IP Commercialization Trends Income or Impact Trieste, September 29 and 30, 2016

2

Intellectual Property (IP) Commercialization Options in R&D Context

Bringing knowledge and IP to the market. How? Very simplified approach – there are three main options:

Assignment of IP; Licensing IP; Establishment of spin – off or startup.

Publications, patent information, Internet……

There is no Model that Fits All ! Variety of existing models:

“American” – strong position on institutional IP ownership, licensing; UK ; “French” – Regional Centers; IP Hubs – ASEAN Region; “Professor's Privilege” and “Creation for Users” – Sweden; Australian Technology Network – Harmonized IP Policies for easier commercialization; Intel Science and Technology Centers (ISTCs) – Open Source.

Different context and level of development inside the same country, income group, region and continent. Surveys done in certain countries showed significantly different results for (47 – 50%) of interviewed selected institutions regarding existing IP related infrastructure – IP policy, professional knowledge and technology management units, IP commercialization experience etc.

AUTM Licensing Activity Survey – for the FY2014

Intellectual Property

Management

Disclosures u 24,117 disclosures received (+ <0.5 percent) Issued U.S. Patents u 6,363 issued U.S. patents (+11.4 percent) Licenses/Options u 5,435 licenses executed (+4.5 percent) u 1,461 options executed (+7.7 percent) u 549 executed licenses containing equity (+17.06 percent)

AUTM Licensing Activity Survey 2015 – for the FY 2014

Economic Development

u 914 startup companies were formed (+11.7 percent), 702 of which had their primary place of business in the licensing institutions’ home states (+14.8 percent) u 4,688 startups were still operating as of the end of FY2014 (+11.4 percent) u $28 billion of net product sales was generated last year (+27.2 percent) u 965 new commercial products were created (+34.2 percent)

Patent Filings and

Patent/Legal Expenditures

u 23,526 total U.S. patent applications filed (-4.2 percent) u 13,907 new patent applications filed (-7.3 percent) u 1,107 non-U.S. new patent applications filed (-24.8 percent) u $367 million external legal fees paid (no change) u $159 million legal fees reimbursed (+1.2 percent)

Carnegie Mellon University – Awarded $ 1.17 Billion for Patent Infringement

Federal jury in Pittsburgh found that the Marvell Technology Group had sold billions of semiconductors using technology developed at the Carnegie Mellon University without a license and awarded university with $ 1.17 billion. The award is one of the largest in a patent infringement case, and comes after a $1 billion verdict awarded to Apple against Samsung over iPhone design patents.

Intel Science and Technology Centers (ISTCs) – Open Source

ISTCs established in US universities- funded at the rate of $2.5 million a year for five years. INTEL “The IP policies and practices within the ISTCs will typically be designed to level the playing field for all of the participants, thereby enhancing cooperation and open collaboration. The preferred IP policy is to conduct open research wherein ISTC researchers, whether from academia or Intel, agree to not file patents and to publish all

patentable inventions. All significant software developed in the course of conducting research will be released under an open source license.”

Stanford - Visual Computing; UC Berkeley - Secure Computing; Carnegie Mellon - Cloud Computing; Carnegie Mellon - Embedded Computing.

15

IP Commercialization and IP Protection

Statistics show that there is globally an incising trend of using IP by universities and PRO. There is also increasing influence of university research results and IP on breakthrough technologies – such as 3 D printing; PCT - Often in collaboration with businesses and other academic institutions – co - applicants in particular for PCT applications; Universities have increasing number of partners in PCT applications, however, PROs are leading by the number of filings with co – applicants and by the number of applications entering national phase.

Share of university PCT filings for the top

10 origins in 2008 and 2013

Share of PRO PCT filings for the top 10 origins

in 2008 and 2013

Share of university PCT filings by income group in 2008 and 2013

Share of PRO PCT filings by income group in 2008 and 2013

The U.S. accounted for the largest number of applicants among the top 50 universities. • However, with four fewer applicants than in the previous

year, 2015 marked the first time that U.S. universities did not account for the majority of universities in the top PCT applicants list.

• Universities from 10 countries ranked among the top 50 applicants, including for the first time a university from Saudi Arabia. PRO from Malaysia and India – ranked sixth

and ninth, respectively, among the top PCT applicants.

PCT Data 2015

PCT Data 2015

Universities accounted for a large share of applications in South Africa (18.1%), Poland (16.3%), Singapore (15.8%) and Spain (15.6%). High share of PROs applications originating in Singapore (15.8%), India (10.8%) and France (9.9%).

What is the Role of IP?

Important tool in the process; Problem – lack of an adequate human capital with skills to manage IP in a most strategic way to reach the market and society; IP and knowledge management professionals essential; Strategic decisions to be taken based on accurate information and knowledge; WIPO programs, services and trainings.

Challenge - Development of a Good Profile of Knowledge Management Professionnels WIPO Baltic States Project

Context: Why Regional Approach

Request from the Baltic States to assist them in promoting knowledge transfer from academic institutions to users; Innovation - major force for economic recovery and growth in the region; Regional approach – to facilitate “global Innovation” collaboration in developing high quality knowledge and IP, customized to needs of users; Baltic States:

Common historical roots; Strong joint economic interest; Similar contemporary development trends in cultural, social and economic terms; Innovation in the center of recovery economic politics; Similar IP systems; Knowledge transfer infrastructure; Need for increasing human capital with inter-disciplinary competences related to knowledge transfer and IP commercialization.

Objective

To create a model for the development of the specific human

capital base in the Region, with the vision that this model can be copied and the process repeated by the beneficiaries of the Project, as the owners of the Project in order to multiply the impact of the process in other innovation areas, as defined by national and regional priorities.

Outputs

Definition of the customized model of development process and capacity building program for regional selected professionals in order to enable them to develop necessary skills and competences in the area of knowledge transfer and IP commercialization; Creation of the “regional pool of IP professionals” with particular skills in the area of knowledge transfer and IP commercialization; Establishment of the regional network among beneficiary academic institutions for regional IP collaboration, knowledge transfer and IP commercialization; Creation of monitoring system and measures in order to preserve sustainability of the results.

The Project

The Project will be a joint venture, based on a framework collaboration agreement between Core Project Partners - IP Offices /or Government of each respective country, selected beneficiary institutions and WIPO - as the executing agency. Core Partners shall participate in the project with proportional human and financial resources, with the joint responsibility regarding benefits and risks in the implementation of the Project. Due to the variety of issues and competences to be developed it is envisaged that a number of professional partners (such as technology managers associations, intergovernmental and non – governmental organizations, or Licensing Executives Society International) will be included in the program, as appropriate.

Target Audience Academic Institutions with :

Legal framework for knowledge transfer (Institutional IP Policy or Status); Organizational infrastructure (specific technology management unit or office); and Minimum human capital with an adequate skills needed for knowledge transfer; Nominated by the respective Governments or their representative bodies; Commitment of its top management to assist other collaborative academic partners to develop their technology management human capital and capacity.

Beneficiary institutions should nominate their professionals to take part in the Project:

up to three persons already engaged in the technology transfer processes, if possible on the senior level, and with the understanding that their participation will be considered as a part of their work responsibility, thus assuring their regular attendance and active role in the work of the group.

Total number of participants would not be over 45 to 50 people, which means that each country will have an option to nominate up to 15 participants (preferably from 3 – 5 institutions), in total.

THANK YOU!

Olga Spasic SMEs and Entrepreneurship Support Division World Intellectual Property Organization olga.spasic@wipo.int