Fuentek’s Tech Transfer Blog
Fuentek’s technology transfer experts share their insights
about IP management, technology marketing, TTO operations,
strategic planning, best practices, and more.
about IP management, technology marketing, TTO operations,
strategic planning, best practices, and more.
I read with interest two recent news stories about technology transfer offices (TTOs) looking to increase licensing deals by addressing two oft-cited barriers: high costs and long negotiation times. The logic: Offering intellectual property (IP) at a super low cost (or even for free) and/or through non-negotiation, ready-to-sign license agreements will result in more technologies getting to market faster. These types of programs have been around for a bit (see my prior posts about free IP and ready-to-sign licenses) and the trend seems to be growing. So let’s look at the two recent examples and consider how to make these types of programs successful.
It’s time for another post about articles and other tidbits we’ve read that we think you should read too. Feel free to share your thoughts about these items or tell us about your favorite tech transfer stories. Post a comment below or email us via our Contact Us page.
At Fuentek, we enjoy working collaboratively with our clients to implement innovative outreach strategies. In October 2011, Fuentek had the privilege of helping a forward-thinking team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center — led by Dr. Paul Bartolotta — to organize an Automotive Workshop. Although Glenn had dozens of technologies that would be of enormous interest to automotive companies, they did not routinely interact with major players in the auto industry. And they didn’t want to push out all of their potentially relevant technologies to see which might catch the attention of auto industry executives. Instead, Glenn wanted to…
This summer, the technology transfer office (TTO) at Vanderbilt University conducted an informal survey of members of the AUTM® directors online discussion group on TTO policies and practices regarding returning rights to inventors. I found the results from the 84 respondents intriguing, as should advocates for free agency in tech transfer (including sponsors of the current Startup Act legislation). That’s because this survey showed that the essence of free agency — that is, giving innovators the right to pursue commercialization of their technology — is already in place… and the innovators are not pursuing it. Let’s look at the data.
The mechanisms that technology transfer offices (TTOs) use to market technologies should vary depending on the technology and licensing prospects, as well as the time and resources you have allotted to the effort. Nowadays, a wealth of marketing tools is available. Fuentek typically recommends mixing and matching a combination of mechanisms to reach a target audience and market technologies successfully. For starters,…
There’s a trend that seems to be on the rise around the world, and it’s worth thinking about where you live. It has to do with the centralizing or consolidating of technology transfer functions across universities. We’ve explored the topic of TTO centralization on this blog before, and we have a free white paper with best practices on centralizing/consolidating TTOs. But the impressive thing about what’s happening lately is the extent to which the coordination is happening across institutions.
Although it’s hard to put down the latest summer best-seller, technology transfer professionals might consider doing so in favor of these recent items. A few of these might generate some strong reactions — I hope so, anyway! Join the discussion by adding a comment below.
We’ve blogged often about how planning for technology marketing helps TTOs be more proactive and efficient in selecting innovations to market. If your TTO is like most, you have more active marketing projects than you have the resources to handle. Therefore, prioritizing (and reprioritizing) your projects is the key to developing a strategic and agile marketing process that will provide long-term value. In today’s Stories from the Field post, I share details of how to apply what we’ve learned through years of identifying high-priority projects.
There’s a big difference between how research organizations and private corporations communicate and think about technology transfer. Research organizations tend to focus on how to manage and share their intellectual property (IP). Technologies are often embryonic, development moves at a deliberate pace, and the focus isn’t so much on developing a product as on developing the next innovation. For industry, IP has to serve a purpose and advance the bottom line, whether it’s creating new revenue sources, improving net profits, or moving products quickly into the marketplace. Research organizations that act proactively can…
On May 22nd, Startup Act 2.0 was introduced. This is a revised version of legislation proposed last December that contained questionable provisions to allow university professors to choose their own agents to help transfer their technology rather than be tied to their home university’s technology transfer office (TTO)—the so-called free agency provision. I dug into the new legislation, comparing it to the original wording, to figure out exactly what’s changed (besides the fact that the accelerated commercialization of research provisions are now part of Section 8 rather than 7). Here’s what I figured out.
