The transfer of technology from the research environment to industry is a major source of jobs. Recent US legislation has greatly accelerated the exploitation of federally funded research. The 22-billion dollar 1997 research budget alone led to over 300 new start-up companies and 250,000 new jobs.

A recent two-day workshop on science and technology transfer, jointly organised in Amsterdam by the US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and the European Science Alliance, highlighted examples of best practice and set out to demonstrate the relevance of the US approach to the European Union's Fifth Research Framework Programme (FP5). Both American and European universities, as well as European companies and public authorities, took part.

Uncle Sam

Federal funding has a strong influence on research in the US. The 1980 Bayh-Dole patent and trademark act created a uniform policy for federal research agencies, enabling small businesses and non-profit organisations to retain the rights to innovations resulting from federal funding. It also encourages universities to collaborate with industry to promote the application of their inventions.

Results have been overwhelming, with a marked increase in disclosures, patent applications and patents. Since 1980, more than 2,200 academic start-up companies have been formed, and by 1997 gross university income from licences had risen to 700 million. Most American universities now have their own technology transfer and licensing offices to co-ordinate the exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPR). Their functions include filing patent applications, marketing patents to industry and finding partners to develop new technologies into marketable products.

In Europe, the legal situation is not the same - and is fragmented. Universities have different traditions, and employees' rights as inventors vary widely. German university professors, for example, retain the rights to any invention, irrespective of external funding.

False modesty

These difference do not mean that Europe is not inventive, according to Manfred Schmiemann who manages several IPR-related actions lines within the Innovation and SMEs programme.

"We underplay our successes," he insists. "The Max Planck Institute in Germany has earned 500 million from patents over the past 20 years. And the Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) in Belgium is making 4.5 million per year from a single drug. We may be different, but we are no less successful.

"But instead of national patents, what we need are Community patents, providing immediate coverage for the whole EU," Schmiemann adds. "They need to be cheap, defensible and practicable. There have already been three attempts to put such a system in place. The current effort will probably take five years, but this time it will work."

Patent awareness in Europe is certainly increasing. The Quick Scan novelty search service is used to screen an increasing proportion of applications for EU research funding, and the IPR Helpdesk is helping the many small companies which do not currently exploit their inventions. "We do not necessarily want to increase the number of patents," says Schmiemann. "The aim is to encourage technology transfer."

A new emphasis on innovation and technology transfer runs right through FP5, with every project now required to produce a Technology Implementation Plan (TIP) to prepare for the subsequent exploitation of research results.

Centrifugal force

In the US, 'spin-off' start-up companies play a critical role in the exploitation of university research. Normally, the university licenses an innovation to an outside group, in which it commonly retains a shareholding.

"We would prefer to license to big companies rather than to start-ups, but many of the innovations are too embryonic," explains Louis Beernem, managing director of the centre for technology transfer at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. In practice, spin-offs work on the first and second phases of product development and are then bought out by larger companies with the resources to market and distribute a new product.

There are problems however. "In the US, we have the technology and the finance - but what is often missing is good management," says Beernem. "We recommend start-ups to sell out as early as they can."

Networking key to start-ups

Europe has its own experience of start-up companies, exemplified by the Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology (VIB) in Belgium. VIB groups nine of the best biotechnology activities of four Flemish universities in one non-profit organisation. Started in 1995, it involves 750 scientists and technicians, and has an annual budget of more than 50 million. Through its technology transfer department it aims to promote local economic growth and facilitate transnational collaboration with industry, rather than to maximise financial returns.

The institute's output of inventions has grown from five in the first year to 48 in 1998, and it already has 60 patents. "You cannot wait for enquiries," emphasises Rudy Dekeyser, the VIB technology transfer manager. "You have to promote your portfolio. We have already licensed 40% of our patents and are collaborating with 25 companies, half of them from outside Belgium." VIB has also set up its first spin-off companies - deVGen was created in 1997 with starting capital of 8.5 million and already employs more than 40, while CropDesign, formed in 1998, is capitalised at 11 million and has a workforce of 28.

"The keys to the successful creation of such companies are world-class, cutting-edge technology, the involvement of leading scientists, a proprietary position, a wide platform with broad applications, and the potential to create considerable added value in the first three years," suggests Dekeyser. "Without this last element, it is very hard to attract investors."

The technology transfer department's evaluation of new technologies, supported by an independent advisory board, includes assessment of the visibility, track record and entrepreneurship of the scientists involved. The proprietary position is determined by in-house literature and database searches, and through contacts with patent agents. VIB then writes a business plan for presentation to the investor community, using external consultants as necessary.

Two-way street

The Amsterdam workshop was the third European event on technology transfer co-hosted by AUTM. When the series started two years ago, the assumption was that best practice could only be found in the US. It has quickly become apparent that America also has much to learn from Europe. The traffic in technology transfer expertise is now two-way - with the European Commission playing a central role.

Contact

M. Schmiemann,
European Commission, DG XIII/D-1
Fx. +352 4301 34129
E-m. manfred.schmiemann@lux.dg13.cec.be

R. Dekeyser, VIB
(Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology)
Tl. +32 9 244 66 11
Fx. +32 9 244 66 10
E-m. rudy.dekeyser@vib.be
http://www.vib.be/

To make any comments on this article, or to ask a question of the author, please contact the publisher. If you would like to submit an article please subscribe to our PL Intelligence service.

The opinions expressed in the articles published in this section do not necessarily reflect those of Pharmalicensing or UTEK Corporation. No actions including proposals to or agreements with other companies should be taken by any reader without obtaining specific business or legal advice. Neither the publisher nor the authors accept any liability for any actions or activities undertaken by any reader or other third party as a consequence of these articles or for any errors or omissions therein.