MEETING OF THE FEDERAL PARTNERS IN

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

(FPTT) – NATIONALJUNE 1ST 2005

EILEEN RAYMOND – INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS

2

• Plant surface– 1987 19 444 m2

– 2003 (now) 31 191 m2

• Personnel– Employees of BRI – CNRC 262– Guest workers 163– Students 105– Company employees 393

TOTAL 2003 - 2004 925

• BRI expenses 2003 - 2004– Financed by BRI budget $ 20 284 M– Financed by NRC special projects $ 5 278 M– Financed by revenues generated by BRI $ 7 352 M

3

The Biotechnology Research Institute is committed to the mission of the National Research Council in serving the needs of Canadians by helping to maintain and enhance the economic and social well-being of the country.

The Biotechnology Research Institute promotes, assists and performs leading-edge research and development in biochemical engineering, molecular biology and genomics, closely linked to the needs of the industries in the pharmaceutical and environmental sectors.

4

Macromolecular Structure

Protein Chemistry

Enzymology

Biomolecular NMR

The Receptor, Signaling and Proteomics

Computational Chemistry

Mammalian Cell Genetics

Genetics

Microbial & Enzymatic Technology

Animal Cell Culture

Genomics and

Gene Therapy Vectors

Environment Genetics

Environmental Microbiology

Environmental Bioengineering

Analytical Chemistry

Biosensors

Applied Ecotoxicology

Bioconversion /

Sustainable Development

Director General

Building Engineer

Finance & Administration

Human Resources

Industrial AffairsDirector

Health Director Bioprocess Director Environment Director

5

44%

46%

10%

Active agreementswith industrial partners

Active agreementswith governmental organizations

Active agreementswith universities

– 31 new collaboration agreements– 50 active collaboration agreements– 46 canadian partners (92%)

Distribution of active collaboration agreements in 2003-2004

COLLABORATIONS

6

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Author –

Andy Storer

Director Health Sector

• NRC IPMC Meeting at BRI

• First IP Committee September 1999

7

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Bottleneck in Technology Transfer (Resources)

• Need to strenghten technologies for patenting

2005

8

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Paperwork issues at the beginning

• Implemented to Bioprocess and Environment Sectors (2001)

• Follow-up of actions difficult for a long time

• Structure changes needed

• 2004/2005 model : mature and functional

9

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• No change

10

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• No change

11

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005• Number of total

presentations has dropped through the years

• Number of publications maintained

• More  "parcels" of research presented (gaining 6 months earlier)

• Comparison checks need to be done Publications vs Presentations

• Issues with principal authors outside

12

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005• On the spot with the right

people, open discussion for screening decision (hold or publish) using simplified criteria:

– 1º Patentability: new, useful, non obvious (Form 1)

– 2º Some intuitive market rational

– 3º Follow-up on research

– If more info is needed, postpone decision to next month

13

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Duly completed Form 1 and manuscripts are assessed to ensure sufficient data is provided to support a useful scope of claims for patent applications

14

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Improvement ongoing for timeline of tasks and actions

15

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• Paperwork issues

• Coordination issues

• Follow-up on actions issues

• Marketing resources issues

• For a long time still reactive mode facing deadlines

16

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• For few years, number of files increased

• Number of files decreased to reach a plateau due to better selectivity

• Better management for older files including dropping cases when appropriate

• Knowledgeable scientists on IP issues

2005

17

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005

• First IP Committee – September 1999

• Prior to 1999, few files

• Following the growth, a switch from quantity to quality

18

IP COMMITTEESBackground 2001

Comments 2005• Cost control was reached in

2004

• Less files and better control (IP AUDIT)

• Culture shift allows the IP integration within daily R&D work

• A Patent is not something on the side for anyone!

• Need to link IP Management and Project Management

• Need resources for technology assessment, marketing and technology transfer

2005

19

IP Committees (2004 / 2005 Model)

IP COMMITTEEOperation

• 1 committee per Scientific Sector Environment, Bioprocess, Health)

• 1 monthly meeting in 2 parts– Scientific presentation (open to all) – PART 1 Decision on protection and/or publication– IP portfolio management – PART 2 Controlling fees and follow-ups on files, with actions of protection and marketing

• Composition :– Sector Director (presides meeting)– Director of Industrial Affairs– Group leaders (3 permanents/18 months)

– 1 Patent Agent (IPS Ottawa)– 1 IP Coordinator– 2 Business Development Officers (BDOs)

• Separate work-meetings for prioritary files– Valuation of technology– Strategy and actions to ensure Technology Transfer

20

Business Affairs Opportunity (1 pager)

21

Business Affairs Opportunity (1 pager)