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.  

CNIPA Touts Patent Commercialization and Finance Activity at Universities

On August 3, 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published a press release (in English also) titled, “Patent Commercialization Activities at Universities Sky Rocket in Past Decade.”  The press release points to a significant increase in grant rate of patents to Chinese universities as well as licensing activity.  Notably, the press release states that the monetary value went up from 820 million Yuan to over 8.8 billion Yuan.  The press release discusses a patent licensing program amongst Chinese universities and with SMEs that appears to mandate publishing licensing agreements.  Professor Mark Allen Cohen, a distinguished fellow, lecturer and director of the Asia IP Project at UC Berkeley Law, has an excellent post on interpreting China's patent data, here.  The press release states:

Under the circular, to promote stable implementation and efficient operation, CNIPA has convened special sessions to deploy implementation of patent open licensing and has allocated two detailed schemes to its own departments and local IP authorities respectively, with an aim to mobilize over 100 colleges to participate a pilot program and eventually involve over 1,000 patents as of the end of 2022, and endeavour to improve the efficiency of patent commercialization. Currently, 13 provinces have issued accompanying plans for the pilot program, six of which have looped in 77 universities to cull and publish open licenses for 3,375 patents that were pushed to 19,000 micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with matching need, leading to conclusion of 587 licensing agreements.

"Next, CNIPA will publish the recorded information of the concluded patent license agreements and formulate a suggested national standard on patent evaluation, giving instructions on pricing of open licensing and stimulate both the suppliers-universities and research institutes and the buyers -SMEs for a better chance of materializing the innovation findings," added the same principal.

The press release also discusses its commercialization program:

This commercialization program was launched jointly by the Ministry of Finance and CNIPA in March 2021, which inspires commercialization of college-developed patents, educates universities to polish their mechanisms in allocation of IP-generated profits; with support from University IP and technology transfer centers, Industrial IP operation centers intensively announces supplying information of patent related technologies; makes patent/technology connection between universities and state-owned enterprises and SMEs to improves their practical ability in patent commercialization. Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance and CNIPA would aid in building a green channel in the provinces that have implemented this program, about processing related patent transfer, licensing and pledging for SMEs. Patent transfer/licensing involving universities/research institutes happened 27,000 times in 2021, up 33% year-on-year, twice faster than the growth rate of all patent transfer/licensing activities while 24,000 times or 89% out of the 27,000 times were transactions made with SMEs.

The Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act to be Introduced in US Congress

U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Warren will introduce the “Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act” (Act.)  The Act would apparently halt some mergers and acquisitions during a time when many small and medium sized companies may be struggling financially.  Many commentators have already asserted that too many anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions have been approved by regulators.  The fear is that some large companies may try to take advantage of the crisis.  

Some mergers and acquisitions may result in increased innovation.  Interestingly, one provision appears to target companies with a patent relating to the COVID-19 issue.  A merger or acquisition could be necessary for commercialization.  The Press Release for the Act states, in part:

The Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act would: 

• Impose a moratorium on risky mergers and acquisitions until the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unanimously determines that small businesses, workers, and consumers are no longer under severe financial distress. The moratorium includes all mergers and acquisitions that involve:

o    Companies with over $100 million in revenue or financial institutions with over $100 million in market capitalization;

o    Private equity companies, hedge funds, or companies that are majority-owned by a private equity company or hedge fund;

o    Companies with an exclusive patent that impacts the crisis, like personal protective equipment; and

o    Transactions that must otherwise be reported to the FTC under current law.

• Pause all waiting periods and deadlines imposed on antitrust agencies during the moratorium.

• Direct the FTC to engage in rulemaking to establish a legal presumption against mergers and acquisitions that pose a risk to the government's ability to respond to a national emergency. 

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. 

Relecura Releases Internet of Things Patent Landscape Report

Relecura, the data analytics firm, has released its interesting and thorough Internet of Things – Technology Landscape and IP Commercialization Trends Report.  The report includes a helpful slide on the technology stack in IOT to understand the layers of relevant technologies necessary and another slide on hot application growth areas.  The report also includes a breakdown of key players in the space and strategy.  The patent landscape portion of the report includes the following “high level findings”:

The top patent holders are from diverse sectors like consumer electronics (Samsung, LG, Sony); telecom (Huawei, Ericsson, Korea Electronics Telecom, ZTE), and software (IBM, Microsoft).

• Qualcomm is the leading filer in multiple jurisdictions as well as PCT filings. This suggests an intention to license its technologies worldwide.

• The network layer has the highest number of patent filings and accounts for 62% of all the IoT patents. • Samsung is a key patent holder in most layers of the IoT technology stack and its patents address multiple application areas.

• IoT patent transactions per year have shown an increase after 2011.

• Patent filings related to the upper layers of the IoT stack were relatively less till 2011, but have increased significantly starting in 2012.

Helpfully, the report contains a wealth of other information including top patent holders and assignees with a breakdown by industry.  It also includes the top cited patents and the high quality patents and patent holders by Relecura’s metrics.  The report also covers patent transactions.  The report is available, here. 

New $1 Billion Singapore Fund for Commercialization and Expansion

In a recent article by Claire Huang, The Business Times has announced a $1 billion fund in Singapore designed to help a number of small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with strong intellectual property portfolios to “go global.”  The fund is a collaboration between the government of Singapore and the private equity firm Makara Capital.  The article notes:

Makara's managing director Ali Ijaz Ahmad listed five areas of focus for the fund:

• Urban solutions including logistics and security;
• Fintech;
• Alternative energy;
• Advanced tech such as artificial intelligence and cyber-security; and
• Healthcare and bio-medicine.

The companies will be selected based on criteria such as having a defensible IP, strong managerial talent and pan-Asian growth potential. They will be able to tap into Ipos's expertise and networks and Makara's commercially-driven approach to turn their innovations into assets and revenue through Singapore.

The article is available, here. 

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]

Commercialization Activities as Part of the Tenure Process for Academics

Rachel Abbey McCafferty has published an article in Crain's Cleveland Business titled, State is Pushing Universities to Bring Research to Market, on March 5, 2017.  The article outlines how the proposed Ohio state budget includes provisions concerning making commercialization activities by academics part of the tenure process.  The article notes how the purpose of the proposal is to direct academics to engage in research that may have a potential market.  This, of course, is one of the criticisms of the Bayh-Dole Act--that indeed the Act would push researchers toward directing research efforts to "real world" problems as opposed to "blue sky" research, which could have broad uses.  Some universities have unilaterally made the move to requiring commercialization activities for academics for tenure, but this is one of the first state "top down" directives for research institutions to require it.  Notably, the state is apparently striking a nice balance by stating that commercialization activities are just one route to be considered in the tenure process--it is not the only way to obtain tenure.  This nicely preserves flexibility for each researcher to make their own choices.  There is still the question of whether requiring commercialization efforts for tenure is necessary given the substantial market incentives available to researchers. 

The article also discusses a new institute to be formed in Ohio, which will direct commercialization activities in state institutions.  I am not very familiar with the technology transfer processes in Ohio, but this sounds like a good idea to coordinate commercialization efforts and provide accountability and stewardship for public research funding.  Notably, Governor Kasich, the recent presidential candidate, is reportedly a big fan of technology transfer, and its potential to create jobs and benefit the public.  (Hat tip to Technology Transfer Tactics for the lead to the article.)

The Big Boys and Smaller Players of Technology Transfer Offices

One criticism of technology transfer offices is that some may have difficulty making enough money through deals to cover their overhead.  Surely, the benefits of a technology transfer office shouldn’t be limited to revenue generated and there are other opportunities to benefit a university such as practical training opportunities for students.  Moreover, the local community may even benefit through new jobs and tax revenue.  An article in the Recorder came across my desk this morning concerning University of California, San Diego's (UCSD) technology transfer office titled, "UC-San Diego Director Touts its Plethora of Patents." It describes an interview with a technology transfer office at a high performing University of California campus.  Another notice I received concerns a webinar about how smaller technology transfer offices can “overperform.”  

San Diego, located in southern California, has long been known as a hot bed for biotechnology research.  Interestingly, the article notes that of all the University of California campuses the San Diego campus leads in number of patents.  UCSD produces more patents than UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and all of the other UC campuses.  It also produces more deals, more invention disclosures and sometimes even more startups.  The Director, Ruben Flores-Saiib, notes that this is maybe because of the size of the institution and number of departments.  Flores-Saiib, a recent hire at UCSD, also discusses efforts to expand opportunities for UCSD start-ups including a partnership with a VC that evaluates all startups from the university.  He further notes some of the patent prosecution firms UCSD uses as well as stating that they apparently avoid up front licensing fees and are flexible in working with milestones and royalty payments for firms. 

Notably, Tech Transfer Central is offering a webinar (Thursday, February 23rd) on successful strategies by "overperforming" smaller technology transfer offices by technology transfer officers from Wilkes University and Southern Mississippi University.  Here is a description of the webinar:

Our presenters represent two distinctly different tech transfer offices in distinctly different areas of the country. Each presents its own unique set of challenges, but both TTOs have thrived by employing unique methods for doing more with less, and implementing efficiency strategies that allow for high ratios of commercialization per research dollar and per FTE. Whether your office is considered small or not, you’ll come away from this nuts-and-bolts session with dozens of proven strategies for stretching your budget and your staff, and boosting your TTO’s deal flow. Register today for this information-packed webinar filled with best practices and tons of takeaways. Our panelists will discuss:

• How to navigate your high-dollar budget line items using:

o    Volunteers

o    Interns

o    Alumni

• How to impact your local and regional start-up community and the economic development goals with a smaller budget and fewer staff
• Small office strategies for building strong TTO/faculty relationships
• Ecosystem development in smaller markets
• Strategies for filling the funding gap in flyover regions
• How a variety of approaches to commercialization benefit smaller ecosystems:

o    Traditional licensing

• Entrepreneurial focus
• Engaging corporations in smaller regions
• Tactical and strategic methods for success with limited resources         
• Lessons learned and forecast for the future

The New York State Science and Technology Law Center Innovation Review Newsletter

In a recent post on IP Finance, I discussed the late Syracuse University Law School Professor Ted Hagelin’s excellent casebook titled, Technology Innovation Law and Practice.  Professor Hagelin was the founder and Director of the very successful Technology Commercialization Law Program at Syracuse University College of Law; Director of the New York State Science and Technology Law Center; Crandall Melvin Professor of Law; and Kauffman Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.  When I wrote that post, I did not realize that University of Wisconsin Law School’s Vilas Research Fellow & George Young Bascom Professor in Business Law Shubha Ghosh had been hired by Syracuse.  This is an excellent hire and quite a coup for Syracuse.  Professor Ghosh will be the new Crandall Melvin Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law and director of the Technology Commercialization Law Program.  Professor Ghosh is a leading law professor in the U.S. and has authored over 20 articles as well as several books including Identity, Invention and the Culture of Personalized Medicine Patenting (Cambridge University Press 2012), and Transactional Intellectual Property (West 2^nd ed. 2012). 

The New York State Science and Technology Law Center also has a newsletter: Innovation Review.  The recent edition is filled with interesting and helpful information, including a discussion of the pending cases at the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enhanced damages, the Obama budget for the USPTO, and a recent Sixth Circuit case concerning licensing.  Notably, the Center is offering the following free webinar seminars taught by Professor Ghosh:

Lab-to-Market Spring Webcasts on Upcoming Supreme Court IP Cases

The NYS Science & Technology Law Center is pleased to announce that Professor Shubha Ghosh, the new Crandall Melvin Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law and director of Technology Commercialization Law Program, will be presenting a series of webcasts regarding upcoming Supreme Court cases. The cases include: the combined Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer Inc.; Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee; and Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons. Each webcast will last for approximately an hour and 15 minutes and provide time for questions. There is no fee but registration is required. To learn more about the cases to be presented, and watch other webcasts presented by the NYS STLC, please visit our website.

The webinar on the Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics & Stryker Crop. v. Zimmer, Inc. cases will be held on March 21.  The webinar on Cuozzo Speed Technologies will be held on April 21. Here is a link to a page with the subscription fields for the newsletter. 

A Very Good Resource on the Bayh-Dole Act and Commercialization

In the last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to refer folks to a book on the Bayh-Dole Act and technology transfer.  The excellent book is the late Syracuse University Law School Professor Theodore Hagelin’s Technology Innovation Law and Practice casebook published in 2012.  The book has a very nice treatment of the Bayh-Dole Act and coverage of the legal concerns from taking a product from the laboratory to market.  The book is available from Lexis Nexis, here, and Amazon, here.  Professor Hagelin was the founder and Director of the very successful Technology Commercialization Law Program at Syracuse University College of Law; Director of the New York State Science and Technology Law Center; Crandall Melvin Professor of Law; and Kauffman Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.  A description of his accomplishments can be found, here. 

Here is the publisher’s description of the book:

This book is a comprehensive collection of cases, statutes, regulations and readings focused on the commercial development of new technologies, primarily by start-up and early-stage companies. It defines the technology innovation process as the set of decisions and actions by which an invention is transformed from a laboratory prototype into a commercially viable product or process; and defines the technology innovation period as the time between the point of invention (reduction to practice) and the point of market introduction.

Technology Innovation Law and Practice addresses the gap in academic attention paid to the field of technology innovation. The book provides students, faculty and practitioners, both in law and other disciplines, with a single source of in-depth information on the laws that affect the technology innovation process. The book is unique in its interdisciplinary focus, in its emphasis on start-up and early-stage technology companies, and in its combination of instructional and reference materials.

National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer Free (!) Online Research Commercialization Course

The National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (NCET2) is offering a free 10-lecture online course titled, “Research Commercialization Introductory Course.”  The course is co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Academy of Inventors and the National Science Foundation. The course is “designed to help science and engineering researchers better understand how research commercialization works. Over 5000 students, faculty and researchers from across the US have taken this course since it's been offered.”  The course is further described as:

Research commercialization involves taking articles, documentation, know-how, patents, and copyrights, which are created during research activities and getting them to users and patients for real societal impacts. In some cases, commercialization involved taking patents based on the research and licensing them to a company. This usually involves also having the researchers consult to the company. In other cases, commercialization involves forming of creating a startup and applying to federally funded commercialization programs. In all cases, though, research commercialization typically involves defining the nature of the research being commercialized (e.g., in a patent or intellectual property agreement), establishing a commercial relationship with another party (e.g., employment, a sale or license), and negotiating a contract (e.g., compensation).

Areas covered in the course include intellectual property, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, licensing agreements, employment agreements, consulting agreements, tech transfer, creating and funding companies, and federally funded Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs

Each lecture is a live 90-minute online class with Q&A.

Here is the course schedule:

CLASS SCHEDULE

Lecture 1: Patents Thursday, November 14, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 2: The Importance of Commercializing Research Friday, November 15, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 3: Copyright, Trademarks and Trade Secrets Tuesday, November 19, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 4: Employment and Consulting Agreements Thursday, November 21, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 5: Tech Transfer and Licensing Agreements Tuesday, November 26, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 6: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Grants Monday, December 2, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 7: Introduction to Early Stage Funding Wednesday, December 4, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 8: Introduction to Structuring and Leading the Research-Intensive Company Friday, December 6, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 9: Moving from R&D to Manufacturing Monday, December 9, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

Lecture 10: View from the Trenches: Applying what you have Learned Thursday, December 12, 2013 , 1:00 to 2:30 pm ET

This looks like a great program and you can’t beat the price of “free.”  For more information about the course and to register, see here.  (Hat tip to Steven Ferguson at the National Institutes of Health).

The U.S. National Science Foundation I-Corps Program: The Goal is Commercialization

The I-Corps Program is a collaboration between the U.S. National Science Foundation [NSF], Kaufmann Foundation and Deshpande Foundation designed to help bring government funded—NSF funded—inventions to market.  As fellow blogger, Neil Wilkof has discussed, the valley of death is a real problem and a search for effective solutions is ongoing.  The I-Corps Program is another attempt to solve the problem.  The I-Corps Program started out on July 28, 2011 with a plan to fund 100 projects per year at $50,000 for each project.  Basically, the program has several parts:

There are three distinct components of I-Corps: Teams, Nodes and Sites. I-Corps Teams are composed of the principal investigator(s) (PI), an entrepreneurial lead (EL), and a mentor. The I-Corps Nodes serve as hubs for education, infrastructure and research that engage academic scientists and engineers in innovation; they also deliver the I-Corps Curriculum to I-Corps Teams. The I-Corps Sites are academic institutions that catalyze the engagement of multiple, local teams in technology transition and strengthen local innovation.

Here is the I-Corps Teams’ role:  

Over a period of six months, each I-Corps team, composed of the principal investigator, a mentor, and an entrepreneurial lead, will systematically identify and address knowledge gaps to ascertain the technology disposition: What resources will be required? What are the competing technologies? What value will this innovation add? The I-Corps program will also pilot innovative merit review processes through which promising discoveries emerging from NSF-funded research projects will be identified quickly and efficiently for financial support as well as for mentorship through the national network.

A key component of the program appears to be the required curriculum for all I-Corps teams based on a Stanford “Lean Launchpad” course that is described as “The I-Corps curriculum provides real-world, hands-on, immersive learning about what it takes to successfully transfer knowledge into products and processes that benefit society.  . . . [T]he entire I-Corps Team will be engaged with industry; talking to customers, partners, and competitors; and encountering the chaos and uncertainty of creating successful innovations. Getting out of the laboratory/university is what the effort is about.”  The Lean Launchpad course was developed by Stanford faculty member Steve Blank and is available online here via Udacity. 

According to Xconomy and TechnologyTransfer Tactics, the program is being expanded to include more than the original I-Corps I-Core Sites and/or Nodes—Stanford University, Georgia Tech and the University of Michigan.  Now UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, University of Maryland, Virginia Tech, George Washington University, City University of New York, New York University and Columbia University will participate as I-Core Sites and/or Nodes.  Are there any similar programs in other countries?