Working Together to Build Successful and Effective Industry-University Cooperative

Research Centers

NCURA Region VI & VII MeetingApril X, 2010

Newport Beach, California

Sherylle Mills Englander, Director Randall Draper, DirectorOffice of Technology & Industry Alliances Office of Contracts and GrantsUniversity of California Santa Barbara University of Colorado, Boulder

What is a Center?

An organizational unit established to enhance the working relationship between industry and universities characterized by:

industrial relevant fundamental research;

industrial support of and collaboration in research and education;

direct transfer of university developed ideas, research results, and technology to industry.

What are the benefits to industry?

Proprietary information for sponsors;

Rapid technology transfer to the sponsors;

Leveraged resources = research savings;

Access to faculty, students, and facilities;

Exposure to new ideas;

Interaction among sponsors, faculty, and student researchers.

What are the benefits to universities?

Alternate sources of funding;

Levering existing resources;

Long-term partnerships with industry:

Seed grants; Intellectual property; Student support (e.g. REU); Student placement; Exclusive research opportunities.

How are Centers structured?

Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) Model

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Model

University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) Model

Other, e.g. Engineering Research Center

How are Centers organized?

By-Laws

Membership Agreements

Operations Memorandum

Other:

Letters of Commitment License Agreements Non-Disclosure Agreements

Who are the players?

Government (Federal and/or State)

Industry

Other (e.g. NOAA/NIST/NREL)

Universities:

Faculty Investigators Center Administrators Business Developers Industry Representatives Central Administrators (sponsored projects/technology transfer)

What are some of the potential governance issues?

Single Institution – Multiple Institutions

Large Businesses – Small Businesses

Single Focus – Multiple Foci

Advisory Committee – Executive Committee

Shared Research – Exclusive Research

Faculty initiated – Strategically initiated

The Center for Membrane Applied Science and Technology (MAST)

NSF IUCRC, established in 1990

CU is the lead institution with participating investigators from NJIT, CSM, CSU, Clemson, Cincinnati

Industry/Laboratory Participation

Anasys Instruments Corporation Pall Corporation Compact Membrane Systems QinetiQ North America Conoco-Phillips EPRI National Renewable Energy

Laboratory Eli Lilly and Company U.S. Army Tank Automotive R&D Center : W.L. Gore & Associates U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Millipore Corporation

Research and Educational Mission: To advance the technology of membrane separations,

including basic research and related developmental activities for the use of membrane technologies in separation processes; timely and effective technology transfer ; promotion of education in membrane science and technology.

Research opportunities for 35 Ph.D. and 26 M.S. degrees and 218 undergraduates

Annual Revenues: $650,000 Projects: 80 Faculty/Researchers: 30

Costs: $50,000/year membership fee; 3 year agreement

Benefits: “Proprietary” research and information; Cutting edge research results; Efficient technology transfer; Leveraged resources; Low overhead (6%); Access to faculty members, students, and facilities; Student recruitment

Intellectual Property: 7 patents

http://www.icb.ucsb.edu/

“UARC” (university affiliated research center) funded by the U.S. Army

UCSB is lead, with Caltech and MIT as subawardees Five primary research foci, each with separate

funding task orders under master agreement: Biomolecular Sensors Bio-Inspired Materials/Energy BioDiscovery Tools Bio-Inspired Network Science Cognitive Neuroscience

60 faculty and 150 researchers across the three institutions

Motivations for ICB Industry Partnership Program: Accelerated tech transfer is key metric in

Army evaluations Need for additional funding to help meet

matching requirements Attract as many companies as possible

Big, small, local, national, in any market area.

Tiered Benefits (annual fee): Top Level (paid membership fee required):

First right to negotiate a license to inventions fully developed on ICB’s 6.1 (basic) DOD research funds.

Second Level (no fee; free membership): Companies have right to submit proposals for 6.2 funds allocated to ICB

for research collaborations between company, university and Army lab.

UCSB provides a first option to negotiate an exclusive license in an appropriate field of use

Both levels: members receive invitation to attend annual research

symposium and various ICB events throughout the year.

Intellectual Property Intellectual property benefits did not prove to be a

driving force! IP can be needlessly tied up in election periods for

companies that clearly have no interest

Assuring IP Policy works for UCSB, Caltech and MIT Cat herding was a key skill Post-award: assuring all three universities are implementing

policy

Automatic license rights to 6.2 collaborators Is the company in the best position to bring the technology

forward?

Non-IP Issues Smaller companies may not have worked with federal grants

before. Significant hand holding by Sponsored Projects to assure subrecipient compliance contract delays common with no IDC rates and need for

additional admin controls Sponsored Projects cannot control which company is

selected.

Some companies found funding paperwork intensive – used to researching with less administrative burden

Due to diversity of research thrusts, hard to attract higher level, fee-paying members

When working with a new Center:

Understand from the faculty (and design structure accordingly): What research areas/markets are involved What companies they want to attract Whether they anticipate start up companies forming Sophistication of person responsible for industry outreach

director

Engage your tech transfer to understand (to prevent needlessly encumbering IP): What types of rights do the particular markets run on? How critical will patent rights be for product development?

(software v. pharma compounds)

Center for Biorefining and Biofuels (C2B2)

Strategic Center, established in 2007 Part of the Colorado Collaboratory for Renewable

Energy supported by the State of Colorado Consortium of CU, CSU, CSM, and NREL Industry participation:

Catchlight Energy GICON

Ceres Korth O”Neil Engineering

Cobalt Biofuels Live Fuels

ConocoPhillips Mascoma

Ecopetrol OPX Biotechnologies

Flad Architects Shell Global Solutions

General Motors Solix Biofuels

Genesis Biofuel Valero

Gevo ZeaChem

Research and Education Mission:

C2B2 exists to improve fundamental understanding and develop new technologies in areas relevant to the future commercialization of integrated, sustainable biorefining, and biofuels processes in accordance with the following objectives:

Integrating renewable sources of materials and energy into the chemical industry;

Providing relevant training for students and industrial scientists;

Creating a vertically and horizontally integrated research and training environment.

Research Thrusts: Feedstock Engineering, Plant Biotechnology & Crop

Science; Biochemical Engineering; Thermochemical Engineering; Process Engineering; Product Engineering; System Assessment and Analysis.

Projects: 29

Faculty Investigators: 168

Annual Revenues: $1M; $1.5M; $1.5M; $500K

Cost: $50,000/year membership fee for large companies; $10,000/year fee for small companies; 2 year agreement

Benefits: Expertise in virtually all aspects of biofuels and biorefining research

World-class facilities: CU, CSU, CSM & NREL

Talent for hire: Outstanding students and post doctoral researchers

Networking: Interaction with diverse C2B2 member companies

Return on investment: Access to intellectual property rights and substantial institutional and state matching contributions

SeedgrantsFellowshipsRED ProgramsSeminars/ShortcoursesVisiting Scientists

SPONSORED RESEARCH SHARED RESEARCH

C2B2 Agreements Diagram

MembershipAgreements

Corporate $50,000

Small Business $10,000

Colorado Collaboratory (State)

Master CRADA Interagency Agreement

Task Orders

CSU CSM CU NREL

Master Sponsored Research Agreements

RFPs

Research Project Agreements

By-Laws

General Issues: Purpose

Industry: University:

Business Focus Mission Focus

Private Purpose Public Purpose

Private Knowledge Public Knowledge

Product Development Personnel Development

General Issues: Culture

Industry: University:

Profit Non-ProfitProtection PublicationCompetition CollaborationCentralized DecentralizedLine Authority Diffuse AuthoritySingle Pt. of Contact Multiple Pts. of ContactFast Turnaround Deliberation/Consensus

Specific Issues

Multiple “Participating Institutions” Conflicting business culture w/ National Lab Complicated structure and functions Pressure to perform (“Seamless Business Model”) Growth and sustainability Moving members from “shared research” to “exclusive

research” Intellectual Property Publication/Disclosure Exclusivity/Non-Compete

Funded 100% by for-profit sector 14 multi-national companies pay $500,000/year UCSB has top researchers in area.

Mission: to develop novel solid state based technologies for energy efficient lighting and displays, power electronics, and renewable energy

118 invention disclosures received from SSLEC/SSLDC research since 2002. 80% of inventions under active license or option with member(s). (92.5% before October, 2008)

Invention Disclosures Over Time

SSLEC runs without research contracts SSLEC has an IP Policy that outlines the membership’s

access in detail

Members remit payment

Upon payment, SSLEC issues letter indicating the company is entitled to the benefits outlined in the SSLEC IP Policy (attached to letter for clarity)

Elected inventions added to one umbrella single license/option agreement between UCSB and the Member

Streamlined, highly efficient administration.

A contract is not always needed! Can unduly complicate member’s entry into center,

particular with foreign companies

For a potentially “IP intensive” center: Review center visitor procedures very carefully to avoid IP

“gaming” (where a company asserts joint ownership to get free rights)

Work with tech transfer to assure obligations to membership are affordable Long election period with lots of inventions could be

unaffordable!

Experiences from the audience

What can you share with us about starting and supporting successful (or unsuccessful!) Centers