Technology Transfer at APL
OTT-- The First Five Years:
Summary and Road Forward
Wayne E. Swann
December 2004
Patents and Pizza Seminar Series
1
Technology Transfer Summary
APL 1998 Study - Benefits of Technology Transfer:
• Broaden the public benefits derived from APL technology;
• Create jobs and improve the economy of the community,
state and nation;
• Enhance APL’s image as a creative and innovative institution,
and attract new talent and challenging work; and
• Acquire unrestricted funds for future scientific research and
technology development at APL and within JHU.
2
Technology Transfer Summary
Operations
 Staff/Organization; Scope of Activities
Performance Metrics
 Historical Perspective; Comparisons
The Environment
 APL; JHU; County; State
Income and Expenditures
 Review; Self-Sufficiency
3
Technology Transfer Summary
OTT Operations
Staff
Organization
Scope of Activities
4
OTT Operations: Staff
John Bacon, Technology Manager
Donna Couturiaux, Office of Technology Transfer Coordinator
Susan Furney, Technology Programs Assistant
Kristin Gray, Assistant Director of Technology Transfer
Leslie Martinelli, Administrative Assistant (part time)
Heather Prettyman, Technology and Marketing Associate
Randall Slagle, Technology Manager
Wayne Swann, Director of Technology Transfer
Norma Lee Todd, Director of Technology Programs
5
OTT: Functional Organization Chart
6
Tech Transfer Operations – Scope of Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Technology Transfer
Technology Licensing
Fund Technology Development
Facilitate Interactions with Industry
Facilitate New Company Formation
Improving Technology Transition – to
USG Contractors - FST as Model
APL Leadership Activities
• Technology Competitiveness
Innovation Output Metric analysis
Innovation Outcome Proxies – Licenses
and Patent Citations Analysis
• Science and Technology Council
S&T Staff Capabilities
APL/Business Area Profiles
In-Reach
• Recognize, Reward, Promote Innovation
and Innovative Work Environment
• Dept. Tech Transfer Team; Teach Class
• WSE – Student Technology Commercialization
•
•
•
•
and Entrepreneurship program
7
Outreach/Economic Development
State: TEDCO/DBED;Tech Councils
HCEDA (NeoTech, Missions)
Businesses/Organizations
Enhance APL’s High-Tech Image New APL CD Bus. Card
Technology Transfer Summary
Performance Metrics
Historical Perspective
Comparisons
8
Innovation Output Comparison
APL/AUTM Invention Comparison
160
151
143
AUTM - Average Invention Disclosures
140
APL- Invention Disclosures
126
125
124
120
100
87
76
80
72
69
64
60
58
56
72
80
2001
2002
67
62
58
56
76
81
53
50
48
44
40
41
1995
1996
40
24
20
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1997
1998
9
1999
2000
2003
2004
Innovation Output Comparison
APL/AUTM Issued Patents
45
An Additional 23 US Patents
had already been allowed, and
were awaiting issuance, by the
USPTO at the end of GFY 2004
AUTM - Average US Patents
40
APL - US Patents
35
31
30
25
23
22
22
22 22
20
20
20
17
15
12
10
10
14
13
14
12
11
12
10
8
6
5
5
4
5
5
2
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
10
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Innovation Outcome Comparison
APL/AUTM Technology Licenses
60
AUTM - Average License Agreements
APL License Agreements
49
50
40
35
30
25
24
23
25
24
23
21
20
17
15
17
18
17
16
15
12
11
10
3
3
0
0
0
1995
1996
1997
1
2
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1998
11
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Technology Transfer Summary
Performance Metric
• Inventions
• Licenses
• Total US Patent Applications
• Issued US Patents
• Start-up Companies
• License Income (Millions Received)
• Associated R&D (Millions Committed)
(~60% of R&D commitments already received)
* Denotes all time high
12
2004 5-Yr Total
151*
669
49*
130
238*
902
31*
89
4*
14
$2.0
$9.4
$2.7*
$9.6
Technology Transfer Summary
2004 Performance Metrics Update1
Metric
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AUTM Rank
23rd
23rd
6th
30th
21st
56th
14th
Inventions
Licenses
Total US Patent Applications
Issued US Patents
Start-up Companies
License Income
Associated R&D Income
1 Latest AUTM
Percentile
15th
15th
4th
19th
14th
36th
9th
Survey Data - Where APL would Rank out of 151
Research Universities in the US (including 94 of the top 100).
13
OTT Performance Comparisons
Output Per Full Time Tech Transfer Staff
APL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Performance Metrics
New Invention Disclosures
New Licenses
Total US Patent Applications
Issued US Patents
Start-up Companies
License Income (~$000)
Associated R&D (~$000)
15
5.0
24
3.2
0.4
200
270
14
APL Inventions, Patents and License Profile
APL Data by Category
All subcategories selected
30%
as of October 31, 2004
Inventions
Patents
25%
Licenses
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
s
s
gy
nt
gy
n
on
cs
gy
es
tem
olo
me
tem
ysi
ol o
tur
olo
l ati
a tio
s
e
s
n
c
h
n
n
u
u
y
g
y
h
u
l
h
P
h
a
c
S
a
S
c
ec
al
St r
Sim
an
Te
or
Ev
ed
Te
ent
le T
cs
e ns
ca l
nd
dM
but
and
a nd
i
c
m
i
i
i
a
S
n
n
s
n
r
g
h
t
t
l
a
o
o
s
g
li n
ria
hem
Ve
ct r
a nd
vi r
Dis
Te
ate
ioc
ssin
ode
En
El e
i s,
nd
ors
e
B
s
a
M
s
d
/
c
M
l
y
n
n
s
a
al
Se
Pro
ea
ion
dic
An
ion
ca t
pac
me
i
t
m
S
o
e
a
n
i
t
u
s
B
orm
Sy
mm
Inf
Co
15
Technology Transfer Status: Products
Survey Landform Analysis
(Optech >$100,000/year Royalties)
WAVES
(Shell; Multiple Licenses)
QTViewer (3-D Color Modeling)
(34 Licenses; Applied Imagery just formed)
Polyscore (Windows)
(Lafayette >$100,000/year Royalties)
16
Technology Transfer Summary
The Environment
Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Howard County
State of Maryland
17
Technology Transfer: The Environment
APL
• Inventions, Patents and Licenses are
at all time highs (6/7 metrics)
• Innovation is being recognized as
being very important to APL
• Tech Transfer 5 years later…
generally good
•
•
•
•
County
Local environment - Not Silicon
Valley; center of B/W Tech Corridor
APL is the big player in the County
Focus on entrepreneurial environment
Opportunities – HCEDA partnerships
- new Tech Leadership Consortium
JHU
• State of Tech Transfer at JHU

National search for leader
 OTT/LTD - good relationship
•
•
•
•
•
•
18
Building relationship with WSE
Entrepreneurship
State
TEDCO “Tech Trans. Improvement all progress at JHU, all from APL”
State - positive view of Howard Co.
Gap Remains - Funding of Start-ups
Significant Econ Dev. Value in TT
Fed Lab Tech Transfer issue remains
APL Technology Transfer Benefit to the Public
Five Year Data
 71 Different Technologies Licensed
 15 Commercial Products/Processes
 52 New Jobs Created From APL Start-ups
Economic Development Impact
One Piece: Salaries generated by new jobs
 TEDCO New Job Multiplier and Average Salaries
 >$5 Million Annual Salaries in Maryland
Generated by APL Start-ups
19
Technology Transfer Summary
Income and Expenditures:
5 Year Review
Licensing Income
Operational Expenditures
R&D Grants
20
GFY 1999-2004 APL Income and Expenditure
Summary Technology Transfer Program
Royalties, R&D Income & Cost Reimbursements to APL
Total APL Receipts
$ 22,705,291
OTT, OPC, Patents, APL Grants & Income Distribution Costs
Total Expenditures/Distributions
$ 21,533,654
Net Income (loss) to APL
$ 1,171,637
Dev Fund for GFY 2004 = ($248,775)
21
Technology Transfer Status
Income and Expenditures
Summary: Tech Transfer Grants to APL Staff
(GFY 2000-2004)
APL Dev Fund Grants
$ 1,503,183
Other Grant Funding (TEDCO, IRAD)
$
Total Received
$ 2,273,529
770,346
Total of 119 Grants to APL Staff
22
OTT Overhead Costs
Percentage of OTT Administrative Costs
Charged to Overhead
100%
90%
80%
72%
74%
70%
58%
60%
46%
50%
41%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
Does not include Patent Costs or Tech Transfer Grants to Departments
23
2004
Technology Transfer Status
 DCAA/DCMA Disallowance has major impact on OTT/OPC
 Average Licensing Income of $2 million/year is not enough for
self-sufficiency
 OTT needs to chart a different course on the road to selfsufficiency
24
Technology Transfer at APL
The Road Ahead
Maintain Performance Metrics
Achieve Self-Sufficiency
25
The Road Ahead: Achieve Self-Sufficiency
 Reduce Short Term Costs
 Reduce activities that do not generate short term income
 Reduce/Delay the number of new patent applications
 Reduce OTT Operational Costs
 Generate Short Term Licensing Income
 Director of TT/ Tech Managers “Top 10” List
 Implemented effort with A&F to promptly invoice
 Activity Focused on Recovering Costs:
 Recover Patent Costs – Improved A&F System; Terms
 Recover (Disallowed) Costs - 15% Administrative Fee
(Stanford, MIT); Licensing Expenses (IP Policy)
26
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OTT Operations
Administration, staffing, training,
programs in place – workload high
Infrastructure (databases, etc.)
functioning/improved efficiency
Expanding the impact (FST)
Focusing on Licensing Income
The Environment
Tech Transfer at APL – Generally good
JHU/LTD Transition – APL/OTT
Licensing Joint JHU Inventions
County – Good Partnership with EDA
State – Want More Tech Transfer Value
From Universities/Govt. Labs;
and view APL as model
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inventions, Licenses, Patents
Innovation increasing (very high)
License rate maturing/matured
Issued Patents maturing/costly
Approaching 2X AUTM Averages
Products are finding way to market
Start-ups take time - nurture/mature
•
•
•
•
•
•
Financing Operations
Income fluctuates (mostly fees)
Royalty base (& equity) immature
Transitioning costs to Dev. Fund
Cost cutting measures underway
DCAA allowance issues remain
Self-sufficiency not yet achieved
27
Technology Transfer at APL
OTT-- The First Five Years:
Summary and Road Forward
Questions
The Road to Pizza!!!!
28