Author: Marie Powers

The National Institutes of Health has proposed new guidelines to prevent financial conflicts of interest (COI) among researchers who receive federal funding. The move, which will affect more than 40,000 researchers, comes amid rising concern about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and other private-sector interests on scientific research. Among other changes, the guidelines will reduce from $10,000 to $5,000 the minimum payment that researchers will be required to report. It also mandates that universities, colleges, research institutes, businesses, and other entities that employ researchers who receive NIH funding monitor compliance with the new reporting requirement. Funding information would have to be posted on a publicly accessible website, and violators could lose their grants.

Although partnerships between NIH-funded researchers and industry are essential, “in order to preserve the public trust in the objectivity of biomedical and behavioral research, all research has to be conducted without bias and with the highest scientific and ethical standards,” NIH Director Francis S. Collins said in announcing the guidelines, which will be subject to 60 days of public comment and possible revision before they become final. Collins stressed that, in most cases, the integrity of scientific research has not been compromised by outside funding. But even the appearance of a conflict can undermine public trust, he said. Universities and professional organizations have been tightening their policies concerning outside funding in recent years to prevent conflicts of interests.

Source:  The Washington Post

Five associations, including the Association of American Universities (AAU), have submitted detailed comments to the White House on ways to address challenges and barriers to the commercialization of university-based research. The comments came in response to a request for information issued March 25 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Economic Council. The comment letter — signed by AAU, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Council on Governmental Relations — stresses the importance of balancing knowledge creation with increased commercialization and described the ways universities contribute to economic development beyond technology licensing.

The letter focuses on the importance of maintaining the Bayh-Dole Act as the legal framework for university technology commercialization. The associations also suggested that policymakers reconsider government restrictions on the reimbursement of university research administrative costs, provide supplemental grants to support the translation of research with a high potential for commercialization, and expand federal tax credits to better promote research commercialization. The letter also called for university and industry representatives to “engage in a robust dialogue” to identify key factors in successful university-industry collaborations.

Source: AAU Weekly Wrap-Up

Scientists at a Korean research organization are in line for a financial windfall for developing a new process to make advanced compound metals used in everything from laptop computers to automobiles. The Korean Institute of Industrial Technology (Kitech) revealed that a 10-member team led by scientist Kim Se-gwang will receive 16.9 billion won ($15 million) for the successful transfer of the technology to the private sector. A midsize company called HMK has agreed to pay the Institute 28.2 billion won for access to the technology, which involves making magnesium and aluminum compounds in a safer, more environmentally friendly manner. HMK will pay five billion won in a lump sum and the remainder in phases over the next 15 years.

The deal ranks as the third largest in Korea for the transfer of technology from a government research institute to the private sector. According to Korean regulations governing tech transfer, at least half of the proceeds of such deals should be funneled to researchers. Some institutions are even more generous. For instance, Kitech grants its researchers 60% of the proceeds. As lead researcher, Kim will be responsible for distributing the 16.9 billion won in incentives to his team. He personally stands to receive 60% of the total, or roughly 10 billion won.

The research team’s process for developing magnesium compound metals could be a game-changer in the industry. Magnesium weighs one-fourth as much as steel but is six times as hard, making it ideal for portable electronics such as mobile phones and notebook computers as well as automobiles. However, magnesium also carries the risk of explosion, and it can rust easily when it comes in contact with water so it must be mixed with other metals to create alloys. Until now, harmful gases like sulfur hexafluoride, dubbed a “super greenhouse gas,” and sulfur dioxide — which is harmful to humans and corrodes steel — had been used to produce magnesium alloys. The technology developed by Kim and colleagues incorporates calcium oxide in the compounding process to create a protective layer, eliminating the risks of corrosion and explosion.

Source: JoongAng Daily

A U.K. drug development firm has raised £9.6 million from private equity investors, including £2m from Scottish Enterprise, to fund partnerships with university researchers. TPP Global Development, founded by former Morgan Stanley fund manager Peter Trill and Oxford University scientist Dr. Tom Brown, has chosen Edinburgh’s BioQuarter as its base. The pair will assess molecules created by scientists in universities and research institutions and then license the substances that show the most potential for creating new drugs.

TPP will guide the molecules through the “biotech funding gap” between basic research and drug development before setting up spinout companies to refine the drugs or licensing them out to bigger firms. The firm’s focus includes oncology; nervous system disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis; and inflammations and immunology, including asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.

Finance director Trill said TPP was attracted to Scotland because of its universities, contract research organizations, and the cluster being created at Edinburgh’s BioQuarter. Trill expects TPP to benefit from cutbacks in early-stage drug development work at major pharmaceutical groups. “There has always been a funding shortfall for early-stage research,” he adds. “This will become ever more acute as the pharma industry continues to reduce spending on preclinical research, instead looking to in-license late-stage preclinical drugs, and the economic environment puts pressure on government and medical charity research funding.”

Source: Scotsman.com Business

Social media is fast-becoming an integral part of the marketing landscape, and the relatively low cost and wide reach — when used effectively — can be a godsend for cash-strapped tech transfer offices. Blogging, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Plaxo, and many other social medial avenues offer near limitless opportunities to push your available innovations in front of an eager audience. To help you effectively utilize these new marketing tools, our Distance Learning Division has brought together an international panel of experts who are successfully employing social media to garner attention for their technologies, create an active community surrounding their innovations, and bring more licensees in the door. Join us on June 8th for TTOs: Use Social Media Effectively to Market Your Innovations, an interactive, 90-minute webinar that’s chock full of best practices for effectively utilizing a myriad of social media platforms. You’ll see real-time online examples, plus dozens of planning techniques and execution strategies that are guaranteed to successfully showcase your IP. CLICK HERE for complete program and faculty details >>

PLUS: Check out these additional upcoming distance learning programs:

• Every Thursday beginning June 3: SPECIAL 6-PART SERIES: Start-Up Boot Camp for University TTO Professionals and Inventors >>
• Tuesday, June 15: The Perfect Elevator Pitch: Sell Your IP in 3 Minutes or Less! >>
• Tuesday, July 13: Prevent Faculty Disputes from Turning Into a Declaration of War >>

Seven years ago, Global Velocity’s data security technology was an interesting invention in Washington University’s Advanced Research Lab. Now it’s the basis of a company with 17 employees, $21 million in funding from investors, and the beginnings of a commercial customer base. The path that Global Velocity has taken from university lab to growing company is not a well-worn one in St. Louis. For various reasons, ranging from a lack of funding sources to a conservative, risk-averse local culture, university-linked start-ups have been relatively rare here. It’s certainly not for a lack of inventiveness. When research universities are ranked by federal grants received or discoveries made, Washington-U often makes the top 10.

When it comes to transforming those discoveries into revenue-producing businesses, though, the university falls to the middle of the pack. In a 2006 study by the Milken Institute, Washington-U was No. 8 on a measure of basic biotechnology research but No. 66 on a measure of technology transfer and commercialization. Although Bradley Castanho, the university’s assistant vice chancellor for research, has the job of improving the latter score, creating companies isn’t something the school can do on its own. “It’s a push-pull exercise,” Castanho says. “You have to have somebody who’s an entrepreneur who sees the value of the technology and sees how it could become a viable business…. Our role is to put it in the hands of people who can be successful.”

The university has trained almost 50 faculty members in the basics of starting a business. Its Bear Cub Fund makes development grants of $25,000 to $50,000. A partnership with the BioGenerator, a privately funded technology development organization, gives biotech companies some mentoring and the opportunity for additional money. Castanho adds, however, that the community still needs to pull technology out of the university. He says the biggest difference between Washington University and an institution like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — No. 1 on Milken’s index — isn’t culture. Rather, it’s that MIT is surrounded by VCs and businesspeople who compete to spot lucrative opportunities. “From a community point of view, you need entrepreneurs, you need capital, and you need facilities to have a successful start-up,” Castanho says. “Some of those things are probably more challenging in a region like St. Louis that’s still coming up the learning curve.”

Source:  STLtoday.com

When it comes to founding spinouts, universities normally provide the technology while companies take on the business development. The School of Entrepreneurship at Sweden’s Chalmers University has reversed that flow, with the academic world picking up technology from industry and providing the business development needed to carry the innovation to market. To date, this business model has driven the creation of a portfolio of 50 companies valued at €70 million. In the case of the spinout Lamera, the model has proved to be especially efficient.

In 2004, the Volvo Group asked the School of Entrepreneurship to explore the potential of a technology previously invented in one of its labs. Engineers Mattias Grufberg and Anders Axelsson, then students in the school, were assigned to analyze the technology’s potential, write a business plan, and eventually launch a start-up as the basis of their Masters degrees. The technology, called Hybrix, was developed by Volvo researcher Roland Gustavsson to reduce the weight of Volvo cars without shifting from steel to aluminum, as many competitors had done. Inspired by the structure of birds’ bones, Hybrix is a “microsandwich” of hollow metal that looks and behaves like solid metal but is much lighter. Nevertheless, the innovation had never made the transition into the car plants.

Chalmers’ School of Entrepreneurship had developed a unique way to translate laboratory inventions into successful, marketed products. Every year, it launched five spinouts that transform students into real-life entrepreneurs. In its model, the owner of the IP — the Volvo Group in the case of Lamera — keeps 45% of the newly created company while the founding entrepreneurs and the university share the remaining 55%. “For students it means a job and ownership,” Grufberg explains. To be chosen as entrepreneurs, however, students must develop a solid business plan.

With oil prices starting to shoot up, Grufberg and Axelsson realized that any technology that could reduce the weight of planes, trucks, wagons, boats, and cars would be welcomed. Recognizing that the transport industries also have high barriers to entry, they focused on a niche. “In the car industry, a weight reduction of one kilo translates into savings between €5 and €15 over the lifespan of the vehicle,” Grufberg says. “But in the aircraft industry, one kilo less translates into a savings of between €100 and €140 on kerosene a year.” So a ton less on a 361-ton Airbus A380 saves €140,000 a year for the carriers. Given this value proposition, Lamera knew where to focus. With a technology that can reduce the weight of steel by 70% and aluminum by 30%, Grufberg and Axelsson had a clear business plan that convinced not only the Volvo Group but also Midroc New Technology — the venture arm of billionaire Mohammed el Amoudi — to take a stake in Lamera, which has raised €2 million to date. With its first factory ready to start shipping, Lamera also has proven the value of its business plan.

Source: Science Business

A “coalition agreement” has been struck between 13 universities in the U.K. and British Design Innovation (BDI), the trade organization for industrial design, service design, and innovation consulting groups. The universities have joined BDI in forming a national University Design Industry Partnership Scheme (UDIPS) — the first of its kind in the UK — in a bid to create world-changing innovations, products and, processes. The scheme hopes to leverage the value that private-sector industrial design companies can bring to discovery-led university research by acting as a bridge between the technology and consumer-focused market applications and between originators and industry.

Each of the UDIPS universities was hand-picked to reflect a representative mix of disciplines, students, staff, geographical spread, and commitment to collaborative innovation. They include the Universities of Anglia Ruskin, Brunel, Cambridge, Cranfield, Hertfordshire, Loughborough, Middlesex, Nottingham Trent, Queen’s Belfast, Staffordshire, Sussex, the Open University, and the University for the Creative Arts (UCA). The coalition was formalized following a national conference co-hosted by BDI and UCA thought to be the first national face-to-face debate between universities and strategic designers in the U.K. “Collectively, BDI members share 3,000 years of IP commercialization experience that has generated over £1,000,000,000 in revenues for organizations of all sizes, in all markets,” explains Maxine Horn, BDI’s CEO. “Our proven knowledge transfer processes are accredited by the Institute of Knowledge Transfer, and our designers’ abilities to validate the visual business case not only assists universities, spinouts, start-ups, and SMEs to communicate their potential to investors, venture capitalists, and other stakeholders but also prevents market application mistakes from occurring.”

A report summarizing the context for a national strategic UDIPS was published in March. (Click here to view the report.)  Action points arising from the conference included the need for clearer terminology, roles, and capabilities and the formulation of robust remuneration models, rules of engagement, and collaborative working practice business models.

Source:  British Design Innovation

Chicago-based Intellectual Property Exchange International (IPXI), which bills itself as “the world’s first financial exchange focused on intellectual property,” is laying the groundwork for what it anticipates will be a formal launch later this year. The exchange will allow owners of IP to monetize their assets much as firms do now on the major stock exchanges, while giving investors access to trading, investment, and arbitrage opportunities. “We are trying to address some of the causes of inefficiency in intellectual property — lack of standardization, efficiency, transparency, and prejudice against smaller IP holders,” explained Gerard Pannekoek, president and CEO of IPXI, during a recent webinar sponsored by the firm.

Pannekoek used Ford Motor Company as a hypothetical example of an IP holder who might participate in IPXI. “Say Ford needed a market for a valve designed for automobiles and light truck engines that burn ethanol,” he posited. “The IP owner would form a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) jointly with the exchange to assign the patent portfolio and grant the right to sublicense Unit License Rights (ULRs). So, Ford would contact us, create the SPV, and then proceed with the help of an IP advisor or investment bank to put together a prospectus.” Such a process, he explained, is best compared to a public offering — of patents. “Instead of a bilateral transaction, they list the IP on the exchange and start with an initial offering of Unit License Rights (the right for a buyer to use a technology or patent in the manufacture or sale of a product); potential buyers might be Nissan, BMW, or Mercedes, for example. All they have to do in principle is call their broker, and depending on their anticipated needs for months or years to come instruct them to purchase a number of unit license rights consistent with their anticipated use. So, for example, if BMW expected to build 5 million trucks requiring this valve, they would instruct their broker to purchase 5 million units.”

Pannekoek anticipates that the units would be offered in several tranches on a sliding price scale, with each tranche having a higher cost per ULR. “This is a typical arrangement; it rewards early buyers,” he explained. The exchange will then create a secondary market, providing buyers with the opportunity to either purchase additional ULRs from other market participants or, in the event they have overbought, to sell them to other users or institutional investors. A detailed article on the new IP exchange, including analysis of its utility for TTOs, appears in the May issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. To start a subscription, including access to the entire three years of archived articles filled with success strategies and best practices, CLICK HERE.

With the Massachusetts economy based on knowledge, the state has become home to some of the nation’s largest IP law firms, supported by growing numbers of technology specialists and attorneys with advanced degrees in science. The ability to practice business law successfully in Massachusetts now often relies on an attorney’s knowledge of molecular science, physics, or biology, which explains the past decade’s trend of students with advanced degrees in chemical engineering or molecular biology being recruited by law firms and heading to law school. “Many IP law firms like to have technologists onboard to provide real-world insights into technology,” says Dan Young, a patent agent with Boston’s Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC, which is one of the largest IP law firms in the Northeast. “So our firm, like many others, recruits scientists directly out of grad school or industry to work on project teams as a scientific adviser. That role often enables them to evolve into a patent attorney, going to law school at night, paid for by the firm.”

Nathan Edwards, an associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP in Cambridge — and a Harvard University graduate with a PhD in biology — says a technical background provides valuable, tangible advantages to his firm and its practice of law. “Our technologists enable our attorneys to jump into a case without the factual underpinnings of the case getting in the way,” he says. All agree that the speed of technological innovation is driving the law, as the courts struggle with issues for which there is no precedent, affected by laws decades old. “Everyone’s screaming about patent reform these days,” says Leigh Martinson, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery. “That’s a result of the law not keeping up with how fast technology is moving, so you’re hearing about patent reform in every Congressional session now. You’re seeing the courts taking matters into their own hands now, too. You’re seeing changes in how damages are calculated and what reasonable royalties are. If anything, changes in technology are driving changes in the law.”

Source: Mass High Tech Business News

Scientists researching the chemical and physical sciences related to cleantech have struggled to commercialize their discoveries. Slowly, though, change is afoot. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of Michigan, Stanford University, and University of California (UC) Berkeley all have developed strong programs to help scientists start thinking earlier about the applications of their research and to ensure that their discoveries make the transition from the lab to the real world. “While a lot of the dot-com start-ups were started by students out of their dorm rooms or basements, in the cleantech world you need a lot more than a desktop and a good internet-based idea,” says Shawn Lesser, president and founder of Atlanta-based venture fund Sustainable World Capital. That’s the same conundrum VCs and other investors face when looking at cleantech. While most big-name VCs cut their teeth and made their first millions on IT investments that required little upfront capital, the majority of cleantech investments require lab space, teams of scientists, and time.

Increasingly, private companies are stepping up to fund more cleantech research at the university level. And as private investors and venture funds demonstrate interest in university research, scientists are becoming more savvy about how their work might translate into commercialization. For example, universities have started everything from cleantech incubators and student-led cleantech venture funds (University of Michigan) to high-profile cleantech prizes (MIT) to cleantech-focused research institutes (Stanford). These institutions and others are benefiting more now than they ever have from private investment in cleantech research.

UC Berkeley also has launched a Cleantech-to-Market (C2M) program, pairing students from the business school — as well as a handful of students from law and engineering programs — with scientists conducting cleantech-related research. The idea, at least initially, was to give business students a real-life case study to work on. But the business students also improved the scientists’ ideas. “They took my ideas, put a creative spin on them, and went in a direction I hadn’t even thought of,” says Cyrus Wadia, co-director of the C2M program, who earned a PhD in UC Berkeley’s Energy Resources Group and has been researching ways to develop photovoltaic solar cells from earth-abundant materials to make solar energy affordable and accessible worldwide.

Source:  SolveClimate.com

In his blog, IPWatchdog, patent attorney Gene Quinn reports on a presentation by Linda Katehi, PhD, chancellor of the University of California (UC) Davis, at the 2010 BIO International Convention. Describing the current “Continuum of Innovation” in tech transfer (see graphic below), Katehi said universities engage in basic research, move into translational research, then turn the innovation over to start-up companies or licensees. This process of handling research and innovation is not likely to lead to success, Katehi explained, because companies become involved too late in the process and universities don’t get market input before deciding which basic research to translate into innovations. Additionally, many universities do not properly invest in tech transfer, Katehi said. They see the TTO, rather, as a vehicle to return funds quickly instead of viewing the licensing of university innovations as a long-term endeavor.

“Universities find it difficult to succeed in tech transfer because they have adopted business models that have not been sustainable,” Katehi told Quinn. It’s costly for institutions to file for patents, and there are no clear feedback loops to bring that investment back to sustain TTO operations. Consequently, universities are under pressure to generate revenues quickly instead of investing in those activities for the long term. Katehi suggested a new model (below), which provides public/private collaboration around translational research and offers assistance to start-ups from incubators and innovation centers. She also suggested future efforts to develop a national framework for translational research, create design-build innovation centers, understand the innovation ecosystem and develop a sustainable business model, consider quasi-open innovation models, and expand public-private collaborations to fund translational research.

During an interview with Quinn, Katehi stressed the need for universities to see the tech transfer cycle as a relationship. When they’re involved in local relationships, universities are viewed as partners by industry, leading to the advancement of more university technologies from basic research to commercialization. In turn, these partnerships improve the ability of industry to succeed and return funds to the universities, continuing the cycle. The UC system decentralized its TTOs for this reason, according to Katehi. “Relationships are local,” she said. “The central office realized they needed to allow the campuses to develop their own relationships because that was the only meaningful way of doing it.”

Source: IPWatchdog.com

The University of Minnesota (U-MN) has built a center solely devoted to furthering research in the medical device industry. The Medical Devices Center combines brainstorming, development, and testing to turn basic research into medical devices. One goal is to create patentable devices from research that originated at U-MN, says Arthur Erdman, Richard C. Jordan professor of mechanical engineering and director of the center. The facility’s 11 rooms contain the equipment necessary to keep the process under one roof. After brainstorming how to develop a device, a prototype is built, ensuring that everyone involved in its development is on the same page. “Usually the inventor has one idea, but the engineer may be thinking something different,” Erdman points out. A three-dimensional prototype then can be tested at the center. Although testing usually leads to more failure than success, the process conducted at the center takes just a few days. “Everyone stays engaged and excited because [they] are not just waiting,” Erdman says.

Almost all of the material, including catheters, needles and even commercial medical devices, is donated from medical device companies. Undergraduates, graduates, and fellows at the center have access to these materials at their convenience, according to lab supervisor Lucas Harder. Students often dismantle devices worth several thousand dollars just to learn about them. This contributes to the center’s other emphasis, which is to teach students about the medical devices in a practical way. Once the group has acquired knowledge about devices, they observe surgeries and identify new needs for medical devices. “In order to be successful, everything has to be designed with the end user in mind,” says Karl Vollmers, PhD, senior innovation fellow at the center. So far the program, which is in its second year, has produced 20 medical device patents.

Source:  mndaily.com

A rich source of royalty rate data has gotten richer. ktMINE — an online, interactive IP database that allows you to quickly find true market comparables and deal term benchmarks from its stockpile of license agreements — recently passed the 7,000 mark in documents.

Before an agreement is added to the database, ktMINE analysts review each using a 30+ checkpoint process. During the review process, analysts perform additional research to account for and identify any discrepancies or gaps within agreements. This consistent procedure ensures that all key licensing terms are accurately captured and categorized. The database can be searched quickly and easily to find the right benchmarks for your technology, and results include not only access to the non-redacted documents, but also agreement summaries that list key licensing terms and agreement details, along with charts and tables that quickly reveal big picture context and trends for an entire set of agreements. Complete access to the database is available in cost-effective 2-day and 5-day passes. For details, CLICK HERE.

The University of Michigan (UM) is shifting into high gear the transformation of its North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) into the central hub of the university’s research and commercialization activities. The goal is to double UM’s $1 billion in annual research spending in 10 years and increase the number of start-ups and for-profit jobs created by commercializing university-developed technologies. Speaking to a group of VCs and entrepreneurs at the Michigan Growth Capital Symposium in Ypsilanti, Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, MD, CEO of the University of Michigan Health System, said the university will need about $200 million over the next three years to recruit faculty researchers, finance multidisciplinary research projects, and reopen shuttered lab space at the NCRC, which is the former home of Pfizer’s R&D center. The university acquired the property last summer for about $108 million. The site occupies 174 acres, including 29 acres of vacant land and about two million square feet of office and lab space.

Near-term plans include moving UM’s Office of Technology Transfer, Business Engagement Center, and recently formed Michigan Venture Center to the NCRC from leased space. Ken Nisbet, executive director of UM’s TTO, says the university plans to transform the NCRC into the central hub for the university’s private sector, tech transfer, spinoff, and venture activities. He hopes to complete the transition of the venture center into the NCRC within a year. Preliminary plans are to secure about 10,000 square feet within the former Pfizer facility to include a larger-scale business accelerator. The proposed accelerator would expand the school’s relationship with the venture community by housing entrepreneurs, VCs, angel investors, mentors-in-residence, and others involved with the creation of start-ups based on technologies developed at the university, Nisbet says.

Source: Crain’s Detroit Business

The recent district court ruling in the Myriad Genetics case, holding that because genes are found in nature the company’s key patents covering “isolated DNA” are invalid, is just the latest major test of what is and is not patentable — and that definition appears to be shifting but not settling. Though many experts predict the Myriad ruling will not survive the next round of appeal, when combined with several other recent cases on patentability, some in the technology transfer arena see the patent system continuing a steady trend toward weaker and narrower protection. Given a growing number of cases like Myriad, Bilski, KSR and others, they advise TTOs not to over-react, but to adjust their strategies accordingly as the dust continues to settle, particularly in the quality and breadth of patent claims.

“I generally don’t take a single district court ruling as an impending landslide,” says Jim Baker, PhD, director of technology and economic development at Michigan Technological University, Houghton. “And there appears to be ample room in the Myriad decision for contrary opinions from higher courts. So it won’t have any substantive impact — except to Myriad, of course — until the appeals are over.” If the lower court ruling stands, he adds, gene-based treatments and diagnostic tests will still likely be patentable, as long as they fit within the confines of method patents as ultimately

defined by the Bilski case. “While the genes may or may not be patentable all by themselves, methods involving genes that satisfy post-Bilski criteria will remain patentable.”

Still, the trend toward stricter interpretation of patentability is undeniable, Baker says. “This decision, if upheld, combined with what seems to be expected out of Bilski and what came out of KSR v. Teleflex, does present an arguable erosion of the extent of subject matter available for patenting.” That said, though, he emphasizes that the current

shift should be viewed in the context of swings that have characterized patent law for decades. “Arguments and cases around the balance between a patent system that promotes innovation and one that inhibits innovation have been under way for a long time and will continue. It is too early to tell whether what appears to be the current trend is a good thing or a bad thing, and sound arguments can be made for both cases. There will be winners and losers regardless of where things wind up specifically, and the pendulum will likely swing again at some point,” Baker comments.

Lindsay Adams, IP attorney with New York City’s Day Pitney LLP, sees the pendulum swinging as well, but has a less sanguine view of the long-term impact. “There’s a paradigm shift taking place,” he says. “It’s going to be tougher getting patents going

forward. If you’re a TTO, it’s time to start thinking more about the quality of the patents you’re applying for than the quantity.” In addition to Myriad, Bilski, and KSR, he points to the federal circuit’s recent ruling in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly, part of which addresses the distinction between basic research results and patentable subject matter. “It’s a game-changer, a shot across the bow,” he says. “There’s a quote in the slip opinion that TTOs should know about: ‘Patents are not awarded for academic theories, no matter how groundbreaking or necessary to later patentable inventions of others.’” Citing another case, Brenner v. Manson, the majority opinion noted that “[a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for a successful

conclusion.” That’s problematic for TTOs, Adams says, because it goes to the heart of a common campus scenario. “PIs want to patent their basic research,” he explains. “Now, though, you’ve got to have it fleshed out in much more detail or you won’t get a patent. That’s a scary one, and I doubt the Supreme Court will touch it, because it’s in line with its current thinking.” An in-depth article analyzing the Myriad case and its impact on TTO patent activity appears in the May issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. To start a subscription, including access to three years of archived articles, CLICK HERE.

The University of Washington’s Office of Technology Transfer has a new name: The University of Washington Center for Commercialization (UWC4C). “A name can imply a lot about a mission,” says Linden Rhoads, vice provost of UW Tech Transfer. “We hope the transition to the UW Center for Commercialization conveys a proactive, full-service group of commercialization experts committed to long-term relationships with UW researchers.” The UWC4C will strive “to help researchers engage with industry early — perhaps long before any intellectual property has been developed,” adds Fiona Wills, director of technology licensing, who leads the Center’s group of 15 technology managers. “We want to help researchers understand industry needs in their field of research.”

Over the course of 2009, UW Tech Transfer launched a number of new programs, creating a broad set of services to support the migration of technology from research labs to commercial endeavors. An entrepreneur-in-residence (EIR) program brought its first class of business executives to campus to provide faculty and researchers with expertise in assessing opportunities and applications for innovations. The Office also partnered with the Technology Alliance to launch an innovation showcase, which promoted technologies ready for commercialization to the angel and venture investment communities. A gap funding program already has helped two UW start-ups to win Small Business Innovation Research grants and other researchers to win commercialization grants. In addition, Rhoads created an IP management group, led by a former patent attorney, and hired patent agents so the office could work with researchers proactively to map out the IP landscape around their research.

LaunchPad Services, the department that had been led by Janis Machala, a long-time “mentor capitalist” in the region, also is changing its name to the UWC4C’s New Venture Group. The UWC4C is recruiting directors for the New Ventures Group who have expertise in starting biotech and IT/clean tech companies.

Source: University of Washington

Researchers at the University of Florida (UF) think they might have a solution to the seemingly intractable problem of monitoring prescription adherence: a “tattletale pill” that can alert physicians when it’s been swallowed. The system attaches a microchip and digestible antenna to a standard-size capsule. When the pill is swallowed, it communicates with a small electronic device carried by the patient. In turn, that device signals a cell phone or laptop, informing doctors or family members. The researchers say such a system could make clinical trials more efficient by alleviating the need to have researchers watch every participant take every pill. If trial subjects are noncompliant, “you can’t correlate the outcome of the study with the efficacy of the drug itself. So that requires additional time, excess patients, and tens of millions of dollars,” says Rizwan Bashirullah, PhD, UF assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering, who helped develop the device. “If you can use this technology and improve compliance by a little bit, even a few percentage points, it could have an impact which eventually gets translated to the consumer and insurers.” The device also could be used in clinical practice to provide an accurate read on whether prescriptions are being filled and used — for example, by elderly patients or individuals with mental health conditions.

The researchers developed a way to print nontoxic, conductive silver lines on the outside of a capsule to serve as an antenna for the microchip embedded inside. Once swallowed, the microchip, via the antenna, sends its message that the pill has been taken. After breaking down, it leaves only a small byproduct of silver — less than what is present in tap water, according to Bashirullah. The pill has tested successfully on artificial models and cadavers, and UF has created a spinoff that hopes to take the device to market. Bashirullah expects the technology to be priced similar to that of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) tags, which can be purchased for as little as 25 cents. Bashirullah expects the system to go to market in about two years.

Source:  American Medical News

The metal poles that carry power lines across the country, which measure up to 12 feet in diameter and 100 feet in height, are built to take whatever blows at them. But transmission poles still can fail under the stress of extreme ice and wind, and they could be vulnerable to an infrastructure attack. When one falls, others are pulled down until heavy dead-end structures stop the cascading collapse. Jon “Matt” Rouse, assistant professor of civil, construction, and environmental engineering at Iowa State University, and civil engineering graduate student Casey Faber designed a pole that not only resists cascading failures but also is cheaper and easier to use. The hinged poles don’t require a crane for installation, and if they’re exposed to an extreme load they could be repaired rather than replaced. They would resist cascading failures so utilities could eliminate expensive dead-end structures. And they would allow power companies to provide better and more reliable service.

The key to the technology is a new approach to structural design based primarily on deformation ability rather than strength, resulting in a nominally rectangular pole with a built-in hinge near the base. Metal plates on either side of the hinge act as replaceable structural fuses that stretch and buckle when the pole sustains an extreme load, allowing it to deflect while shielding the rest of the pole from damage. Tendon cables run up and down the inside of the pole to resist stretching and keep the pole upright. When a failure occurs, the fuses bend, the hinge pivots, the interior cables tighten, and nearby poles pick up some of the load. The researchers have successfully tested a prototype pole and are working to secure a patent. Utility and power structure industries have expressed interest in their technology, they add.

Source: PhysOrg.com

Researchers at Rice University have developed a diagnostic tool to detect heart attacks using a person’s saliva. The technology is being tested at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in collaboration with Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) in Houston. John T. McDevitt, PhD, professor of chemistry and bioengineering at Rice, and his team at Rice’s BioScience Research Collaborative, developed a microchip sensor called the Nano-Bio-Chip that analyzes saliva and looks for cardiac biomarkers of injury implicated in the heart attack. “We find salivary tests, when combined with electrocardiograms (ECG), can provide more accurate information than the ECG alone for patients with chest pain,” McDevitt explains.

Typically, when a heart attack occurs, emergency medical technicians or hospital staff use an ECG machine to review heart activity. If the ECG is abnormal, the patient is immediately moved to an area to be treated. Unfortunately, ECGs fail to correctly diagnose about one-third of patients having a heart attack. These patients are monitored carefully in the emergency room using additional blood tests to look for certain biomarkers to verify whether a heart attack has occurred. “We follow this same procedure but include the saliva test to determine whether salivary biomarkers will perform similar to blood markers in diagnosing a heart attack,” says Biykem Bozkurt, MD, professor of medicine at BCM and chief of cardiology at the MEDVAMC. “It is anticipated that saliva will be an alternative or complementary technique to blood drawing for early diagnosis of heart attacks — ultimately, for testing in the ambulance before arrival in the emergency room.”

To obtain a saliva sample for the Nano-Bio-Chip, health care providers swab a patient’s gums with a cotton-tipped stick. The saliva is transferred to the disposable diagnostic microchip, which is then inserted into an analyzer. Within a few minutes, the saliva sample is checked and results delivered. Manufactured with techniques pioneered by the microelectronics industry, the chips have the potential to analyze large amounts of biomarker data at significantly lower cost than traditional tests, McDevitt says.

Source:  EurekAlert!