Japanese Universities Having Trouble with Tech Transfer

Nikkei Asia has published an article by Kenjiru Suzuki titled, "Japan's Universities Fail to Make the Most of Intellectual Property: Due to Lack of Support, Patents Only Make 2% Compared to U.S. Schools."  The title provides a nice summary of the article's findings.  Research has pointed to differences between countries and their innovation systems as to why a specific country may not experience the relative success of U.S. universities in technology transfer.  For example, there may be differences in university culture, laws concerning taking a company public, corporate formation laws, laws concerning mergers and acquisitions, tax law, amount of available funding, expected licensing terms, skilled workforce, specific IP and data rights laws, networks of support and engagement, university researcher buy-in, and availability of capital (among other things).  I confess I am surprised that Japan has not realized more success in this area.  

National Academy of Inventors 2023 World-Wide University U.S. Utility Patent Rankings

The National Academy of Inventors has released its 2023 university rankings for U.S. granted utility patents.  The top 10 include: “1) The Regents of the University of California -- 546; 2) Massachusetts Institute of Technology – 365; 3) The University of Texas System –235; 4) King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals –216; 5) Stanford University –199; 6) Purdue University – 198; 7) Harvard University – 186; 8) Zhejiang University –185; 9) Arizona State University –170; 10) California Institute of Technology –156.  Zhejiang University (2022, 16) passed Tsinghua University (2022, 5) as the highest ranked university based in China for 2023.  The list of the top 100 is available, here: 2023-Top-100-Worldwide.pdf (academyofinventors.org).

Five Eyes on China: 60 Minutes

Members of the Five Eyes recently provided a brief overview of the threat of technology theft concerning China on the U.S. 60 Minutes show.  The interview includes brief mention of academic security as well as election influence.  The interview can be found, here. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office Report on Unwanted University Tech Transfer Risk

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has released a report titled, “CHINA Efforts Underway to Address Technology Transfer Risk at U.S. Universities, but ICE Could Improve Related Data,” concerning recommendations to better track visiting scholars, students and researchers from outside the United States.  The published report is incomplete because some of it has been deemed too sensitive to disclose.  Notably, the published report points to a failure of law enforcement agencies, including Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE), to track certain relevant data concerning the risk that unlawful technology transfer may occur involving federally funded university research.  The report is available, here, and states, in part:

According to federal internal control standards, management should use quality information that is, among other things, complete and accurate to achieve the entity’s objectives, and process relevant data into quality information within the entity’s information system. The U.S. government has identified research in sensitive fields, facilities and locations of expected work, and employment and employment history as potential risk factors for the transfer of technology. Improving the completeness of employer information in SEVIS could enhance ICE’s management of the OPT program and provide the U.S. government with more information on who is employing foreign students and, therefore, whether certain individuals may have access to technology.

Since 2016, oversight bodies at the five U.S. grant-making agencies in our review—NIH, NSF, NASA, DOD, and DOE—have investigated an increased number of researchers for potential violations related to the security of federally funded research at U.S. universities, according to agency data. These include grant fraud and compliance violations related to failures to disclose potential sources of foreign influence on researchers, such as other support for individual research endeavors, significant financial interests, or other conflicts of interest. These investigations have often involved undisclosed affiliations with the PRC, such as receiving PRC research funding. However, agency officials emphasized that decisions made to initiate an investigation or during the course of an investigation are not based on individual characteristics such as nationality or visa status, which is information that none of the five agencies in our review consistently collect. Agency data indicate that investigations have resulted in agency and university actions to address research security risks related to foreign influence. However, little information is available about civil and criminal cases related to potential transfer of university research because DOJ does not systematically track all cases specific to U.S. universities or federal grant funding. Further, officials from grant-making and law enforcement agencies we spoke with noted that it is challenging to assess the more general extent and negative impact of technology transfers to foreign countries. Amid agency efforts to address this type of national security threat, university faculty, officials from university and Asian and Asian-American associations, and others have highlighted the importance of balancing protection of federally funded research against potential adverse effects of these efforts. . . .

As a result of investigations initiated from 2016 through 2021, grantmaking agencies—particularly NIH, which accounted for about 73 percent of the individuals under investigation in our review—addressed a number of violations that could threaten the integrity of university research. As of October 2021, 94 percent of NIH investigations into researchers of concern had uncovered at least one compliance violation that NIH deemed serious, such as a failure to disclose foreign conflicts of interest (e.g., foreign affiliations, grant funding, or talent recruitment program participation), according to NIH data. As a result, NIH reported that at least 76 percent of individuals under investigation were no longer associated with grant-funded research or other grant-related responsibilities, primarily through resignation or actions taken by grant recipient institutions, including termination or exclusion from grant-funded research. In addition, NIH officials noted that because many of their investigations remained ongoing, they expected the number of actions taken in response to violations to rise. . . .

In this context, U.S. agencies and others have identified factors that indicate the types of foreign students or scholars who may pose a greater risk of transferring technology from U.S. universities. ICE already maintains information in its SEVIS database related to several of these factors, including country of citizenship and level of education. However, ICE has not completed a required assessment to understand whether it needs to update SEVIS to better capture information related to students and scholars who may pose a greater risk for technology transfer. Furthermore, data related to other risk factors already required in SEVIS, such as employer information, are incomplete. More complete data, and a better understanding of the information needed to identify students who present the highest risk for the potential transfer of university research, could strengthen U.S. government efforts to identify and assess risks to U.S. research and development.

It is simplistic and short-sighted to undermine Covid-19 patent rights

President Biden’s administration is making a major mistake by its top trade advisor, Katherine Tai, advocating a waiver of patent rights for Covid-19 vaccines.

While all who are involved, or would like to be, should move heaven and earth to increase Covid-19 vaccine supply until everybody worldwide who wants to be vaccinated has been vaccinated, undermining patent rights will not help but only hinder achieving that objective.

Patents are not recipes and do not provide the knowledge and expertise needed for production

All evidence is that the limiting factor is in vaccine supply—not in patent-licensing costs. The pressing need is to remove constraints—such as export bans that block ingredient supply chains— and to increase manufacturing capacity. Production supervision and training from those with the expert knowledge in operating such facilities who can ensure high-quality output reliably and on a massive scale are also required.

Instead of stripping Covid-19 patent owners of their core assets and rights, incentives to license patents and owners’ wider range of intellectual property—also including vital trade secrets such as how to make the vaccines with manufacturing process know-how—should be retained.

Vaccine demand remains immense. Many highly populated nations still have very low vaccination rates in the single digit percentages, for example, in India where the pandemic is currently raging with hospital facilities being overwhelmed. Satisfying demand will benefit us all when most of the world’s entire population is vaccinated because none of us will be safe from the virus and the threat of new variants until then. This is also a major incentive to vaccine patent owners—for example, BioNTech whose business model is in technology transfer, licensing and collaboration with downstream partners—to scale up that further. Fair reward for such efforts will enable licensors to justify up-front commitments and investments required in providing that support.

Patents encourage R&D investment and licensing-based horizontal business models

While the debate about whether patents stimulate or impede R&D investment and innovation continues among those with strong vested interests on either side, research including empirical data over many decades indicates that strong patent rights are particularly important to small, non-vertically integrated firms like BioNTech. A recently recorded LeadershIP seminar publicly available online illustrates this by featuring academic Jonathan Barnett’s new book on the subject entitled Innovators, Firms and Markets: The Organizational Logic of Intellectual Property. The session also includes remarks from others including entrepreneur and venture capitalist Greg Raleigh on the importance of patents to small companies such as BioNTech in biotechnology being able to raise investment capital to fund R&D.

The first-to-market and highly efficacious BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is a stellar example of how the patent system works. In absence of strong patent protection companies like BioNTech would not exist. Not only did patents incentivise venture capitalists to make large and risky investments ahead of BioNTech’s technology commercialisation prospects, patents also enabled the firm to partner Pfizer, with its wide gamut of complementary resources required to collaboratively complete R&D and bring the vaccine through clinical trials to production and distribution. The partnership’s rapid delivery of Covid-19 vaccine is a huge technical, commercial and humanitarian success story.

Vaccine costs including patent fees are small versus economic costs of pandemics

The Covid-19 epidemic has cost several trillion dollars in the $88 trillion global economy—given a projected economic decline of 5.2 percent in 2020 versus growth of 2.3 percent in 2019. Patent licensing fees pale in comparison to this given that the entire cost of doses has averaged approximately $20 each. In comparison, I recently spent more than $100 on a Covid-19 PCR test and anticipate having to do that several more times in coming months. With competition among many different clinically approved vaccine technologies and suppliers including the highly effective, safe and easy to distribute Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine priced at around $5 per dose already, existing free market commercial pressures on licensing charges—including patent royalties and for transfers of other intellectual property—are substantial.  With around 1.3 billion total doses of Covid-19 vaccines administered worldwide so far, at that price, vaccinating the rest of the world’s entire 7.8 million population with two doses would cost around $70 billion.

Other people’s money and redistribution of wealth

While, as Tai said recently, "This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures", this is not the first and it will not be the last global health crisis. President Biden plans to spend $3 trillion in government borrowings and tax receipts with various programmes including construction in response to the economic harm from the pandemic. An opportunistic raid on patent owners would also redistribute wealth to intermediaries such as manufacturers, but the world needs ongoing technical developments from large and small, young and old companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry to deal with new variants of Covid-19 and other new pathogens that will surely emerge. There is abundant economic justification not to undermine the valuable long-term gains the patenting and licensing system is providing. As well as rewarding existing patent holders, availability of such potential returns in “a global health crisis” will reassure and attract others to invest in additional R&D. While this pandemic is terrible with around 3.3 million deaths worldwide already, the next one could be even worse given that the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic killed 50 million people. We need to be as well prepared as we possibly can for whatever might ensue.

The Proposed U.S. Endless Frontier Act -- An Excellent Idea!

This is an excellent idea—and with bipartisan support!  Over US $100 billion for innovation.  It would benefit from additional funding and this is the time to do it. Love the title! The press release follows. 

April 21, 2021

Washington, D.C.— Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), and Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) today reintroduced the bipartisan Endless Frontier Act. The bill is a bold initiative to advance and solidify the United States’ leadership in scientific and technological innovation through increased investments in the discovery, creation, and manufacturing of technology critical to U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. The bipartisan legislation further targets support to ensure new research investments translate into American industries and manufacturing and high-tech jobs in regions across the country to become global centers of emerging technology.

In addition to Senators Schumer and Young and Representatives Khanna and Gallagher, the Endless Frontier Act is cosponsored in the Senate by Senators Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Chris Coons (D-DE), Rob Portman (R-OH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Gary Peters (D-MI), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Steve Daines (R-MT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mitt Romney (R-UT), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ). The bill is cosponsored in the House by Representatives Susan Wild (D-PA), Mike Turner (R-OH), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ).

“I am proud to reintroduce the bold, bipartisan and bicameral Endless Frontier Act today with Senator Todd Young and Representatives Ro Khanna and Mike Gallagher to address several dangerous weak spots in America’s economic and national security that threaten our global technological leadership,” said Majority Leader Schumer. “This legislation will enhance American competitiveness with China and other countries by investing in American innovation, building up regions across the country to lead in the innovation economy, creating good-paying American manufacturing and high-tech jobs, and strengthening America’s research, development, and manufacturing capabilities. The Endless Frontier Act is the key to preserving America’s position on the world stage as a current and future technological leader in the 21^st Century. In the coming weeks, the Senate will turn to this legislation and other pieces of bipartisan China related legislation to ensure that the U.S. Government’s hand at home and abroad is as strong as possible as we compete with China on all fronts.”

“We face a pivotal time in history. Right now, the Chinese Communist Party is emphasizing to the world that the United States is a divided nation. This is a rare opportunity to show the authoritarians in Beijing, and the rest of the world, that when it comes to our national security, and most importantly our China policy, we are united. The Endless Frontier Act is our path forward. I’ve worked with my colleagues to ensure the Endless Frontier Act will help invest in innovative small businesses that create jobs, invest in critical emerging technologies, and put America in a position to outgrow, out-innovate, and out-compete our leading geopolitical foe,” said Senator Young.

“The era of endless wars is coming to a close and, in its place, we are set to embark upon a 21st century full of mass investment in scientific discovery & technological innovation,” said Representative Khanna. “This bicameral, bipartisan legislation is the first step on making that future a reality for our country. Grateful for Majority Leader Schumer’s leadership, as well as the partnership of Sen. Young & Rep. Gallagher, as we bring together the innovations of Silicon Valley, the fortitude of the American Midwest, and the wealth of the Empire State under one proposal. President Biden is in an ideal position to sign the Endless Frontiers Act & make it a pillar of efforts to revive our post-COVID economy. We must win the technology race.”

“While America has long been the global leader in science and technology, our superiority is at risk. The Chinese Communist Party has used decades of intellectual property theft and industrial espionage to close this technological-gap in a way that threatens not only our economic security, but our also our way of life,” said Representative Gallagher. “Just as we did at the outset of the Cold War, we have to substantially increase federal investment in technologies essential for our national survival. This bill makes a down payment on our national leadership and will translate into new American companies, manufacturing and high-tech jobs, and opportunities for the regions across the country – most importantly the Midwest – to become a global center of emerging industry--all while ensuring that America, and not the Chinese Communist Party, dominates the critical technologies of the future.”

The Endless Frontier Act bill text can be found HERE and a summary can be found HERE.

Additional Background on the Bipartisan Endless Frontier Act

Today, the United States’ position as the unequivocal global leader in scientific and technological ingenuity and innovation is under pressure from China and is eroding. U.S. competitiveness and national security are being threatened by decades of U.S. underinvestment in research, manufacturing, and workforce development, coupled with foreign competitors stealing American intellectual property and aggressively investing to dominate the key technology fields of today and of the future.

The Endless Frontier Act will reinvigorate the U.S. innovation economy, support research and development throughout the country, help lead to the creation of new jobs of the future here in America, and keep the U.S. economically competitive against China and other countries. The members of Congress emphasize that without a significant and sustained increase in investment in research, education and training, technology transfer and entrepreneurship, manufacturing, and the broader U.S. innovation ecosystem across the nation, it is only a matter of time before America’s global competitors overtake the U.S. in terms of technological primacy, threatening national security and prosperity.

Specifically, the Endless Frontier Act proposes an expansion of the National Science Foundation (NSF) with the establishment of a new Technology and Innovation Directorate within NSF to advance research and development in 10 key technology focus areas, including artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum computing, advanced communications, biotechnology, and advanced energy.

The newly-established Technology and Innovation Directorate would receive $100 billion over five years to invest in basic and advanced research, commercialization, and education and training programs in technology areas critical to national leadership. An additional $10 billion would be authorized at the Department of Commerce to support regional technology strategies and to designate at least 10 regional technology hubs, awarding funds for comprehensive investment initiatives that position regions across the country as global centers for the research, development, entrepreneurship, and manufacturing of new key technologies.

The Endless Frontier Act also establishes a new Supply Chain Resiliency and Crisis Response Program with the national security mission of strengthening critical technology supply chains in the U.S. and with global allies and partners. Additionally, the bill invests in U.S. manufacturing innovation and competitiveness with over $2.4 billion in funding to enhance and expand the Manufacturing USA network to ensure global leadership in the manufacturing of key technologies. To support the country’s national security capabilities, the bill mandates a strategy on national competitiveness and ingenuity in science, research, and manufacturing to support the national security strategy.

US DOJ Antitrust Division Releases Review Letter Concerning University Patent Pool

The United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, (DOJ) has recently released a statement concerning the potential anticompetitive impact of a patent pool involving universities concerning patents involving “autonomous vehicles, the “Internet of Things,” and “Big Data.”  The DOJ finds that the pool is “unlikely to harm competition.”  The Press Release states:

The Justice  Department’s Antitrust Division announced today that it has completed its review of a proposed joint patent licensing pool known as the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP).  UTLP is a proposal by participating universities to offer licenses to their physical science patents relating to specified emerging technologies.

As part of its review, the division interviewed potential participants and considered its prior guidance on patent pools.  The department has concluded that, on balance, and based on the representations in UTLP’s letter request, the proposed joint patent licensing program is unlikely to harm competition. 

“University research is a key driver of innovation,” said Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Murray for the Antitrust Division.  “In the physical science area, however, some university research may never be commercialized due to the costs associated with negotiating multiple licenses and combining the complementary university patents that may be necessary for cutting-edge implementations.  To the extent that UTLP makes it easier for universities to commercialize inventions that may be currently unlicensed and under-utilized, industry participants, university researchers, and ultimately the public can benefit.” 

Currently 15 participating universities intend to cooperate in licensing certain complementary patents through UTLP, which will be organized into curated portfolios relating to specific technology applications for autonomous vehicles, the “Internet of Things,” and “Big Data.”  The overarching goal of UTLP is to centralize the administrative costs associated with commercializing university research and help participating universities to overcome the budget, institutional relationship, and other constraints that make licensing in these areas particularly challenging for them. 

UTLP has incorporated a number of safeguards into its program to help protect competition, including admitting only non-substitutable patents, with a “safety valve” if a patent to accomplish a particular task is inadvertently included in a portfolio with another, substitutable patent.  The program also will allow potential sublicensees to choose an individual patent, a group of patents, or UTLP’s entire portfolio, thereby mitigating the risk that a licensee will be required to license more technology than it needs.  The department’s letter notes that UTLP is a mechanism that is intended to address licensing inefficiencies and institutional challenges unique to universities in the physical science context, and makes no assessment about whether this mechanism if set up in another context would have similar procompetitive benefits.

Under the Department of Justice’s business review procedure, an organization may submit a proposed action to the Antitrust Division and receive a statement as to whether the Antitrust Division currently intends to challenge the action under the antitrust laws based on the information provided.  The department’s conclusions in this business review apply only to UTLP.  They are not applicable to any other agreements or initiatives relating to patent licensing by universities or other entities.  The department reserves the right to challenge the proposed action under the antitrust laws if the actual operation of the proposed conduct proves to be anticompetitive in purpose or effect.

Copies of the business review request and the department’s response are available on the Antitrust Division’s website at https://www.justice.gov/atr/business-review-letters-and-request-letters, as well as in a file maintained by the Antitrust Documents Group of the Antitrust Division. 

The DOJ Business Review Letter is available, here.  The universities' request letter for review is available, here.  

University of Michigan Spin-off Company Develops Covid-19 Test

A University of Michigan spin-off company has developed a promising Covid-19 antibody test.  The press release states: 

ANN ARBOR—COVID-19 antibody testing that’s portable, fast, cheap and highly precise—four attributes that are usually mutually exclusive—could be possible with a microfluidic device invented at the University of Michigan and developed by U-M startup Optofluidic Bioassay.

A microfluidic device, or “lab on a chip,” shrinks multiple lab functions onto a single chip just millimeters or centimeters in size. The technology enables faster results with smaller sample sizes.

The new system is believed to be the first microfluidic approach to a gold standard testing protocol known as “enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” or ELISA. The U-M researchers have previously published results showing that their device can work as well as the slower, larger, standard ELISA setup. They are currently validating it for use on COVID-19 antibodies.

They have demonstrated that they can detect synthetic COVID-19 antibodies and they’re working with researchers at a hospital in New Jersey on experiments with human blood from COVID-19 patients.

University and industry labs around the U.S. are clambering to develop better antibody tests. The U-M approach is different in that it centers on a device, rather than the chemical mixtures, or reagents, to detect COVID-19 markers.

“We are unique because we are a hardware company,” said Xudong (Sherman) Fan, U-M biomedical engineering professor and co-founder of Optofluidic Bioassay. “Anyone working on COVID-19 antibody tests can use their reagents in our device.”

Why we need antibody tests

Rapid and accurate antibody tests could play an important role as governments, medical workers, scientists and private citizens alike continue to navigate the pandemic, the researchers say. Antibody tests can reveal who has already been exposed to the virus and developed immunity, at least temporarily, and can safely go back to work. If done in a widespread way, they could show the true scale of the pandemic and its death rate.

And the U-M researchers say their particular approach could give doctors critical, near-real-time insights into how a patient is responding to treatment, or a vaccine once one is developed.

Small-scale antibody testing has been done in some countries. Research projects are underway in the U.S. and while kits are beginning to materialize on the market here, they’re not yet widely available.

Antibody, or “serology” tests are different from the “PCR” tests being used to diagnose COVID-19. Rather than screen for the virus itself, serology tests detect antibodies—proteins the immune system manufactures to fight it.

Microfluidic ELISA in the landscape of COVID-19 antibody tests

The majority of labs working on serology kits are making a particular type called “rapid diagnostic tests” that give a yes or no reading. These are quick, but they have drawbacks. False positives can be a problem. And because they don’t give a lot of information, they aren’t useful in monitoring the immune system’s response during treatment.

A handful of labs are making ELISA tests. These are typically quantitative and accurate, showing the concentration of antibodies. That makes them more reliable and less prone to false positives than the rapid diagnostic tests. But standard ELISA results take several hours, and the machines that provide them are the size of refrigerators. In addition, the sample needs to be sent to the test lab for analysis.

But microfluidic ELISA can give a quantitative and accurate result in just 15 minutes, with a finger-prick’s worth of blood. This combination of attributes, plus the fact that it’s portable, could make it a powerful tool.

“Our approach offers the best of both worlds. We can achieve the quickness and simplicity of the rapid diagnostic test with the accuracy of the standard ELISA quantitative measure,” Fan said.

“Because our device generates such sensitive and quantitative measurements, we believe its use goes beyond identifying recovered patients. Antibodies begin to show up a few days after infection, so we could use this approach to monitor patients’ immune response to infection, treatment and vaccination.”

The microfluidic ELISA is rapid, portable and low cost.

“The estimated cost of testing is a few dollars per test of two to three different antibodies, making this a very viable option for use in hospitals, doctors’ offices, field clinics and potentially even pharmacies,” said Xiaotian Tan, a doctoral student in biomedical engineering who is working on COVID-19 antibody testing with Fan.

The machine can be the size of a microwave, and can test multiple simultaneous samples of little more than a drop of blood from a fingertip in less than 20 minutes.

It was invented at U-M several years ago and developed by Optofluidic Bioassay, which was founded by Fan and former research investigator of biomedical engineering, Maung (Malcolm) Khaing Oo, who now serves as the company’’ chief technology officer. Fan and Maung Khaing Oo are co-founders of and have an equity interest in Optofluidic Bioassay. The researchers plan to eventually apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

Extra Protection for the Bayh-Dole Act Needed in the United States?

Bayh-Dole 40 is a new coalition of supporters of the landmark legislation concerning technology transfer—the Bayh-Dole Act.  The Bayh-Dole 40 has an attractive website with information concerning the history of the Act and its impact.  The press release states: 

Today, a diverse group of research and scientific organizations, as well as those directly involved in commercializing new products, launched Bayh-Dole 40, a coalition that will celebrate and protect the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, better known as the “Bayh-Dole Act.”

The Bayh-Dole Act has empowered universities, small businesses, and nonprofits that have received federal grants to retain ownership of any patented inventions — and license those patents to private firms, who then turn promising ideas into real-life products that improve peoples’ lives. Thanks to Bayh-Dole, the public and private sectors have worked together to translate basic scientific research into life-saving drugs and medical devices, internet and GPS technologies, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, and countless other innovations.

“Bayh-Dole made the United States the engine of global innovation,” said Bayh-Dole 40 founder and executive director Joseph Allen, who helped enact the law as a member of Senator Birch Bayh’s U.S. Senate Judiciary staff. “The Act reinvigorated research and development in America, spawning breakthrough discoveries ranging from high-yield crops to advanced medicines.”

Thanks to Bayh-Dole, over 200 new therapies — including drugs and vaccines — have been created since 1980. The legislation has also bolstered U.S. economic output by $1.3 trillion, supported 4.2 million jobs, and led to more than 11,000 start-up companies.

Bayh-Dole 40’s founding members include AUTM, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BioHealth Innovation, Council on Governmental Relations, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Licensing Executives Society, and PhRMA, spanning the entire U.S. innovation ecosystem. The coalition will educate lawmakers to ensure the Act is utilized in the way Senators Birch Bayh and Bob Dole envisioned.

“Misusing Bayh-Dole to undermine the existing framework for public-private technology transfer and development, as some lawmakers are suggesting, would jeopardize the future of U.S. life-sciences innovation,” said Stephen Ezell, Vice President of Global Innovation Policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “We look forward to engaging Congress on these issues to ensure the United States remains a life-sciences R&D powerhouse.”

About Bayh-Dole 40: Bayh-Dole 40 is a coalition of research and scientific organizations, as well as those directly involved in commercializing new products, dedicated to celebrating and protecting the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, better known as the “Bayh-Dole Act.” The coalition was formed to educate policymakers about Bayh-Dole’s positive impact on medical innovation and defend the Act against imminent threats during its 40th anniversary year.

Bayh-Dole 40’s members include the Association of University Research Parks, AUTM, BIOCOM, BioHealth Innovation, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, California Life Sciences Association (CLSA), Columbia Technology Ventures (CTV), Council on Competitiveness, Council on Governmental Relations, Fuentek, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, IPWatchdog, Lehigh University Office of Economic Engagement, Licensing Executives Society (LES), Licensing Executives Society (LES) Silicon Valley Chapter, National Venture Capital Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Pristine Surgical, STC.UNM, the IDEA Center at the University of Notre Dame, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the Yale Office of Cooperative Research.

It is interesting that the existence of the coalition is necessary to protect the Bayh-Dole Act.  There is some polling to support that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders could defeat President Trump in an election, but I wonder if anyone really believes that polling (besides Sanders supporters) after the results of the last Presidential election. Maybe the concern will be what happens in the election after this one.  

New Study Finds Tremendous Economic Impact of US Department of Defense Licensing Program

TechLink--University of Montana, Bozeman; and Business Research Division, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado have released an impressive report, National Economic Impacts of DoD Licensing Agreements with U.S. Industry (Report), concerning U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) licensing.  TechLink serves as a tech transfer partnership arm of the DoD.  The Report is particularly impressive because of the response rate of surveyed DoD licensees—apparently 95% out of 915 companies with over a 1,000 agreements, and covers the years 2000 to 2017.  Some of the important findings from the Report, include: 

•             $27 billion in total sales of new products and services resulting from the DoD license agreements

•             $4.5 billion in sales of new products to the U.S. military

•             $58 billion in total economic impact nationwide

•             $6 billion in new tax revenues (federal, state, and local)

•             214,791 jobs (11,933 per year) with average compensation of $74,762

Interestingly, about 43% of the over 1,000 agreements resulted in sales in new products and services.  Fifty-three percent had no sales.  The difference in statistics is because some where designated “unknown” and 1% generated sales only outside the United States.  One license agreement resulted in $16.1 billion in sales (Wow).  That agreement concerned an antibody: 

The antibody is used in a top-selling drug, Synagis, to prevent serious lower respiratory tract disease in infants and young children. Without this top-selling drug, commercial sales were just under $4.5 billion and total sales were just under $10.9 billion.

The remaining sales were distributed relatively widely amongst agreements: 

Twenty agreements generated more than $100 million in sales; however, 101 agreements had sales of at least $10 million. Notably, 233 license agreements, approximately 20 percent, generated sales of at least $1 million.

Sales to the U.S. Military were about 42% of the total sales when Synagis sales are excluded.  


Another fascinating statistic is that 82% of the licenses generating sales were to entities that would be characterized as small businesses by the Small Business Administration (basically less than 500 employees).  And, 47% of the 82% are companies with nine or fewer employees.  


Additional economic impact also included: 

[Companies] reported approximately $776 million in total outside investment funding (including venture capital and angel funding) directly related to the licensed DoD technologies. In addition, 25 companies were acquired primarily because of their DoD license agreements. Companies reported that they had sublicensed 64 technologies to other companies. Finally, they reported that they had created a total of 144 new companies to commercialize the licensed inventions, including 23 spin-outs of existing companies and 121 start-up companies.

[Hat Tip to Technology Transfer Central]

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Green Paper on Improving Technology Transfer

The U.S. National Institutes of Standards and Technology has released its Final Green Paper on its Return on Investment: Unleashing American Innovation Project.  Essentially, the ROI project is intended to ensure that the United States receives an improved return on investment with respect to public funding for research and development.  The Green Paper includes stakeholder data identifying potential issues as well as proposals to improve the technology transfer process.  For example, the Green Paper on stakeholder data states:

Return on Investment Initiative – Summary of NIST’s Findings Based on Input from Stakeholders

Strategy 1 Identify regulatory impediments and administrative improvements in  Federal technology transfer policies and practices

Government Use License: According to stakeholders, the scope of the “government use license” is not well defined

March-In Rights: According to stakeholders, the circumstances under which the government may appropriately exercise march-in rights to license further development of an invention to achieve practical application are not clear

Preference for U.S. Manufacturing: According to stakeholders, existing statute supports the preference for U.S. manufacturing but the process to obtain a waiver is confusing 

Copyright of Software: According to stakeholders, the “Government Works” exception to copyright protection for software products of Federal R&D at Government-Owned, Government-Operated Laboratories constrains commercialization

Proprietary Information: According to stakeholders, an expanded protection period for proprietary information under a Cooperative R&D Agreement would encourage greater collaboration with Federal Laboratories Strengthen Technology Transfer at Federal Laboratories: According to stakeholders, updates to policies and practices under the Stevenson-Wydler Act could be simplified

Presumption of Government Rights to Employee Inventions: According to stakeholders, the process to determine a present assignment of invention rights by Federal employees to the Federal Government is overly burdensome

Strategy 2  Increase engagement with private sector technology development experts and investors

Streamlined Partnership Mechanisms: According to stakeholders, improved clarity and use of best practices government wide would streamline agreements and ensure greater transparency for R&D partners 

Expanded Partnership Mechanisms: According to stakeholders, private sector investment for translational R&D and technology maturation could be increased through expanded partnership agreements and nonprofit foundations

Technology Commercialization Incentives: According to stakeholders, recipients of Federal funding could benefit from a limited use of R&D funding awards to enable intellectual property protection 

Strategy 3 Build a more entrepreneurial R&D workforce

Technology Entrepreneurship Programs: According to stakeholders, expanding technology entrepreneurship programs at Federal R&D agencies government-wide will help build a more entrepreneurial workforce

Managing Conflicts of Interest: According to stakeholders, current requirements for managing conflicts of interest pose challenges to build a more entrepreneurial R&D workforce Strategy

Strategy 4 Support innovative tools and services for technology transfer

Federal IP Data Reporting System(s): According to stakeholders, a secure, modern platform is not available for reporting data on intellectual property resulting from Federal R&D

Access to Federal Technologies, Knowledge, and Capabilities: According to stakeholders, a federated data portal is not available to easily access, use, and analyze information on federally funded technologies, knowledge, and capabilities that are available to the public

Strategy 5 Improve understanding of global science and technology trends and benchmarks

Benchmarking and Metrics: According to stakeholders, current metrics to capture, assess, and improve broad technology transfer outcomes and impacts based on federally funded R&D and underpinning operational processes are inadequate

The Green Paper contains discussion and findings on all of the strategies and subpoints.  For example, on the government manufacturing clause:

NIST Finding 1.  According to stakeholders, the scope of the “government use license” is not well defined. Market uncertainty is created by the lack of a clear definition of “government use” that is limited to use directly by the government—or a government contractor in the performance of an agreement with the government—for a government purpose only, including continued use in research and development by the government. The scope of the government use license should not extend to goods and services made, sold, or otherwise distributed by third parties if the government—or a government contractor in the performance of an agreement with the government—does not directly use, provide, or consume those goods and services.

On using “march in rights” as a form of price control, the Green Paper notes:

Stakeholders pointed to potential consequences from using march-in rights as a price control. These reasons include impeding the creation of new drugs and discouraging university and medical school licensees from making the substantial additional investments necessary to develop and commercialize new drug discoveries. A 2019 report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation drew similar conclusions, noting that “[m]isusing the “march-in right” provision of the Bayh-Dole Act could negatively impact U.S. life-sciences innovation and result in fewer new drugs.”67 Other responses focused on ensuring that new drugs reach the people that helped fund work through Federal basic research.

The finding on “march in rights” states:

NIST Finding 2. According to stakeholders, the circumstances under which the government may exercise march-in rights are not well-defined. Market uncertainty is created by the lack of a clear definition of the use of march-in rights that is consistent with statute, rather than as a regulatory mechanism for the Federal Government to control the market price of goods and services.  

The Green Paper also notes that stakeholders are very concerned about the inconsistent and poor approach by the Federal Government to the protection of trade secrets, which puts a damper on collaboration between the public and private sectors.  On page 121-125, there is a summary chart of strategies and findings, including an indication whether the solution should be legislation, regulation or both.  The Green Paper is available, here. 

New Collaboration Between University of California, Irvine and Beckman Coulter Diagnostics

Beckman Coulter Diagnostics and the University of California, Irvine have issued a press release announcing their new collaboration.  The press release states, in part:

"We are honored that Beckman Coulter Diagnostics has selected UCI as a strategic innovation partner," said Richard Sudek, Ph.D., chief innovation officer and executive director at UCI Applied Innovation. "This is a new type of industry collaboration which aims to significantly change how industry and universities partner together. We look forward to teaming up with Beckman Coulter to increase the speed and quality of how UCI discoveries make it to market."

"We are excited to tap into the broad expertise of UCI researchers as we focus on identifying innovative solutions to clinical unmet needs," said Fiona Adair, Ph.D., vice president of strategy and innovation at Beckman Coulter Diagnostics. "We believe this type of academic-industry partnership can lead to development of innovative diagnostic technologies to improve healthcare. UCI Applied Innovation is a place where valuable new ideas are incubated. In turn, we can provide promising students, researchers, and entrepreneurs industry-specific feedback and mentorship opportunities. We will have a Beckman Coulter office at the Cove @ UCI Applied Innovation for seamless collaboration with academic units as well as to integrate into the innovation ecosystem."

This level of collaboration is an industry model of synthesizing research, commercial expertise and clinical needs to produce beneficial results. As a first step, Beckman Coulter will fund Proof of Product grants to help UCI innovations bridge the gap between the lab and early commercialization. Through these grants, Beckman Coulter will determine a specific focus area for university entrepreneurial teams. 

Additionally, Beckman Coulter will also seek eligible UCI graduate students to enter its competitive talent onboarding program, in which they'll get the opportunity to work across multiple divisions of the company. 

"The partnership with UCI represents a landmark in Beckman Coulter's strategic initiative to drive translational innovation and extend the company's leadership in clinical diagnostics." said John Blackwood, senior vice president and general manager of products and services at Beckman Coulter. "Beckman Coulter is engaging with academic partners that excel in applying the latest technology to develop superior solutions for better patient outcomes. UCI maintains an ecosystem of innovation that facilitates academic-industry partnerships and we are excited about the opportunity to leverage UCI's research expertise for the benefit of patients around the world."

Hat tip to Technology Transfer Central. 

US Department of Energy Online Laboratory Partnering Service

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has released a new Lab Partnering Service that allows review of patents for licensing from 17 national DOE laboratories.  The Lab Partnering Service website states:

The Laboratory Partnering Service ("LPS") is a suite of online applications enabling access to leading experts, projects, and patents from across the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the national laboratories. It delivers a host of information to provide access to a portfolio of investment opportunities. The LPS enables rapid discovery of expertise and serves as a conduit between the investor and the innovator by providing multi-faceted search capability across numerous technology areas and across the national laboratories.

• Expert Search

The Expert Search provides customers a direct conduit to experts from the DOE’s national laboratories. This categorized list is a selection of lab-identified leading experts across several "hot" technology areas with ability to further refine the list of the experts by sub-specialty.

• Technical Summaries

The Technical Summaries provide information about the numerous technologies associated patents, patent applications, and publications from DOE’s national laboratories and other participating research institutions available for licensing.

• Visual Patent Search

This search tool enables a unique, visually-facilitated search of the patent content contained in the Lab Partnering Service. This patent content contains published US patent applications and issued US patents resulting from Department of Energy funded R&D.

The Visual Patent Search tool was created using two powerful technologies developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the IN-SPIRE™ Visual Document Analysis and the Scalable Reasoning System (SRS). Using these analysis tools, a tiered patent categorization system was created from the "bottom up", enabling Lab Partnering Service to develop a unique way of searching DOE-patents beyond a simple key word search.

The DOE also offers the Energy Innovation Portal, which concerns access to energy efficient and renewable energy DOE funded patents for licensing.  [Hat Tip to Technology Transfer Central.]  

Another Case of Pharma Weakening the Patent System (and University Technology Transfer)

The LA Times recently published an article, "UCLA’s Efforts to Patent a Costly Patent Cancer Drug in India Hurts the Poor, Critics Say,” concerning Pfizer’s drug, Xtandi.  Xtandi, which is used to treat prostate cancer, was developed (with U.S. government funding) and licensed out by University of California, Los Angeles.  Recently, in a royalty securitization deal, UCLA received more than $500 million in exchange for future royalty rights from Royalty Pharma.  Notably, UCLA is now seeking patent rights for Xtandi in India, which it states it has a contractual obligation to do.  The article states:

“What’s special about this case is the fact that the University of California is going against their own licensing policy by aggressively seeking a patent in India on this drug,” KEI Director James Love said.

That policy, as UCLA summarized in a statement to The Times, is “intended to facilitate all populations having access to medications and other products and services made possible by UCLA innovation.”

But UCLA also noted the “concerns about prescription drug pricing” among the activists and others and said it was willing to explore the problem further.

The school said “we are convening a working group to evaluate our approach to technology licensing in ways that benefit California, the nation and the developing world” while also continuing to give drug companies enough incentive to commercialize its discoveries, just as Medivation did with Xtandi.

In the meantime, the activists contend that a daily dose of Xtandi is selling in India for roughly 40 times a person’s daily income in that nation, which they called “excessive and shamefully unaffordable.”

Notably, the University of California is a signatory to the In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology White Paper.  Point 9 of the White Paper states:

Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such as those of neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving particular attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agricultural technologies for the developing world

Universities have a social compact with society.  As educational and research institutions, it is our responsibility to generate and transmit knowledge, both to our students and the wider society.  We have a specific and central role in helping to advance knowledge in many fields and to manage the deployment of resulting innovations for the public benefit. In no field is the importance of doing so clearer than it is in medicine.  

Around the world millions of people are suffering and dying from preventable or curable diseases.  The failure to prevent or treat disease has many causes. We have a responsibility to try to alleviate it, including finding a way to share the fruits of what we learn globally, at sustainable and affordable prices, for the benefit of the world’s poor. There is an increased awareness that responsible licensing includes consideration of the needs of people in developing countries and members of other underserved populations.

The details involved in any agreement provisions attempting to address this issue are complex and will require expert planning and careful negotiation.   The application will vary in different contexts.  The principle, however, is simple.  Universities should strive to construct licensing arrangements in ways that ensure that these underprivileged populations have low- or no-cost access to adequate quantities of these medical innovations. 

We recognize that licensing initiatives cannot solve the problem by themselves.  Licensing techniques alone, without significant added funding, can, at most, enhance access to medicines for which there is demand in wealthier countries.   Diseases that afflict only the global poor have long suffered from lack of investment in research and development: the prospects of profit do not exist to draw commercial development, and public funding for diseases suffered by those who live far away from nations that can afford it is difficult to obtain and sustain. Through thoughtful management and licensing of intellectual property, however, drugs, therapies, and agricultural technologies developed at universities can at least help to alleviate suffering from disease or hunger in historically marginalized population groups.

This appears to be another case of a company making a decision based on pricing that will likely undermine confidence in the patent system, particularly undermining technology transfer from universities.  Universities should exercise care in licensing to ensure that they have the final word on enforcement as well as patenting in other countries (see follow-up patenting noted by Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette).  Let’s not kill the "golden goose."  Perhaps UCLA can use part of the $500 million for a fund for people who need access to the drug in India. 

Gaming IP: Smart or Damaging the Entire System

Here is an interesting case of gaming the IP system.  I believe this type of tactic hurts the IP system as whole even if we may disagree about the need for reforms. 

The New York Times has an informative article titled, “How to Protect a Drug Patent?  Give It to a Native American Tribe.”  The article describes how Allergen, the pharmaceutical company:

will pay the [Native American] tribe $13.75 million. In exchange, the tribe will claim sovereign immunity as grounds to dismiss a patent challenge through a unit of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The tribe will lease the patents back to Allergan, and will receive $15 million in annual royalties as long as the patents remain valid.

As discussed in the article, this is apparently a strategy to protect the patents from Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  As discussed in other posts, public universities have successfully claimed sovereign immunity under the 11^th amendment of the U.S. Constitution from IPR Proceedings.  I doubt this strategy will last long.  I can understand how Allergen may think this may play well with the public because Native American tribes will receive much needed funding, but really?  This looks very bad.  Of course, folks are going to start asking what that funding is being used for.  

Trump Administration Suspends Program for Visas for Entrepreneurs

The Trump Administration suspended an Obama Administration program about to go in effect that would provide visas to entrepreneur immigrants.  According to the Wharton School of Business, the program would help create jobs in the United States and had little downside.  The program is apparently similar to others created in Canada, France and Argentina.  Notably, the Trump Administration is supporting new legislation to radically reform the immigration system in the United States by moving to a supposed “merit” based system designed to reduce immigration by 50%.  The Wharton School of Business states:

Immigrants make up about 12% of the U.S. working population, [Hsu] added. Among STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) workers, immigrants make up 24% of bachelors and 47% of doctorates, he continued. “So [immigrant entrepreneurs] are punching above their weight in the talent pool for the workforce that we desire in the U.S.,” he said. He pointed to one much-cited statistic: foreign-born entrepreneurs make up about half the founders in the so-called “billion dollar club” of startups that are worth at least a billion dollars each. 

In an Op-Ed in Crain’s New York Business, Orin Herskowitz, the Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer of Columbia University and President of Columbia Technology Ventures, states that:

The rule, one of President Barack Obama’s final acts in office, provides so-called “startup visas” long sought by Silicon Valley. It is narrow, allowing foreign entrepreneurs to live in the United States for 30 months while building their companies. To qualify, applicants must show that they have reputable investment in their company of no less than $250,000 and the potential for a positive impact on economic growth and job creation. The rule has now been delayed until next March, and the Department of Homeland Security has given notice that the administration will propose rescinding the program before then. . . .

There are other storm clouds on the horizon. The president’s proposed budget reduces funding for basic science. And the legal playing field is beginning to tilt against innovators, most dramatically through a retreat from the respect for patent protection recognized by our Constitution more than two centuries ago as a bulwark of our economy. The former director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos, points out that a series of court decisions have rendered many biotech and software inventions un-patentable or at best uncertain in the U.S., causing the abandonment of promising research, or the repositioning of that research overseas to China, where affirmative steps have been taken to strengthen patent protection.

[Hat tip to Technology Transfer Central for the lead to the articles.] 

Top 100 Universities Granted US Utility Patents in 2016

The National Academy of Inventors and the Intellectual Property Owners Association has released a list of the top 100 universities granted U.S. utility patents.  The top 10 of the list includes: 1) The Regents of the University of California: 505 patents; 2) MIT: 278; 3) Stanford: 244; 4) Cal Tech: 201; 5) Tsinghua University/Graduate School at Shenzen: 181; 6) Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation: 168; 7) John Hopkins: 167; 8) University of Texas: 162; 9) University of Michigan: 142; and 10) Columbia University: 118.  The top 10 non-US universities include: 1) Tsinghua University/Graduate School at Shenzen; 2) Korea Institute of Science and Technology; 3) King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals; 4) National Tsinghua University; 5) Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology; 6) National Taiwan University/National Taiwan University Hospital; 7) King Saud University; 8) Industry and Academic Cooperation at Yonsei University; 9) Ramot and Tel Aviv University; and 10) National Chiao Tung University.  On the overall top 100 list, National Chiao Tung University has 53 patents and is ranked 44.  Interestingly at least 31 universities (or university foundations) are non-US based.  Also, the first European institution on the list appears to be École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne ranked at 59 with 42 patents.  Cambridge Enterprise LTD is ranked at 97 with 25 patents.  Some of the Japanese institutions include University of Tokyo ranked at 69 and Kyoto University at 72.  At least eight of the top 100 are in South Korea and only two appear to be in Europe. [Hat tip to Technology Transfer Central].  

Legislation Introduced in Maryland to Restrict University Licensing: The Future?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has started a program called Reclaim Invention.  The premise of the program is to ensure that universities, particularly public universities, are not licensing patents to so-called patent trolls.  There are basically two prongs to the effort: 1) mobilizing people involved with universities to pressure universities to sign a patent pledge—essentially volunteering to engage in certain conduct concerning university inventions and licensing; 2) pushing state legislatures to adopt legislation restricting universities licensing practices.  The EFF’s proposed legislation includes the following two thrusts:

First, it requires university technology transfer offices to adopt a policy committing them to manage patent assets in the public interest. University policy should include:

• researching the past practices of potential patent buyers or licensees;
• prioritizing technology transfer that develops inventions and scales their potential user base;
• endeavoring to nurture startups that will create new jobs, products, and services;
• fostering agreements and relationships that include the sharing of know-how and practical experience to maximize the value of the assignment or license of the corresponding patents.

The second part of the legislation voids any agreement to license or transfer a patent to a patent assertion entity. [emphasis added]

The EFF’s program is based on research by Professor Robin Feldman concerning Intellectual Ventures relationship with universities. 

Notably, legislation taking the EFF approach has been introduced in the state of Maryland.  So far, the status line on the Maryland legislature webpage states: "In the House -- Unfavorable Report from Appropriations -- Withdrawn." Notably, the synopsis of the bill states that it conditions student financial assistance and research funding from the state on adopting the policy.  It will be interesting to see if the legislation (or some modified form of it) passes.  For a critique of the EFF’s approach, please see this article in Forbes by noted property rights scholar Richard Epstein. 

Milken Institute: Best Universities for Technology Transfer

The Milken Institute has released a report on April 20, 2017, titled, “Concept to Commercialization: The Best Universities for Technology Transfer.”   The Report’s Executive Summary states some conclusions concerning technology transfer and then includes recommendations based on its findings.  The Report states:

Universities that succeed at technology transfer and commercialization include both public and private universities. They are spread across the country; 13 of the top 25 universities are based in red states, all are in major metropolitan areas, and all range in size. These universities can be leveraged to boost and spread middle class job creation in their home states. While innovation is not confined to blue states, blue states have been more successful in leveraging university research for economic benefit.

University research funding can support the creation of both middle- and high-skill industry jobs through innovation, commercialization, and technology transfer. As products and services are created and licensed, there are a myriad of multiplier impacts felt across the economy.

Universities are a source of competitive advantage; they create a skilled workforce and through R&D and tech-transfer help create new technologies and new industries.

Universities that lead the Milken Institute’s University Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index actively promote tech-transfer, allowing other universities to learn from their strategies. The below articulates the Milken Institute’s recommendations based on our recent findings:

•             maintain basic scientific research funding. Basic research provides long term economic benefits by allowing universities to take on research that has a low probability of quick commercial success, but potential to deliver a high reward and to create whole new industries.

•             incentivize technology transfer through a new federal commercialization fund. The federal government should increase research funding under a special commercialization pool. Universities demonstrating greater commercialization success in the market should receive higher funding in this program.

•             increase technology transfer capacity through federal matching grants. The federal government should commence a matching grant program with states to fund an increase in staff and resources in TTOs. Higher rates of academic entrepreneurship are essential to reviving declining startup rates and productivity across the economy. New firms have higher productivity as they are at the cutting edge of technology.

•             increase technology transfer efficiency by adopting best practices. At the state level, policies should be implemented that incentivize the adoption of best practices in commercialization at public universities, including TTOs. Efficiency gaps between universities outside of the top 25 in our Technology Transfer and Commercialization Index should be narrowed.

The Report ranks 225 universities and is available, here.  The Report specifically describes the attributes of some successful universities and includes a case study on life sciences.  [Hat Tip to Glen Gardner]