Technology transfer is a long-established part of early-stage research within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Although technology transfer offices have traditionally been associated with inefficiency and a lack of commercial judgment, recent trends have shown improvements in staffing, expertise and service levels. However, the tech transfer function has recently suffered from ‘funding gaps’ for promising new technologies. A clear disparity exists between current service offerings and demand levels amongst investors/industry partners, while the lack of an established model for effective technology transfer function and significant regional variations are major obstacles to future progress.

‘Technology Transfer Strategies’ is a new, uniquely themed report published by Business Insights that provides a comprehensive examination of the major trends in technology transfer activity in the US, Canada and Europe. The report provides a detailed country-level analysis of technology transfer and associated intellectual property technology regulations, in addition to evaluating the key approaches to office structuring and strategies to negotiate the ’funding gap’. A series of in-depth interviews also document the experiences and insights of 11 tech transfer experts, and their recommendations for successful technology transfer strategies are revealed.

Key Findings

The number of new technology transfer licensing agreements ‘earned’ for every $1 billion of research expenditure has fallen from 115 to 109 between 2004 and 2006. However, the rate of return for licensing revenues per $1 million research expenditure has increased over the same period, from $34,806 to $40,837.

The efficiency of technology transfer outcomes varies across major regions. The UK produces the highest rate of invention disclosures, licensing agreements and new start-ups. The US produces the greatest rate of new patent grants, while Canada generates the most new patent applications. US institutions also generate the greatest technology licensing returns from research investments.

A common industry complaint about interactions with technology transfer offices is ‘a lack of understanding about customer needs’. Tech transfer executives are often viewed to better understand the merits of scientific over commercial solutions.

Generating a successful initial public offering (IPO) has become more difficult, putting increased pressure on associated royalty rates and spin-out terms. As venture capitalists become more conservative, moving new technologies from federal funding to proof-of-concept is increasingly challenging.

Use this report to...

• Identify the latest trends in technology transfer and compare the relative efficiencies of different regions with this report’s detailed survey data of technology transfer performances in the US, Canada and Europe.
• Compare the progress of leading peer-group universities and institutions by using this report’s league table assessment of leading technology transfer offices including healthcare patent data and overall technology transfer outcomes.
• Benchmark the best practices of leading technology transfer offices in the US and Europe by using in-depth case studies that examine successful strategies and approaches to office structuring.
• Assess the strategic recommendations and future predictions of technology transfer specialists based on insights from interviews with eleven experts from universities, hospitals, research institutions and independent companies, in addition to contributions from venture capital and pharmaceutical industry executives.

Explore issues including:

The funding gap. The difficulty of translating basic research to commercial licensing opportunities has never been greater, particularly as VCs and industry clients become more risk averse.

Defensive strategies. Moving technologies beyond basic research to proof of concept is expensive but has become a necessary step in the current technology transfer environment

Cultural differences. Technology transfer offices are positioned between the academic and business worlds, and must balance the non-profit and for-profit worlds accordingly.

Integration vs independence. Recent trends, particularly in the UK, have seen a move towards establishing independent technology transfer offices in order to facilitate greater levels of professionalism and commercialism.

Discover...

• How do intellectual property rights differ by geography?
• How does the availability of potential collaborators and licensing partners differ by geography?
• How does the availability of human resources vary by geography?
• What are the alternative models for delivering technology transfer?
• What impact does each model of tech transfer delivery have upon commercial returns, operational effectiveness and culture/process?
• What are the key lessons from current technology transfer best-practices?
• How does the funding gap influence returns from technology transfer?
• What strategies can effectively combat the funding gap?