Leading the World to Early Stage Research

Presented by Bob de Witwww.flintbox.com

Background

• In 2002 Canadian Taxpayers invested $1.2 Billion into research at Canadian universities (not including infrastructure investments)

• $32 Million* was generated in licensing revenue by Canadian university technology transfer organizations

* Figure excludes results from some Quebec universities

Inputs and Outputs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 ($000,000)

SSHRC

NSERC

CIHR

Dollars In

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2002 ($000,000)

SSHRC

NSERC

CIHR

Dollars Out*

* Figures extrapolated from UBC experience

Qualified Observations

• Either Life Sciences are where it’s at and we should forget the rest; or

• We haven’t done a very good job transferring new knowledge from applied and social sciences.

How did this come about?

The Patent-License Model

• Was the first accepted “best practice” at university tech transfer offices.

• Was best suited to life sciences, which is where the early returns were.

• Became the “one-size-fits-all” model that other research outcomes had to fit into or risk being ignored.

• Operates on a “disclose-assess-protect-license” process.

• Best for capitalizing on the 1 in 1000 “big hit”.

• Must pick winners to pay for losers (in theory). Often say “no” to avoid losers.

• Human-resource intensive.

• Too slow for transferring time-sensitive research outcomes.

• Becoming prohibitively expensive (patent costs).

The Patent-License Model

Consequences of the Patent-License Model

• Handles less than 10% of inventions

• Too slow and cost-ineffective for the other 90%

• Not very scalable

• Biased against SMEs

• “Targeted” marketing strategy has lead to primitive uses of networks so tech transfer offices have not developed effective internet marketing strategies.

Network Consequences of P-L Model:

• Utilizes isolated social networks:

• Each organization maintains their own rolodex of “usual suspect” F500 firms to whom they send their new technology opportunities

• Very little sharing of contacts between tech transfer organizations

• Technology users (companies) are growing weary of dealing individually with each university

• Primitive use of the Internet:

• Each organization either “dumps” their marketing info on a web site, or doesn’t use the web at all

• Little or no online licensing being done

• No e-commerce presently happening

A New Model is Needed that:

• Can handle the other 90% of the technologies.

• Is cost-effective and fast.

• Aggregates social networks

• Leverages the power of the Internet

• Reduces costs; (access, transaction (licensing) and transfer).

An online platform (web site) for facilitating the sharing of research results between collaborators in and around publicly-funded research institutions.

Flintbox is…

a. To facilitate an effective exchange between researchers and end-users (including research collaborators) of research;

b. To remove barriers to access (by facilitating a streamlined licensing process and intellectual property due diligence);

c. To create a “commons” providing access to aggregated research results;

d. To better integrate T2 into the ongoing research process of all disciplines.

What’s the mission?

Some History

2001 2002 2003

Steve gets an

idea

April 2001: Development begins with

funding support from the BC Advanced

Systems Institute

Let’s automate the access to

copyright materials to

allow licensing and e-commerce

August 2002: Key partnership with

WestLink is completed.

March 2003: CANARIE awards a

$250k grant to further develop

Flintbox

September 2001: First prototype appears at UBC

December 2002 15 Western Canadian

universities, colleges and research

organizations agree to beta test Flintbox

Some History

2003 2004 2005

Sept 03 BC Cancer commits to Flintbox and posts Sockeye –

the software they developed to isolate the SARS Genome

March - Flintbox 2.0 Goes into

development and is Launched in Sept 03

December -UBC makes wholesale commitment to

Flintbox and starts to use FB

for antibody licensing

October - McGill, Western, Ottawa U, McMaster, of

Calgary, U of Alberta, commit to Using Flintbox

March - Western Diversification

and NSERC commit to Flintbox

Canadian Universities are fully mobilized

using Flintbox and Flintbox is self

sustainable

Who’s behind Flintbox? (so far)

• University of British Columbia• University of Alberta•University of Calgary •University of Victoria• Simon Fraser University• University of Western Ontario• McGill University• McMaster University• University of Ottawa• BC Cancer Agency• University of Manitoba• University of Saskatchewan• +10 other institutions in Western Canada

• UBC – UBC-RE• BC ASI• CANARIE• Westlink• Western Diversification• Revenue from licenses

• Researchers who want to make their research results public and/or want to share them with others.

• Intellectual property management professionals.

• End-users – those who gain access to technologies posted on Flintbox.

Site Licenses(Completed & in Process)

Funding End-Users

Flintbox Features

1. Online licensing, payment and delivery (for both materials for download and materials to be shipped).

2. Decentralized Content Management; content owners manage the technology descriptions, materials associated and license agreements.

3. Distributed Access; Flintbox uses a variety of techniques to make sure that content in Flintbox gets noticed.

• Unique URL’s for each technology,

• Search engine placement

• Private Label access points (www.ubcflintbox.ca, www.mcmasterflintbox.ca, www.uottawaflintbox.ca etc)

Types of Postings

1. Research Work Products (“RWPs”) with a paid download

2. RWPs with a non-commercial download

3. RWPs where there is a transaction but fulfillment occurs outside Flintbox (e.g. biological materials, CD ROMs)

4. Description of ongoing research activity -- with or without a download but where licensing occurs outside Flintbox

Note: Not all items downloaded from Flintbox need to be licensed – marketing material, user manuals etc, are examples of items available without license

Case Study #1: Sockeye

• BC Cancer Agency researcher Dr. Steven Jones and his team developed some software designed to assemble and view genomic and comparative genomic information in a 3D environment. ;

• Responsible for successfully sequencing the genome of the SARS associated corona virus. ;

• Objective: Get the software into the hands of research colleagues at other research institutes ASAP on a non-commercial (free) basis; and

• License the software to interested companies.

• Posted August 23, 2003

Case Study #1: Results

• By May 28, 2004 there were 960+ views of the technology description

• 558 consummated ‘click-wrap’ licenses to colleagues at other research institutions

“Flintbox has served as an extremely useful conduit in disseminating software to the academic community. This is likely to improve market awareness and therefore the commercial potential of the software posted on Flintbox.”

Sarah Lee, BC Cancer Agency

-Technology Development Office

Case Study #2: TCM Employee Survey

• University of Western Ontario researchers Dr. John Meyer and Dr. Natalie Allen developed a survey instrument for measuring employee commitment;

• Objective: Handle the flood of requests for both commercial and non-commercial use; and

• License the survey to interested companies (for a fee) and research collaborators (free for evaluation only)

Case Study #2: Results

• As of May 28, 2004 there have been 6,634 unique views of the technology description;

• 242 consummated “click-wrap” licenses of different types (fee and no fee applicable);

• A new source of funding to continue their research efforts; and

• A community of interested users who can easily be made aware of new developments.

Case Study #3: EmphylxJ

• UBC researcher Dr. Harvey Coxson and his team developed software to track progression and regression of emphysema;

• Objectives:

- Share free beta version with research collaborators at other research institutes;

- Offer paid license to researchers at interested companies; and

- Control use of software and gain feedback from users.

Case Study #3: Results

• Posted on June 23, 2003

• As of May 28th there have been 2,509 unique views of the technology description;

• 78 consummated “click-wrap” licenses of different types (fee and no fee applicable);

• A (modest) new source of funding to continue their research efforts; and

• A community of interested users who can easily be made aware of new developments.

Why Flintbox?

Problem: The present “Patent-License” model implemented by most T2 offices is inappropriate for most RWPs. Most projects are non-patentable and involve iterative improvements.

Need: A way to provide T2 expertise to a broader audience, in a more responsive fashion, at little cost (!)

Flintbox:

• enables “click-wrap” licensing in high volume at a low cost

• allows decentralization of intellectual property management

• helps create a feedback loop to enable improvements

Why Flintbox?

Problem: Present internet marketing efforts for promoting research have yielded little or no results mainly because of content management problems.

Need: To improve visibility for university research.

Flintbox:• Is optimized to maximize indexing by the major search engines• Allows decentralized content management – no webmaster!• Provides the expertise to stay on top of changes in internet marketing strategies and technologies.

Key Metrics

June 30, 03 Nov 18, 03 May 28, 04

Visits 11,717 129,495 432,489

Tech’s Posted 9 56 158

Accounts 342 583 1,086

Licenses Issued 236 649 1,636

The Flintbox Project Team

Bob de Wit Phone    604 822-0999

Email:   bob@flintbox.com

Steve Smith Phone    604 633-3097 x101 Email:   steves@flintbox.com

Stuart Cullum Phone    403 443-9667

Email:   stuart.cullum@westlink.ca

Meira Sudds Phone    604 633-3097 x110 Email:   meira@flintbox.com