clara asmail - university of virginia · uc berkeley university of california* michigan state...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Clara AsmailDeputy Director for Policy & Practice
Office of Technology Transitions
September 2019
2
National Laboratories
• 17 world-class institutions that constitute the most comprehensive research and development network of its kind.
• An enduring science and technology powerhouse comprised of more than 20,000 scientists and engineers who deliver new discoveries and provide world-class technological capabilities.
3
3-D printed house in Oak Ridge highlights the possibilities of new manufacturing technologies.
Nanosys partnered with LBNL, 3M, and LG to develop Quantum Dot Enhancement Film that offers displays with 50% wider color spectrum at a comparable price without using more energy.
PNNL’s mobile Smartphone Microscope allows anyone with a smartphone to explore tiny objects for as little as 5¢. It slips over the smartphone and can be 3D printed.
LANL’s expertise in nuclear weapons helped P&G engineer a better diaper.
LLNL’s MIR is a compact, low-cost, low-power radar used for sensing nearby objects and measuring distances between objects in proximity.
Tech Transfer Success Stories
4
SNL, LANL, LLNL, & NETL contributed to shale gas technology that significantly improved US energy independence.
National laboratories are drivers of new wind energy technologies.
Argonne National Lab’s battery cathode design helps powers EVs
Ames’ Lab lead-free solder alloy is the world wide market leader.
Tech Transfer Success Stories
NETL developed a user-friendly, flexible, and reliable tool to effectively communicate spatial data, as well as the data’s uncertainties.
5
Fermilab designed the first proton accelerator for cancer treatment.
ORNL was an early leader in the use of ion implantation for semiconductor processing and artificial joint surface treatment.
Approximately 50 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year worldwide. BNL developed the Tc-99m generator and FDG used in PET scanning.
Tech Transfer Success Stories
Energy.gov/technologytransitions 6
Office of Technology Transitions: Mission
The Office of Technology Transitions was created to expand the commercial impact of the DOE’s portfolio of R&D activities.
➢Stakeholder Engagement➢Streamlining policies and procedures➢Elevating Best Practices➢Elevating Visibility
Energy.gov/technologytransitions 7
Achieving High-Impact Outcomes
• OTT coordinates activities across DOE programs, NNSA, field offices, national laboratories, ARPA-e, and DOE support offices as well as with other federal agencies
• Coordination reduces redundancies and improves likelihood and speed of outcomes toward technology transfer and commercial development of DOE’s research outputs
Prioritizing stakeholder engagement strengthens the national laboratories’ capabilities and the researchers’ competencies in engaging with industry and other partners
• Reducing barriers to industry engagement with the national laboratories
• Facilitating engagement for the transfer of technologies from the laboratories to the private sector for commercialization
Coordinating Facilitating Accelerating
Why the OTT Mission is Important
8
$71.4 (513)
$58.5 (579)
$46.5 (578) $46.8
(543)
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
FY
Par
tner
$ In
Mill
ions
Num
ber
of F
Y A
gree
men
ts
U.S. College/University Partners: FY14-FY17 Summary
FY14-FY17 Agreements with U.S. Colleges/Universities$MM Partner Funds In (Number of Agreements)
FY17 Statewide U.S. College/University Funds in to
Laboratory Partnership Agreements
U.S. College/University Partners by Fiscal Year:
• FY14 – 148
• FY15 – 164
• FY16 – 175
• FY17 – 160
States with most U.S. College/University FY17 Funds In:
1. California – $10.9 MM on 128 agreements
2. Florida – $8.6 MM on 13 agreements
3. Illinois – $3.6 MM on 35 agreements
4. Wisconsin – $3.1 MM on 17 agreements
5. Maryland – $2.8 MM on 25 agreements
FY14-FY17 Aggregate Data: Colleges/University
Partnerships
• Avg. of 553 Agreements per FY
• 220 Unique University Partners
• $55.8 MM Avg. Partner $ In per FY
*FY17 Data Undergoing Quality Assurance and Quality Control and is Subject to Change
*FY17 Data Undergoing Quality Assurance and Quality Control
and is Subject to Change
Non-Classified SPP
(non-fed), CRADA, and
ACT agreements only
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
UC Berkeley University ofCalifornia*
University ofTennessee
University ofChicago
University ofTexas
University ofMichigan
UC SanFrancisco
MichiganState
University
University ofWisconsin
JohnsHopkins
University
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of A
gree
men
ts
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
Florida StateUniversity
University ofChicago
UC Berkeley University ofCalifornia*
MichiganState
University
University ofWisconsin
UC SanFrancisco
University ofTennessee
JohnsHopkins
University
DukeUniversity
Avg
. FY
Par
tner
$ In
Mill
ions
U.S. College/University Partners: Top 10 Universities, FY14-FY17
FY14-FY17 Top University Partners by Average Funds In per FY
FY14-FY17 Top University Partners by Average Number of Agreements per FY
*University of California refers to
the Office of the President for the
UC System
*University of California refers to
the Office of the President for the
UC System
*FY17 Data Undergoing Quality Assurance and Quality Control
and is Subject to Change
Non-Classified SPP
(non-fed), CRADA, and
ACT agreements only
10
U.S. College/University Partners: FY17 Taxonomies
DOE Agreements are classified by 3 taxonomy types:
Parallel – A cross cutting research category that describes the project type
Primary – Describes main focus of research
Secondary - A specific research area that falls under one of the primary taxonomies
$3.3 (50)
$3.8 (61)
$7.2 (69)
$9.5 (43)
$10.4 (70)
$- $5 $10 $15 $20
- 30 60 90 120
FY17 Partner $ InMillions
Number of FY17 Agreements
$3.7 (82)
$3.8 (42)
$6.2 (82)
$9.2 (88)
$16.0 (112)
$- $5 $10 $15 $20
- 30 60 90 120
FY17 Partner $ InMillions
Number of FY17 Agreements
$1.9 (19)
$2.0 (12)
$3.7 (22)
$5.5 (40)
$8.1 (24)
$- $5 $10 $15 $20
- 30 60 90 120
FY17 Partner $ InMillions
Number of FY17 Agreements
Medical
Advanced
Materials
Bioscience
Applications
Earth and
Environmental
National
Security (NS)
Technical
Systems
Analysis
Modeling and
Simulation
Data
Analytics
Organic
Chemistry
Hardware
AM – Materials
Characterization
BA –
Biomarkers
Me – Proteomics
Advanced
Computation –
Computing
Infrastructure
Physics
Applications –
Accelerators
FY17 Top 5 Primary Taxonomies$MM Partner Funds In (Number of Agreements)
FY17 Top 5 Parallel Taxonomies$MM Partner Funds In (Number of Agreements)
FY17 Top 5 Secondary Taxonomies$MM Partner Funds In (Number of Agreements)
*FY17 Data Undergoing Quality Assurance and Quality Control
and is Subject to Change
Non-Classified SPP
(non-fed), CRADA, and
ACT agreements only
Energy.gov/technologytransitions 11
CRADA (Cooperative R&D Agreement)
Statutorily-governed collaborative R&D projects; IP rights and confidentiality of works produced
SPP (Strategic Partnership Project, formerly: Work for Others)
Contract for R&D services to be conducted by Lab with IP rights to SPP partner
ACT
Flexible agreements with business-friendly T&Cs
Various Lab-specific, eg: Technical Assistance Agreements
FOAs (Funding Opportunity Announcements)
Ongoing, various opportunities
Mechanisms for engaging DOE National Labs
12
CRADA
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
Authorized by Stevenson-Wydler, 15 USC 3710a, CRADAs provide federal laboratories with an extremely flexible vehicle to facilitate the transfer of commercially useful technologies from federal laboratories to the nonfederal sector.
R&D Collaboration Contract: neither a procurement contract nor a grant.
Do not circumvent acquisition regulations.
13
CRADA
Benefits of CRADA:
A means to leverage research budgets and optimize resources
A means for sharing technical expertise, concepts, and information
Protection from disclosure by the federal government of any proprietary information brought to the CRADA by the partner
Ability for federal and nonfederal scientists and engineers to work together
Access for the nonfederal partner to expertise in a wide range of disciplines within the federal laboratory system
Agreement by the partners to share intellectual property that results from the effort or agreement to the retention by one of the partners of an exclusive license to patentable research
Protection of information resulting from the CRADA from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act requests for up to five years.
For the laboratory, the CRADA:
Allows a flexible mechanism for transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the private sector.
Allows private-sector parties to provide funds as well as other resources to assist with the commercialization of technology.
For the laboratory scientist or engineer, the CRADA:
Affords an opportunity for federal personnel to provide expertise to private-sector parties in the commercialization of their work.
Allows the inventing scientists or engineers to receive a percentage of the royalties generated as a result of commercialization of any subject invention(s).
For private-sector parties, the CRADA:
Allows nonfederal partners an opportunity to obtain rights to commercialize the results of government or joint R&D.
Provides for effective leveraging of resources through a team effort.
Provides access to federal expertise on of information resulting from the CRADA from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act requests for up to five years.
14
Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP)
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS (SPP)- FORMERLY KNOWN AS WORK FOR OTHERS, NON-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FUNDED WORK
• Provide assistance to Federal agencies and non-Federal entities in accomplishing goals that may be otherwise unattainable and to avoid duplication of effort at Federal facilities.
• Provide access to DOE/NNSA highly specialized or unique facilities, services, or technical expertise to non-DOE/non-NNSA entities when private sector facilities are inadequate.
• Increase R&D interactions between DOE/NNSA facilities and industry to provide opportunities for transferring technology originating at DOE/NNSA facilities to industry for further development or commercialization.
• Assist in maintaining core competencies and enhancing the science and technology base at DOE/NNSA facilities.
15
Factors Discouraging Some Sponsors of R&D at Labs using CRADA, SPP or User Agreements:
▪ Advanced Payments
▪ Indemnification
▪ Guaranteed Performance – vs – Best Effort
▪ Certain Reserved Government Rights to IP
Agreements for Commercializing Technology (ACT)
16
Agreements for Commercializing Technology (ACT)
▪ M&O Contractor can negotiate business-friendly terms with third party clients in flexible agreements
▪ Fast DOE approval of SoW / resource allocation - No DOE approval of agreement or business terms needed
▪ Contractor may choose to accept certain levels of risk to carry out work for funding clients
→ payment terms, project deliverables, milestones, etc.
▪ Contractor may receive higher fees for work, as negotiated, based on risks and contributions of parties
▪ IP rights distribution as negotiated with parties
▪ Government use license is replaced with research and data rights license
17
Licensing Intellectual Property
Licensing of DOE National Laboratory patented technologieshttps://www.energy.gov/technologytransitions/downloads/ttwg-licensing-guide
Discusses common terms for licensing: • Consideration• Performance Requirements• Business Plan Requirements• Field of Use / Exclusivity
Sample License
Energy.gov/technologytransitions 18
Coordinating with Programs, GC, Labs and other support offices for:
• Alternate CRADA Clause Library
• Guidance on timing and sufficiency of CRADA Final Reports
• Guidance on Equity as Compensation within IP License Agreements
• Sharing best practices for patent licensing
• Agreements for Technology Commercialization (ACT)/FedACT evaluation
• Enhancing DOE SBIR/STTR Programs
and other policies related to TT
TT Policy activities (some)
Energy.gov/technologytransitions 19
Provides matching funds with private partners to promote promising energy technologies for commercial purposes
OTT manages the execution of the TCF as mandated by Sec 1001 of EPAct 2005
The TCF is intended to facilitate the commercialization of energy technologies with promising potential that are developed atDOE Facilities. TCF Federal funds are matched with non-Federal contributions to:
1. Perform technology maturation with the intent of attracting a private partner that is willing to support the technology's commercialization.
2. Support cooperative development of technology with a private partner for a specific commercial application.
➢FY16: $19.7M -- 54 projects funded at 12 national labs ($15.9M), including matching funds ($16.9M) from 52 private-sector partners
➢FY17: 54 projects funded at 12 national labs ($19M), with matching funds ($34M) from more than 30 private-sector partners
➢FY18: 64 projects from 10 national labs ($20M)
Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF)
20
Connecting Investors to Lab Subject Matter Experts & IP
20
Laboratory Partnering Service (LPS)
https://search.labpartnering.org/
21
Visual Patent Search
Licensable IPConnect with
An Expert
21
Laboratory Partnering Service (LPS)
22
(LPS) Partnering with Experts
23
(LPS) Technologies Summaries
24
(LPS) Patent Visualization
25
Technology to Market (T2M) Energy I-Corps
Energy I-Corps: Bridging the Lab/Industry Knowledge Gap
Enhancing Capabilities of Researchers and Technology Transfer Offices
Aimed at accelerating the transfer of energy technologies from national laboratories to the commercial market.
DOE-tailored version of successful NSF I-Corps program adopted across many agencies. DOE co-led establishment of current Community of Practice through OSTP.
• 10 National Labs participating
• Sixth class began October 2017
• Expansion to NE, EM, OE for 6th class
• 63 teams, more than 63 industry mentors and more than 4500 customer discovery interviews
• At least 5 teams have incorporated or launched a new small business
• $10 million in follow-on funding
• Exploring privately-funded teams
Trains scientists how breakthrough discoveries can transition into high-impact, real-world technologies for commercialization by the private sector.
25
26
Existing consortia - Industry Pull
Energy Innovation Hubs
• Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors
• Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis.
• Joint Center for Energy Storage Research Argonne, LBNL, PNNL, SNL, SLACU of Ill Champaign-Urbana & Chicago, U of Chicago, UM, Northwestern, and Advanced Materials Johnson Controls, Clean Energy Trust and Dow Chemical
Advanced Manufacturing Consortia
27
Research Centers – Breakthrough Science
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs)
Bioenergy Research Centers
(Genomic Science Program)
BRCs produced 2,696 peer-reviewed publications, 619 invention disclosures, 397 patent applications, 199 licenses or options, 101 patents, and 14 company startups
An open recompetition in 2018 resulted in 42 awards for an anticipated total of $380 million:
11 two-year extensions of existing EFRCs, 9 four-year renewals of existing EFRCs, and 22 four-year awards for new EFRCs.
28
Current DOE Funding Opportunities
Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF):https://www.labpartnering.org/p/TCF/about
ARPA-E:https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=faq/current-funding-opportunities
SBIR/STTR:https://science.energy.gov/sbir/funding-opportunities/
All EERE:https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
Advanced Manufacturing Office:https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/funding-opportunities-0
Official notices of solicitations (All):http://www.grants.gov/
