meeting of the federal partners in technology transfer (fptt) – national june 1 st 2005 eileen...
TRANSCRIPT
MEETING OF THE FEDERAL PARTNERS IN
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
(FPTT) – NATIONALJUNE 1ST 2005
EILEEN RAYMOND – INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS
2
• Plant surface– 1987 19 444 m2
– 2003 (now) 31 191 m2
• Personnel– Employees of BRI – CNRC 262– Guest workers 163– Students 105– Company employees 393
TOTAL 2003 - 2004 925
• BRI expenses 2003 - 2004– Financed by BRI budget $ 20 284 M– Financed by NRC special projects $ 5 278 M– Financed by revenues generated by BRI $ 7 352 M
3
The Biotechnology Research Institute is committed to the mission of the National Research Council in serving the needs of Canadians by helping to maintain and enhance the economic and social well-being of the country.
The Biotechnology Research Institute promotes, assists and performs leading-edge research and development in biochemical engineering, molecular biology and genomics, closely linked to the needs of the industries in the pharmaceutical and environmental sectors.
4
Macromolecular Structure
Protein Chemistry
Enzymology
Biomolecular NMR
The Receptor, Signaling and Proteomics
Computational Chemistry
Mammalian Cell Genetics
Genetics
Microbial & Enzymatic Technology
Animal Cell Culture
Genomics and
Gene Therapy Vectors
Environment Genetics
Environmental Microbiology
Environmental Bioengineering
Analytical Chemistry
Biosensors
Applied Ecotoxicology
Bioconversion /
Sustainable Development
Director General
Building Engineer
Finance & Administration
Human Resources
Industrial AffairsDirector
Health Director Bioprocess Director Environment Director
5
44%
46%
10%
Active agreementswith industrial partners
Active agreementswith governmental organizations
Active agreementswith universities
– 31 new collaboration agreements– 50 active collaboration agreements– 46 canadian partners (92%)
Distribution of active collaboration agreements in 2003-2004
COLLABORATIONS
6
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Author –
Andy Storer
Director Health Sector
• NRC IPMC Meeting at BRI
• First IP Committee September 1999
7
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Bottleneck in Technology Transfer (Resources)
• Need to strenghten technologies for patenting
2005
8
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Paperwork issues at the beginning
• Implemented to Bioprocess and Environment Sectors (2001)
• Follow-up of actions difficult for a long time
• Structure changes needed
• 2004/2005 model : mature and functional
11
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005• Number of total
presentations has dropped through the years
• Number of publications maintained
• More "parcels" of research presented (gaining 6 months earlier)
• Comparison checks need to be done Publications vs Presentations
• Issues with principal authors outside
12
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005• On the spot with the right
people, open discussion for screening decision (hold or publish) using simplified criteria:
– 1º Patentability: new, useful, non obvious (Form 1)
– 2º Some intuitive market rational
– 3º Follow-up on research
– If more info is needed, postpone decision to next month
13
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Duly completed Form 1 and manuscripts are assessed to ensure sufficient data is provided to support a useful scope of claims for patent applications
14
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Improvement ongoing for timeline of tasks and actions
15
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• Paperwork issues
• Coordination issues
• Follow-up on actions issues
• Marketing resources issues
• For a long time still reactive mode facing deadlines
16
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• For few years, number of files increased
• Number of files decreased to reach a plateau due to better selectivity
• Better management for older files including dropping cases when appropriate
• Knowledgeable scientists on IP issues
2005
17
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005
• First IP Committee – September 1999
• Prior to 1999, few files
• Following the growth, a switch from quantity to quality
18
IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001
Comments 2005• Cost control was reached in
2004
• Less files and better control (IP AUDIT)
• Culture shift allows the IP integration within daily R&D work
• A Patent is not something on the side for anyone!
• Need to link IP Management and Project Management
• Need resources for technology assessment, marketing and technology transfer
2005
19
IP Committees (2004 / 2005 Model)
IP COMMITTEEOperation
• 1 committee per Scientific Sector Environment, Bioprocess, Health)
• 1 monthly meeting in 2 parts– Scientific presentation (open to all) – PART 1 Decision on protection and/or publication– IP portfolio management – PART 2 Controlling fees and follow-ups on files, with actions of protection and marketing
• Composition :– Sector Director (presides meeting)– Director of Industrial Affairs– Group leaders (3 permanents/18 months)
– 1 Patent Agent (IPS Ottawa)– 1 IP Coordinator– 2 Business Development Officers (BDOs)
• Separate work-meetings for prioritary files– Valuation of technology– Strategy and actions to ensure Technology Transfer