Amy Maxen of Nature News Blog reports on a novel funding program now in operation at the University of Michigan, which reward researchers not for their ideas, but for their collaboration with other researchers. Through this new mechanism, called MCubed, UM faculty can receive $60,000 in research funds “simply for agreeing to collaborate on an idea,” Maxen reports. “Any idea.”

“We didn’t want to do the same things that everyone else is doing,” says Thomas Zurbechen, associate dean for entrepreneurial programs at the UM College of Engineering and one of three faculty who led the initiative.

From its launch in October, a total of $15 million will be granted to projects posted on the MCubed website. Faculty can access the site to post ideas and advertise for their own projects; once a team of three is formed over an idea, “boom,” writes Maxen — “within 24 hours the threesome wins $60,000.”

“The competition for funds depends only on speed, and isn’t fierce,” she says.

Zurbechen describes his inspiration for the new program: “I’ve sat on review boards for different agencies, and it’s really damn hard to judge who the best person is to execute a project,” he says. “Instead, we are allowing people to just execute their projects themselves, and after the fact we’ll see how they do. So really, it will be the purest form of a review.”

The success of the initiative will ultimately be judged by faculty at the Institute of Social Research, who will gauge the volume and types of new collaborations formed, the volume and prestige of works published, and the broader impact of those research results. “We want to see if we can move the frontiers of knowledge forward and make life better for people,” says Zurbechen.

Source: Nature.com

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

It seems like every week we hear of a new multi-million dollar sponsored research or collaboration agreement between a major corporation and a university. These massive undertakings — whether focused on pharma, computers, energy, agriculture, or medical devices — appear to be getting larger, more integrated, and more controversial as their sheer size and degree of industry involvement raise concerns regarding corporate influence over research activity. In the face of shrinking budgets many universities are seeking out these partnerships, and the benefits of big corporate research dollars can be significant. But they don’t come without their own set of problems, challenges, and risks — legal, regulatory, and ethical — primarily revolving around the potential for conflicts of interest. That’s why we’ve scheduled this critical and timely webinar: Managing Conflicts of Interest in Large-Scale Industry Partnerships, coming Tuesday, June 12. Two top attorneys will update you on important recent COI developments as well as provide practical strategies for tackling the broad spectrum of COI issues you must address in today’s large-scale industry partnership initiatives. For complete program and faculty details, and to register, CLICK HERE.

ALSO COMING SOON:

• Thursday, May 24: Create a New Revenue Stream by Supporting On-Campus App Developers
• Thursday, June 14: The Elimination and Creation of Defenses in the Wake of AIA
• Tuesday, June 26: Low and No-Cost Solutions for Marketing University Innovations

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Audioconferences, Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

According to CEO Marting Zwilling of Startup Professionals, new ventures are more likely to succeed when they eschew the idea that they have to get everything perfect and hit the market with a big one-time launch effort based on a single-minded plan. Rather, he recommends a model called “planned iteration,” where you begin by assuming “you won’t get it right the first time.”

Zwilling cites “Startups in 13 Sentences,” an old essay by Paul Graham which makes the case that early-stage entrepreneurs should attempt to make “a few people happy rather than making a lot of people semi-happy.” In a similar vein, Zwilling argues that entrepreneurs should adjust their energy and priorities to challenges that present themselves “as more is known and markets change,” rather than trying to tackle every issue at once.

“Don’t mistake this for a license to launch an incomplete or poor quality solution,” Zwilling urges. “Your strategy today should be to define and excellently prepare the absolute minimum product that will excite a selected small segment of your intended customers, and roll it out to them.” Zwilling spells out the advantages he perceives in using this approach:

• Faster time to market. Launching fast means working with real customers in less than six months,  Zwilling says, as opposed to one or two years. And to launch fast, you must learn to adapt to everything, from changes in the marketplace, to changes in costs, to the evolution of competitors.
• Get traction before funding. Zwilling points out the harsh realities of the angel or VC funding process, which is typically unavailable to would-be companies that don’t yet have products or customers. “By using a laser focused approach for the first iteration,” Zwilling stresses, “you may actually produce something and get a customer without funding.” Thus you can begin attracting investors.
• Find customers, partners and channels early. Finding a real customer pipeline will greatly increase your chances of reaching partners and investors, Zwilling notes, but to do so you must be proactive and personal in your searching. This will also serve to “narrow your development focus and adjust your strategy for you,” he says.
• Use social networking to start the wave. Take advantage of the lost cost of setting up a legitimate website, Zwilling advises — that includes search engine optimization, blogging, and infiltrating social networking sites. “It won’t cost you your whole funding pot to start some momentum,” he says, “or to realize that your original strategy needs major tuning.”

Zwilling concludes by pointing out that even giants like Google, eBay and Facebook “inched their way” into the market before scoring their first million dollar funding rounds. Similarly, companies in the offline world start one store at a time, or in one geographic location.

Scoring big on the first try is the domain of large enterprises, Zwilling argues, and chances are that doesn’t mean you. “The biggest advantages you have as a start-up are speed and agility,” he comments. “Use it.”

Source: Startup Professionals Musings

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

After two decades of researching a treatment for desmoid tumors, which attack the connective tissue that forms muscles and nerves, Canadian surgeon Benjamin Alman made a surprising discovery along the way: how to dramatically reduce scar formation.

From using frankincense to sticking chewing gum directly onto burns, people have experimented with the treatment of scars for centuries, mostly to no avail. But Alman has discovered that by turning a well-known analgesic molecule into a cream, then applying it every day for three weeks, surgical scars can grow to less than half of the anticipated size.

MaRS, the government-funded tech transfer organization, picked up Alman’s discovery and has since struck an agreement with the Chinese firm Novotek Therapeutics Co. Ltd., which has dubbed the treatment ScarX.

“Scar forming has been a big concern for most of surgery patients after they have gone through a critical stage of their life, sometimes a life or death situation,” says Jubo Liu, Novotek’s chief executive officer. “I believe this will help the patient to recover faster and enjoy a happier life.” Novotek will spend about $6 million to bring the drug to the Chinese market, according to Liu. In exchange for developing and commercializing it, Novotek keeps the Chinese market; MaRS Innovation receives data, milestone payments and royalties from China but is able to sell it in other worldwide markets. In the U.S., that market is estimated at $4 billion. North American clinical trials on the treatment are to begin in early 2013.

Patients most likely to seek the cream treatment are those undergoing reconstructive surgery from burns, tumor removal, congenital malformations, cesarean sections, or joint replacements. The expected cost is $350 per treatment course. According to Ivan Waissbluth, project manager of Life Sciences at MaRS Innovation, “it’s a massive market that no one has been successful in achieving.”

Source: The Globe and Mail

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

Islet Sciences Inc., a biotech company focused on transplantation therapy for diabetic patients, recently announced an exclusive licensing agreement with Yale University. The license covers technology based on research conducted by School of Medicine professor Dr. Kevan Herold and colleagues, whose invention makes it easier to identify islet dysfunction in the pancreas before the disease is typically detected. Islet dysfunction is one of the primary causes of insulin dependent diabetes.

“We are excited to utilize this groundbreaking invention as we look to commercialize it to benefit the growing worldwide diabetic community,” says John Steel, chairman and CEO of Islet Sciences. Stell says the treatment will be able to identify emerging diabetes “far earlier than clinical presentation.”

Jonathan Soderstrom, director of Yale’s Office of Cooperative Research, says university officials “are pleased that Islet Sciences has made the decision to invest in this discovery and look forward to developing it into a valuable new tool for treating this debilitating disease.

Source: MarketWatch

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

With the newly released Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, you’ll find nearly 100 court case abstracts along with full text opinions of cases focused on disputes over the value of intellectual property, and how that amount is calculated. The compendium includes court case digests written by a team of internationally recognized legal editors. Included with the compendium is a companion CD, fully indexed with hyperlinks to the full text of the actual court opinions. The compendium also includes a summary table so you can quickly and easily reference cases by name, type of case, date, court, and state/jurisdiction. This a must-have resource for any professional involved in intellectual property valuation. For complete details and to order, CLICK HERE.

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

Given China’s emergence as a global economic powerhouse, the likelihood that you will seek partnerships and licensing deals with Chinese negotiators has never been higher – and the need to understand the cultural differences in business practices there is critical to success.

Central to successful deal-making in China, says Michael Batalia, director of technology asset management at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, is understanding that without a personal connection, deals don’t come easily. Speaking recently during a panel in Winston-Salem, NC, on how to develop Chinese business relationships, Batalia explains that Chinese business draws heavily on a centuries-old practice called “guanxi.” This term refers to the network of personal relationships that form the backdrop of the nation’s business activity.

“It’s hard to distill relationships down to a contract when you barely know each other,” says Batalia. Here’s a good example of the difference between Chinese and American approaches: while Americans typically ask new acquaintances what they do for a living, in China “the first questions are never about business.” According to Shiqin Xu, director of the Global Training Initiative China Program at North Carolina State University, a Chinese person will often ask first about family, even hobbies.

“Such details are important,” Xu says, “because the Chinese view this personal information as the building blocks of relationships. That relationship is what leads to business deals. But it takes time.”

Batalia notes that business relationships in China are built on reciprocity: “a favor done from someone creates the expectation that a favor will be returned.” Wake Forest professor Joseph Molnar points out the contrast to Western business practices, “where Americans relish bargaining for an advantage,” while Chinese negotiators seek to ensure that both parties are satisfied with the outcome.

According to Molnar, whereas the Chinese interpret their own business methods as rooted in humility and understanding, Americans may interpret this as weakness. Molnar claims this culture clash is “misunderstood on both sides,” and that Chinese executives may view the American negotiating style — attempting to gain leverage or wield power — as arrogant.

Gift giving is also an important part of Chinese business culture, and is typically done as a personal gesture carried out “well before the point of executing a business deal.” And though he stresses that it’s the thought that counts, Yin Chen, vice president of U.S. business development at contract research organization Shanghai Medicilon Inc., “you better not bring gifts made in China.”

Source: MedCity News

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

Peter Fiske of Naturejobs argues in his recent article that early-stage researchers are a better fit for starting a tech company than more experienced faculty or even typical business executives. The latter, he says, are often “ill-equipped to fill the technological gap between the idea and its commercial success,” while busy professors and supervisors “do not have the time needed to start up a business.”

Early-stage researchers also have a powerful incentive, he notes: “they need a job.”

Fiske also points out that researchers at an early stage in their careers are actually the ones in the lab getting their hands dirty and working to create new technologies, and thereby have the best insights into the details of the inventions, and the technologies’ strengths and weaknesses.

“Unlike principal investigators, who have to split their time and attention across numerous research projects and staff, early-stage researchers can focus all of their time and attention on one project. This single minded focus is crucial for nurturing an invention,” Fiske contends. He describes the graduate students and postdocs who populate the labs as highly motivated, very resourceful and very adaptable, “all perfect attributes for being successful in a small, emerging entrepreneurial venture.”

Established PIs still play an important role, Fiske concedes — namely in providing lab facilities and attracting investors to a project through their contacts and relationships. But   he also observes that today, with more intense focus on commercialization at their universities, “early-stage scientists have more start-up help at their disposal than ever before.”

Source: Naturejobs.com

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

Most technology transfer offices talk a lot about the number of jobs their start-ups and other initiatives have created in the recent past, but the University College Dublin’s NovaUCD has taken a different tack. The UCD commercialization arm recently surveyed its entrepreneurial faculty on the prospects for the future, rather than the results of the past, asking start-ups to estimate their projected impact on jobs. Given the pressure TTOs are under to demonstrate an impact on local economies, the strategy may be a useful one for every office.

In early February, NovaUCD reported it expected 300 new jobs to be created at NovaUCD’s Innovation and Technology Transfer Centre over the next two years. The new jobs will bring the total number of employees based at the 37 companies housed at the center to more than 500. The expected employment numbers represent an increase over 2011, when 80 jobs were created.

“The idea behind it was quite simple,” says Micéal Whelan, MSc MBA MPRII, communications manager at the university’s Office of the Vice President for Innovation. “We normally do an end-of-year survey of the companies based in the NovaUCD, looking at their achievements/developments over the past year. This year we decided to include a question seeking data on the number of new jobs each of the companies was planning to create over the next two years based upon their business plans.” A detailed article on the survey appears in the April issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. To subscribe and access the full article, as well as the entire five-year archive of back issues filled with tech transfer success strategies, CLICK HERE.

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

Radiator Labs, a Columbia University student start-up, was recently awarded the MIT Clean Energy Prize for their radiator retrofit design that increases the energy efficiency of steam heating systems.

“This is an exciting and innovative design that, when commercialized, will noticeably reduce the cost of heating apartments and other types of buildings in New England and other cold weather regions,” says Tom May, President and CEO of Northeast Utilities (NU). NU is the parent company of NSTAR, who sponsored the prize competition for student-run ventures along with the MIT and the U.S. Department of Energy to accelerate the commercialization of clean energy technology. “This competition,” May says, “has shown once again that the road to clean energy is being paved by young entrepreneurs.”

Radiator Labs is composed of a team of Columbia students who aim to increase the energy efficiency of steam-fed radiator heating systems, which can waste up to 30% percent of energy by overheating the area in which they are located. To do this, the start-up team created low-cost, drop-in radiator enclosures that control the amount of heat transferred in a room. The design includes wireless control of boiler systems to burn fuel only when necessary and to increase thermal comfort.

“Adopting this cost-effective technology in the millions of existing U.S. housing units with steam radiator systems has the potential to save hundreds of millions of dollars in energy costs per year and reduce carbon emissions by over 6 million tons,” says Marshall Cox of Radiator Labs. According to Cox, this would have an environmental impact “equivalent to taking 1.25 million automobiles off the road.”

Now in its fifth year, the MIT Clean Energy Prize has launched 30 student-run companies, which collectively have raised almost $90 million in funding to develop clean energy innovations. “Winning this competition,” Cox says, “enables us to help bring this technology to the marketplace so these benefits can be realized.”

Source: Columbia Technology Ventures

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

In Bellevue, WA, a small space called Student Research and Development (StudentRD) is fostering entrepreneurship and innovation to college and high school students in part by offering high-tech resources that are typically inaccessible to them – equipment such as laser cutters, 3D printers, and oscilloscopes.

For students at the University of Washington and Bellevue College, this year-round program is free, but StudentRD is also offering an eight-week summer incubator session for any student with dreams of creating a technology-based business.

CEO Edward Jiang puts it this way: “If you love to read or you love information, you can go to the library and you can walk in and use their resources. Like a library, this place is for people who love science and technology.” Jiang points out that the rapid pace of evolving technology can make it tough for students to keep up if they learn about computer science or tech innovation only in the standard classroom.

“A lot of students think, ‘well, I don’t know how to do something so I’ll just wait to take a class to learn it, and then I’ll learn it,’” Jiang says. “But what we’re trying to do is change that mindset to ‘I don’t know how to do something but I can learn.”

In StudentRD’s casual peer-learning environment, students can toy with projects for fun as easily as they can produce potential breakthroughs. For instance, Bellevue students Kathryn Brusewitz and Brandon Ramirez won a 48-hour competition called Code Day by producing a creative, Tetris-like app that they aim to include in a gaming software studio they hope to launch.

Included among StudentRD’s sponsors are the Medtonic Foundation and Stratos Product Development, as well as Google and Microsoft.

Source: Bellevue Patch

Posted May 16th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

At the University of Iowa, med school professor Donald Macfarlane is facing off in court against the UI Research Foundation, the nonprofit that manages the school’s tech transfer operations. Macfarlane claims the foundation managed to shut down his research and cut him out of a substantial sale of the technology to a major drug company. His attorney plans to ask the court to award Macfarlane $25 million in lost income, plus an unspecified amount for punitive damages.

A victory for Macfarlane could cripple the foundation financially, but one board member expressed confidence that the group would successfully stand its ground.

Macfarlane’s attorney has asked Judge Denver Dillard to bar the foundation from bringing up the final verdict’s potential impact on the group or the community. The case is expected to last two weeks; it is also expected that some jurors will have difficulty following the details of the technology and the tech transfer process in general.

Macfarlane’s research led to a major breakthrough in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but he claims the foundation made almost no effort to market his discoveries to drug companies for further development and commercialization. As a result, Macfarlane says he found two companies on his own that were interested in the discovery.

The foundation, however, rejected his repeated requests to issue a license. When UI later struck a deal with Coley Pharmaceutical Group — one of the companies Macfarlane had sought out himself — the foundation did not require the subsequent research data to be shared with Macfarlane, or for him to be sponsored in his further research, the lawsuit alleges. Thus, Macfarlane argues, the agreement effectively ended his ability to continue developing his discoveries.

Eventually, Coley successfully tested a similar drug candidate in a clinical trial, and Pfizer purchased Coley for $165 million in 2007. Macfarlane’s lawsuit contends that his underlying intellectual property was a major part of the company’s value; the jurors will have to decide whether the foundation’s actions breached its obligations to Macfarlane, who received no portion of the sale’s proceeds. 

An accountant hired by Macfarlane’s legal team reports that Macfarlane could have been expected to realize $24 million from the deal, and that if the drugs he helped discover were to succeed, sales could go into the billions per year and bring millions in royalties to the foundation.

Jack Evans, board member of the foundation, says he will leave the dispute in the hands of the legal process. “We’ve been very well represented by the attorney general,” Evan says. “I have confidence in their abilities.”

Source: Iowa City Press Citizen

Posted May 9th, 2012 under Tech Transfer. [ Comments: none ]

« Previous entries