1
OTT-- The First Five Years:
Summary and Road Forward
Wayne E. Swann
December 2004Patents and Pizza Seminar Series
Technology Transfer at APL
2
• 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.
Technology Transfer Summary
APL 1998 Study - Benefits of Technology Transfer:
3
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
4
OTT Operations
Staff
Organization
Scope of Activities
Technology Transfer Summary
5
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
OTT Operations: Staff
6
OTT: Functional Organization Chart
DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
WAYNE SWANN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER KRISTIN GRAY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT & OTT
COORDINATOR DONNA COUTURIAUX
TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS DIRECTOR NORMA LEE TODD
SENIOR TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAMS SPECIALIST SUSAN FURNEY
TECHNOLOGY/MARKETING ASSOCIATE
BIOMEDICAL AND MATERIALS & STRUCTURES
HEATHER PRETTYMAN
TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION, MODELING AND SYSTEMS
RANDALL SLAGLE
TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
SENSORS, ELECTRONICS
INSTRUMENTATION JOHN BACON
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY TEAM
TECH TRANSFER
DEPARTMENT
TEAM
MARKETING
TEAM
APL LEADERSHIP TEAM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
BUSINESS REVIEW COUNCIL IP POLICY ADMINISTRATION
TECHNOLOGY/MARKETING
MANAGER VEHICLE AND SPACE &
ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSICS NORMA LEE TODD
SENIOR TECHNOLOGY
ADMINISTRATION
SPECIALIST LESLIE MARTINELLI
IN-REACH PROGRAMS
7
In-Reach
• Recognize, Reward, Promote Innovation and Innovative Work Environment
• Dept. Tech Transfer Team; Teach Class• WSE – Student Technology Commercialization
and Entrepreneurship program
Outreach/Economic Development
• State: TEDCO/DBED;Tech Councils
• HCEDA (NeoTech, Missions)
• Businesses/Organizations
• Enhance APL’s High-Tech Image - New APL CD Bus. Card
APL Leadership Activities
• Technology CompetitivenessInnovation Output Metric analysisInnovation Outcome Proxies – Licenses
and Patent Citations Analysis
• Science and Technology CouncilS&T Staff CapabilitiesAPL/Business Area Profiles
Technology Transfer
• Technology Licensing
• Fund Technology Development
• Facilitate Interactions with Industry
• Facilitate New Company Formation
• Improving Technology Transition – to USG Contractors - FST as Model
Tech Transfer Operations – Scope of Activities
8
Performance Metrics
Historical Perspective
Comparisons
Technology Transfer Summary
9
Innovation Output Comparison APL/AUTM Invention Comparison
50
58 56 56 5862
69 72 7276
80 8187
76
64
44
24
40 41
4853
67
143
126 125 124
151
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AUTM - Average Invention Disclosures
APL- Invention Disclosures
10
Innovation Output ComparisonAPL/AUTM Issued Patents
11
1312
14
17
20
2223
22
20
10
12
8
65
2
54
5
12
10
14
22
31
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AUTM - Average US Patents
APL - US Patents
An Additional 23 US Patents had already been allowed, and were awaiting issuance, by the USPTO at the end of GFY 2004
11
Innovation Outcome Comparison
APL/AUTM Technology Licenses
11
15 1517 17 17
2123 24 25
23 24 25
3 3
0 0 0 1 2
12
1618
35
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AUTM - Average License Agreements
APL License Agreements
12
• Inventions 151* 669• Licenses 49* 130• Total US Patent Applications 238* 902• Issued US Patents 31* 89• Start-up Companies 4* 14• License Income (Millions Received) $2.0 $9.4• Associated R&D (Millions Committed) $2.7* $9.6
(~60% of R&D commitments already received)
Performance Metric 2004 5-Yr Total
* Denotes all time high
Technology Transfer Summary
13
2004 Performance Metrics Update1
Metric AUTM Rank Percentile
• Inventions 23rd 15th
• Licenses 23rd 15th
• Total US Patent Applications 6th 4th
• Issued US Patents 30th 19th
• Start-up Companies 21st 14th
• License Income 56th 36th
• Associated R&D Income 14th 9th1 Latest AUTM Survey Data - Where APL would Rank out of 151 Research Universities in the US (including 94 of the top 100).
Technology Transfer Summary
14
APL
Performance Metrics• New Invention Disclosures 15 • New Licenses 5.0 • Total US Patent Applications 24 • Issued US Patents 3.2 • Start-up Companies 0.4 • License Income (~$000) 200 • Associated R&D (~$000) 270
OTT Performance Comparisons Output Per Full Time Tech Transfer Staff
15
APL Inventions, Patents and License ProfileAPL Data by Category
All subcategories selectedas of October 31, 2004
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Biomedical/Biochem
ical Technology
Communications an
d Distributed
Systems
Electro
nics Technology
Information Processing and Managem
ent
Material
s and Structu
res
Modeling an
d Simulation
Sensors and Sensor S
ystems
Space an
d Environmental
Physics
System Analy
sis, Test
and Evaluation
Vehicle Tech
nology
Inventions
Patents
Licenses
16
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)
17
The Environment
Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
Howard County
State of Maryland
Technology Transfer Summary
18
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
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
JHU
• State of Tech Transfer at JHU National search for leader OTT/LTD - good relationship
• Building relationship with WSE Entrepreneurship
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
19
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
20
Income and Expenditures:
5 Year Review
Licensing Income
Operational Expenditures
R&D Grants
Technology Transfer Summary
21
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
GFY 1999-2004 APL Income and Expenditure Summary Technology Transfer Program
Dev Fund for GFY 2004 = ($248,775)
22
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) $ 770,346
Total Received $ 2,273,529
Total of 119 Grants to APL Staff
23
OTT Overhead Costs
Percentage of OTT Administrative Costs Charged to Overhead
72% 74%
58%
46%41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Does not include Patent Costs or Tech Transfer Grants to Departments
24
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 self-sufficiency
25
Maintain Performance Metrics
Technology Transfer at APL
The Road Ahead
Achieve Self-Sufficiency
26
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)
27
Summary
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
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
OTT Operations
• Administration, staffing, training, programs in place – workload high
• Infrastructure (databases, etc.) functioning/improved efficiency
• Expanding the impact (FST)
• Focusing on Licensing Income
28
OTT-- The First Five Years:
Summary and Road Forward
Questions
Technology Transfer at APL
The Road to Pizza!!!!