position is a little more tolerant: Stanford is drafting language into the license to state that if a licensee disputes the validity of a patent, the licensee has to pay all costs.

Regarding other issues in the news, both Ku and Wolinsky indicated that the universities were very concerned about the prospect of patent reform, particularly with respect to the proposed changes to the "First to File" Rule.  Ku and Wolinsky also stated that both systems were now adding export control language to their NDAs as well as licenses.  Finally, with respect to sponsored research, Ku indicated that the Stanford policy is that the university is declining to set a royalty rate for inventions arising out of sponsored research, whereas Wolinsky indicated that UC continues to agree to a royalty rate range.

All in all, Ku and Wolinsky gave a very informative presentation on current licensing policies at their respective institutions.  After attending this presentation, however, I now find myself wanting to hear more from other universities on their current policies and procedures on licensing.  So, I am formally issuing an invitation into the blogosphere to any other universities who would like to share information to prospective licensees on their current licensing policies, procedures, and negotiating strategies: please share with us any insights on licensing at your schools, and this blog will gladly provide you a platform to publish that information to the biotech and licensing community.   I welcome your commentary.