Adventures in Knowledge Transfer

Intellectual Property Office Event : The innovation ecosystem – Intellectual Property in university-business collaborations”

12 March 2014

Dr Richard Jennings, Deputy DirectorCambridge Enterprise Limited, University of Cambridge

Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?

Where do we come from?

• 1941 – Land lease deal with the USA, UK inter alia agreed not to patent its background IP in penicillin, radar (cavity magnetron), jet engines

• 1948 – To promote technology transfer from the public (primarily Defence Research establishments) to the private sector, National Research Development Corporation set up

- supported work on hovercraft, semiconductors and carbon fibre

- patents on interferon (NIMR,50s), cephalosporin (Oxford, 60s), pyrethrins (Rothamsted, 60s and 70s), magnetic resonance imaging (Nottingham, 70s)

• 1963 – “The Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this (scientific) revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry.” PM’s ( Wilson) speech, Labour Party Conference, October 1, 1963.

• 1970 - Cambridge Science Park, Wolfson Cambridge Industrial Unit

• 1975 – To promote state ownership of industry, National Enterprise Board established by Labour

• 1979 – To promote private enterprise, decision reversed by Conservatives

Where do we come from?

• 1980 – To incentivise individuals and decentralise IP commercialisation, Bayh-Dole Act passed in the US ( Pre-B/D 28,000 patents filed, 5% licensed)

• 1981 – NEB + NRDC = British Technology Group

• 1985 – To allow universities to own and exploit IP, BTG’s right of first refusal removed in response to missed opportunities such as monoclonal antibodies. “in recognition that creating incentives for knowledge transfer is beneficial both for the advancement of science and the economy”

• 1987 - Cambridge publishes its first IP policy “ In the current financial climate it is increasingly important that no source of income for the University should be neglected.”

• 1992 - BTG privatised, then floated as BTG plc in 1995

• 1994 – UDIL + AILO = AURIL

Where do we come from?

• 1993 - OST’s White Paper “Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology”. First for 20 years, emphasis on foresight, and “wealth creation and quality of life”

• 1994 – UNICO (UNIversity COmpanies)

• 1999 – Third stream – hefce using funds from DfES and DTI to support HEIs to respond to needs of business and community to create wealth – Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community, University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge – combined as HEIF in 2002

• 2001 – HEBCI Annual Survey of university-industry links taken over by hefce

• 2002 – PRAXIS spun out from Cambridge/MIT, joined with UNICO, 2009

• 2008 – RAE with metrics following previous research selectivity exercises

• 2014 – REF with “Impact “ as a significant metric (20% Qr)

Innovation and the University’s mission

The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence

University of Cambridge

• Spun off from Oxford in 1209

• A complex organisation – traditional but ever- changing

• 31 Colleges (provide board, lodging, personal tuition)

• Over 150 departments, faculties and institutes

• Students: 12,000 undergraduates, 6,900 postgraduates (Jan 2013)

• 20% from overseas from over 100 countries

• World class ranking (position is metric dependent)

• QS (2), THES (7), Shanghai Jiao (5), Guardian (1) (113)

University research funding 2011/12

The Cambridge model

• Recruit the best academics in the world

• Give them the freedom to do what they choose.

• Subject to sponsorship, IP is registered initially by the University unless requested by the academics: Students own their IP

Disposition of IPRs

he

Academics

University Sponsors

Consultancy

Research Grantsand Contracts

“The IP Policy”

University revenue sharing from licensing technology

Net Income (opt in) Inventor(s) Department(s) University

First £100,000 90% 5% 5%

Next £100,000 60% 20% 20%

Above £200,000 34% 33% 33%

Net Income (opt out)

Inventor(s) Department(s) University

First £50,000 100% 0% 0%

Above £50,000 85% 7.5% 7.5%

What are we? Cambridge Enterprise Limited

“Cambridge Enterprise exists to help University of Cambridge inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs make their ideas and

concepts more commercially successful for the benefit of society, the UK economy, the inventors and the University”

Cambridge Enterprise Group

Group performance 2011/12

Based in Europe’s most successful technology cluster

1,500 cluster companies53,000 employees

?

Whittle Turing DarwinRutherfordBabbage Sanger……

Watson & Crick

89 Nobel Prize Winners

1 x $20bn &1 x $10bn company

10 x $1bn companies

a vibrant Cambridge Cluster Economy

world leading underpinning science

Cambridge & innovation in numbers

1,500

57,000 £13+

Cambridge & innovation in numbers

200+ £250+

Cambridge innovation in numbers

Cambridge & innovation in numbers

Cambridge & innovation in numbers

Where are we going?

© Jeffrey Beall

So many stakeholders, initiatives, reports and acronyms …

… such as :

• 2003 – Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration

• 2008 – Wellings Report on IP and Research Benefits

• 2011 – IPO – Intellectual Asset Management for Universities

• 2012 – Wilson Review of Business-University Collaboration

• 2013 - Bridging the valley of death: improving the commercialisation of research. House of Commons, Select Committee on Science and Technology

• 2013 – IPO - Collaborative Research between Business and Universities: The Lambert Toolkit 8 Years On

• 2013 – Witty Report on relationships between universities and their local economy

• 2014 -- Insights from international benchmarking of the UK science and innovation system

•

Where are we going after 30+ years of KT support

• A (UK) PARADOX ?

• Tax payer supports UK academic research - in (relatively) good shape although utilitarian aspect being emphasised (Candles or gas mantles vs OLEDS and GaN?)

• Supply side in good shape – theory and practice well developed thanks to e.g. HEIF, AUTM, AURIL, PRAXIS-UNICO, ASTP/PROTON, LES,…

• WHILE UK demand side continues to be weak (cf. Lambert 2003) – HEBCI figures show a continual increase in outputs in real terms over 10 years.

• Manufacturing has declined

• Private research spend has declined

• Industrial diversity has greatly declined - M and As

• Banking and its bonus culture survives

• BUT interest and investment in KT is now global – a bright but challenging future

Where are we going?

• Primary university outputs are smart people and knowledge as a result of teaching and research - hard to quantify economic benefits and impact – long timescales, non-linear, two way

• Is industry homogenous? Clearly not despite constant generalisation

• Are all universities the same? Top down metrics suggest that’s the intention but in practice?

• IP is some mix of know-how, registrable and unregistrable rights

• Interactions between the sectors are very diverse in practice despite yearning for a one size fits all approach

• Effective IP management and management of expectations are vital – high quality “boundary spanners “ are essential

IP – still crazy after all these years …

•Patents - barriers or entry tickets to collaboration?

• Best in research intensive universities?

• Hubs and spokes – who wants to be either?

• Sectors differ – biomedical vs. physical vs. ICT

• Background vs foreground

• Freedom to operate vs ownership

• How do we make IP more easily accessible?

• Universities are charities and have to use or dispose of their assets (including IP) appropriately

• Universities can expect companies to exercise due diligence

Important patent developments

• EU Patent Harmonisation

• Horizon 20/20 – €80 billion from 2014 to 2020

• America Invents

• Chinese mass filings

• (US) Trolls – litigation burden

• Defensive counter measures

• Corporate purchases of IP mountains

• Google-Motorola

• Patent suits – Apple vs Samsung

Other IP

• Patents and spin outs high profile but how well is other IP managed in universities ?

• Designs

• Trade marks

• Tangible research outputs

• Know-how

• Copyright – open source, open access

• Software – copyright or patents?

Consultancy and Open Innovation

• Consultancy - knowledge transfer in real time?

• First step on the KT ladder

• Un-hypothecated income

• Contributes to Impact and Qr

• Frequently leads to further interactions

• IP more easily managed in general

• Open Innovation – risk and rewards sharing - old wine in new bottles?

• Universities – major sources of diversity, knowledge, and extensive experience of complex IP management

• Great opportunities for the sector

Some final thoughts :

• Spending reviews and austerity mean KT is no longer optional and is a survival skill but:

• Will HEIF continue?

• Will KT remain as an add-on service or become a normal academic duty?

• What will be the long term Impact of the REF?

• Are initiatives like Open Innovation and Catapults fundamentally conservative and risk feeding existing cash cows?

• Major innovation comes from basic research and KT is essential

• Collaboration is more important than ever

Knowledge transfer can be risky …

Thank you

Cambridge Enterprise Limited

University of Cambridge

Hauser Forum

3 Charles Babbage Road

Cambridge

CB3 0GT

UK

Tel: +44 (0)1223 760339

Fax: +44 (0)1223 763753

Email: enquiries@enterprise.cam.ac.uk

www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk