Transcript קבוצת המחקר - Republican Centre for Technology

Prof. Hagit Messer-Yaron
President, OUI
[email protected]
Baku, October 24, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Universities as
“Intellectual and Economic Engines”
–
Calls for Academia-Industry
Partnership
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
University vs. IndustryContrasting Cultures:
University
 Social responsibilities
 Basic, curiosity driven
research
 Create new knowledge
 Freedom of research
 Publications & collaborations
 Sharing of material
 Open, global community and
sharing of research results
Corporate
 Shareholders responsibilities
 Applied research
 Develop new products
 Specific objectives, product
focused
 Ownership and secrecy
 Control of material
 Aiming to global market
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Death Valley
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Bridging over the “Death Valley” –
WHY?

Better exploitation of knowledge to
the benefit of the public (e.g., new
drugs, environmental technologies,
alternative energy).
 A natural source of innovation.
 To foster knowledge-based economy;
direct contribution to short term
growth.
 “Fair” and efficient use of public
support.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Bridging over the “Death Valley” –
HOW?
Modern relations between universities and industries:
 New
venture formation/Spin-offs
 R&D agreements
 Licensing deals
Traditional:
 Teaching and students
practice
 Individual entrepreneurship
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Industry, university, government
Researchers (people!),
Faculties,
Administration,
etc.
knowledge
university
Government
money
Technology/knowledgeTransfer
knowledge
industry
Entrepreneurs
VCs
Productions
Marketing
Management
Stocks holders
© Hagit Messer-Yaron,etc.
2012
money
The Role of Governments
Financial support for academic, basic
research. Public support is essential for
academic freedom.
2. Intervention programs for “bridging the
gap”.
3. Legal infrastructure: intellectual
property rights (IPR) laws, Taxations,
innovation law, etc.
1.
IPR
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The case of ISRAEL

ISRAEL is an R&D state - the expenditure on civilian
research and development (R&D) as a percentage of the
gross domestic product (GDP) is the highest in the world:
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Source: ISRAEL CBS
Israel: Recent Nobel Laureates
 Dan
Shechtman ,Chemistry, 2011 Technion
 Ada E. Yonath, Chemistry, 2009 Wiezmann Inst.
 Robert Aumann, Economics, 2005 HUJI
 Aaron Ciechanover, Chemistry,
2004 - Technion
 Avram Hershko, Chemistry, 2004 Technion
 Daniel Kahneman, Economics,
2002 - HUJI
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Lessons from IL experience –
How to maintain top level Science
AND
successful High-Tech Industry?
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Higher Education in Israel Expanding system
 1989/90:
21 HEI (8 universities + 13 colleagues),
88,800 students.
 2010/11: 67 HEI, (8 universities + 36 academic
colleagues, 23 pedagogical colleagues) 297,800
students.
All HEIs are independent legal entities; All but NBC are heavily supported
by the government.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The 7+1 universities:
•The Technion
•The Hebrew University in Jerusalem
•Tel Aviv University
•Bar Ilan University
•Ben Gurion University in the Negev
•Haifa University
•The Weizmann Institute
•The Open University
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
University vs. Colleague
HEI
PRO
Research:
Grants,
Teaching &
research:
TT,
Faculty,
Teaching:
Facilities,
Graduate
students
Undergrad
Inst.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Technology Transfer Partners:
Academia:
 The Researchers
 The University
 The TTO/TTC
Industry:
 Entrepreneurship
 Investment
 Production

The GOVERNMENT
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
In Israel:
 Government’s
involvement mainly by intervention
programs.
 Each university decides on its own policy and
regulations independently. However, they share
common principles.
 Each university has its own TTC.
 TTCs are for-profit companies, own by the
universities.
 TTCs are handling universities IP and are
responsible for commercialization, following the
university’s policy.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
IP legislation (and more) in Israel
The patent law (1967) defines “service invention” as
one which has been invented by an employee as a
result of his/her service to the employer.
 The law doesn’t cover many aspects of academic life,
as: students, visitors, sabbaticals, retired stuff, etc.
 Thus, universities had to regulate it internally.
 No legislation w.r.to industrial R&D projects done in
universities. It is up to the parties to agree on the
conditions.
 In general, government doesn’t claim ownership of
publicly sponsored research.

© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The rules – main common principles:






Researchers must disclose to the university any research of
commercial potential.
Universities own the IP of “institute inventions” (service
invention).
Institute inventions are discoveries of employees and others,
related to the university.
Institute inventions are commercialized solely by the TTC.
Commercialization revenues are shared by the inventors (4050%; 50-60%) and the university.
If the TTC chooses not to file for patent, the inventors can do
it at their own expense.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
TTCs in Israel
Weizmann Institute
Yeda
1959
Hebrew University
Yissum
1964
Tel Aviv University
Ramot
1973
1980’s
1990’s
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
1998
Tech. Transfer Company (TTC) mission
Identify research results with commercial potential.
File for patents and other propriety rights.
Actively seek interested commercial entities and sign
licensing agreements or establish spin-off companies.
Collect royalties.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Different Institutional TT strategies,
all managed by the TTC
 Research
and development agreements
 Licensing deals
 New venture formation / Spin-offs
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Institutional TT (1)
R&D agreements
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Institutional TT (2)
Licensing deals
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Institutional TT (3)
Spin offs
Industry
Academia
" Death Valley"
Products
Science
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The technology transfer process
at TAU
“Bridging the Gap”
Discovery &
Innovation
Evaluation
Patenting &
Marketing
Strategy
Sponsored Research
Business
Development
IDF
Follow Up
on Contract
Revenues
40-20-40
Academic Basic and
Applied Research
publications
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
To inventors
Example: the Weizmann Inst.
Responsible technology transfer*
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Example (cont): the Weizmann
Institute - Policy
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Selected TT Success Stories: Yeda, Yissum & Ramot (2009)
Copaxone® | Teva
Total sale of Weizmann
based products €6
Bilion/year
Rebif ® | Merck Serono
Encryption Algorithm | NDS
GeneCardsTM | XenneX
NanoLubTM | Nanomaterials
Exelon® | Novartis
Dunaliella | Nikken Sohonsha
Doxil ® | J&J
QuantomiXTM | QX Capsule
ErbituxTM | ImClone
Cherry Tomatoes | BonTom
Periochip | Dexcel
Lipimix | Tubilux
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Academic institutions with more than 50
PCTs/year (2004)
Univ. of California system
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
CNRS
MIT
Univ. of Texas
California Inst. Tech.
Johns Hopkins
Univ. of Michigan
Columbia Univ.
Riken
Univ. of Florida
Hebrew Univ.
Weizmann Institute
Stanford
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
297
182
146
131
96
84
76
74
68
67
67
56
54
54
Licensing Income of top 10 US universities
Licensing Income Survey 2006 top 10 Universities *
#
Institution
1
Univ. of California System
193
2
NYU
157
3
Stanford Univ.
61
4
Wake Forest Univ.
60
5
Univ. of Minnesota
56
6
MIT
43
7
Univ. of Florida
42
8
Univ. of Rochester
38
9
Northwestern Univ.
29
Harvard Univ.
20
10
Licensing Income ($M)
* Source: AUTM Licensing Survey 2006
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Government’s involvement in
university-industry relations
 Under
the responsibility of the office of the Chief
Scientist at the ministry of Industry, Trade and
Labor (OCS).
 Different intervention programs for universityLOCAL industry collaboration.
 Restrictions on internationalization of
knowledge created under these programs.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Intervention Programs
KAMIN
100%
60%
60%
90%
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Summary

Most Israeli Universities had Technology Transfer
policy and programs before the BDA of 1980.
 The government has not been involved in the
universities TT policy and/or implementation.
 IL TT policy is (was) VERY successful, with top
universities leading both in academic achievements
(e.g., the Shanghai ranking) and in TT revenues.
 The key for success is a RESPONSIBLE technology
transfer policy and implementation.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Commercialization of academic
research results – all win???




Commercialization of academic research results is here.
It has different forms and different mechanisms,
depending mainly on the discipline and on the regulatory
system.
It is generally considered as a desired goal. Advancing
of the commercialization of research results is the policy
of governments all over the world.
Apparently, it serves the interests of all partners
involved: the industry, the individual researchers, and
the universities.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Turning technology into gold
NATURE| VOL 426| 11 DECEMBER 2003
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Making money in the UK
The Scientist, November 13, 2003
Making money in the UK
Signs that British universities are doing better at
generating cash from inventions
By Stephen Pincock
Universities in the United Kingdom are getting better at
commercializing their intellectual property, a survey of the
university technology sector showed on Thursday
(November 13).
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Bayh-Dole Act
The Bayh-Dole Act is "perhaps the most inspired piece
of legislation to be enacted in America over the past
half-century," according to The Economist.
"Innovation's Golden Goose," an opinion piece
published in the Dec. 12, 2002, edition the respected
publication, states: "Together with amendments in
1984 and augmentation in 1986, this unlocked all the
inventions and discoveries that had been made in
laboratories throughout the United States with the help
of taxpayers' money. More than anything, this single
policy measure helped to reverse America's
precipitous slide into industrial irrelevance."
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Echoes of Bayh-Dole?
Gr egory D. Gr aff, Research Economist, PIPRA, U.S.A., and Visiting Research Fellow, Department
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
BUT: Warning signs in TT





Institutional changes: may change the direction of
faculty research.
Restrict dissemination of research results
Increase dependency of science on governance –
regulation, support.
Institutional as well as individual freedom of
research are in risk.
Potential conflict of interests and conflict of
commitments (institutional and individual).
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Scientist
Volume 17 | Issue 16 | 58 | Aug. 25, 2003
The Costs of Commercializing
Academic Research
Does university licensing impede life
science research and development?
By Ted Agres
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Research tool patents debated
Supreme Court appeal could limit licensing income
for research tool makers | By Alison McCook
April 22, 2005
The US Supreme Court heard arguments this week from both sides
of a 10-year debate that essentially pits the interests of the research
tool industry against those of drug developers.
The case tests the limits of an imprecise federal law, which states
that researchers conducting experiments reasonably related to new
drug approvals do not have to pay licensing fees to use proprietary
products. One side argues that if extended to cover too many
experiments, the exemption could hurt the research tool industry,
which depends on licensing fees. However, as it stands, those fees
may be limiting drug development, the opponents note.
The debate has divided the life sciences industry, with large
pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates lending support to
drug developers and tool makers throwing their hats in the ring for
the research tool industry.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Commercialization of research
results – not “all win”



Why YES
Direct contribution to short
term growth.
“Fair” and efficient use of
public support.
Improves exploitation of
knowledge to the benefit of
the public (e.g., new drugs).


Why NO
Risk the base of the
academic culture:
openness, freedom of
research, diversity of
topics, etc.
May hazard innovation and
therefore growth in the
long run.
Calls for RESPONSIBLE TT
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Technology Transfer Nowadays
 Under
the Bayh-Dole Act (BDA), the duty to
commercialize is put on the universities.
 Following
the BDA, In most of the developed
countries, universities are responsible for TT.
 As in Israel, in most cases universities have proven
to perform RESPONSIBLE technology transfer.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Guidelines offered for responsible
technology licensing by:








CalTech
Cornell
Harvard
MIT
Stanford
UC
U of Illinois, Chicago
U of Illinois, Chicago,
Urbana-Champaign




© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Univ. of Washington
Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation
Yale
AAMC (Assoc. of
American Medical
Colleges)
March 2007
In the Public Interest: Nine Points to
Consider in Licensing University Technology
1.
2.
3.
4.
Universities should reserve the right to practice
licensed inventions, and to allow other nonprofit
and governmental organizations to do so.
Exclusive licenses should be structured in a
manner that encourages technology development
and use.
Strive to minimize the licensing of "future
improvements."
Universities should anticipate and help to manage
technology transfer related conflicts of interest.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
In the Public Interest (cont.)
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ensure broad access to research tools.
Enforcement action should be carefully considered.
Be mindful of export regulations.
Be mindful of the implications of working with
patent aggregators.
9. 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.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Major US Universities - 2006 ($ Million)
License Income
194
157
U. of California
System
Stanford University
New York
University
Wake Forest
U. of Florida
MIT
Mt. Sinai Med.-NYU
U. of Michigan
Harvard U.
U. of Colorado
Northwestern U.
Emory U.
U. of Mass.
21
17
U. of Utah
U. of Georgia
U. of Iowa
Research Fd.
18
21
17
20
30
20
27
U. of
Wash./WashResF
U. of Rochester
U. of Wisc.Madison
44
36
38
42
43
U. of Minnesota
61
16
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
61
56
Main points in responsible TT
 Ownership
of IP : The IP generated by a university
team is owned by the University, irrespective of
sponsorship or where it was conceived. The IP is
licensed, not sold.
 Open vs. close license : The license is limited to
certain patents and field of use, the results of a
sponsored research, and well defined know-how,
and does not cover any other un-sponsored research
performed by same or other University researchers,
past, present and future.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Main points in responsible TT (cont.)

No shelving : The essence of the license is the
introduction of licensed products by the licensee to the
market. The licensee is obliged to develop the product
under agreed upon program, else the license is terminated.
No shelving of the technology, for any reason.
 The right to publish : the right of the researchers to
perform research within the license perimeter and the
freedom of publication of the research results is
guaranteed.
 Liability : Licensor does not provide any warranty as to
the applicability of the licensed technology, the
enforceability of the patents, or obtaining certain results
thru the research.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Problem
 Public
support to universities is decreasing
 Tuition
is regulated
 Donations are limited.
 How
to get more income???
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
The Dilemma
Unlike other universities’ financial adventures,
technology transfer is considered as a desired goal,
in line with the interests of the private sector, the
governments, and the individual researcher.
 Apparently*, the main source for compensation of
the decreased public support is from
commercialization of research results.
 Under need for money:
Self regulation responsible TT – is it sustainable???
________________________

* On the average and for most universities, TT is loosing money….
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Self regulation or what?



Regulation by governments? No. Governments should
be kept away from universities.
Regulation by market forces? No – since all sides
(industry, university, researcher) win financially from
successful TT, the market forces do not guarantee the
public interest in the long run.
Self regulation by universities? Risky. Under direct
and indirect pressure of the private sector and
governments to enable and to ease technology
transfer, the challenge to the university in self
regulation is huge.
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Mixed regulation?

A possible solution may be that governments
dictate TT guidelines, under which
universities should operate, including:
1. IPR ownership
2. No shelving
3. Free publication
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012
Thank You!
[email protected]
© Hagit Messer-Yaron, 2012