TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION FROM GOVERNMENT

FPTT National Meeting 2007June 12, 2007

Morna PatersonFederal Partners in Technology Transfer

Background

• The Canadian government has placed a high priority on technology commercialization as a driver for economic development.

• Federal labs have been under increasing pressure to demonstrate their relevance and contribution to economic and productivity growth.

• Licensing revenues have been used as a proxy for commercialization and demonstrate a very poor return on investment.

Background

• An econometric study released by Industry Canada in September 2006 made national headlines; e.g.,

– “Effect of government R&D is “at best nil” Industry Canada reports – Ottawa Citizen

– “Research by business and universities found much more beneficial” – Vancouver Sun and Montreal Gazette.

• The 2007 Federal Budget annouced the launch of an independent expert panel to consider options and governance frameworks for the transferring of federal labs.

Objectives

To determine:

• how technology commercialization factors into the mandate of SBDAs;

• what resources are available to support commercialization activities;

• what gaps or barriers exist that prevent commercial exploitation of technology;

• how departments might collaborate more effectively to overcome some of these barriers;

• what role FPTT and the Advisory Council might play in the future.

Mandate of “Social-Based” SBDAsHealth Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Transport Canada view commercialization as a low priority. Technologies developed for policy, standards and regulatory support may have commercial implications, but remain mostly unexploited.

• Technologies are typically developed or acquired through collaborations and/or procurement contracts.

• Technology with commercial potential are likely developed serendipitously and remain mostly commercially unexploited.

• Little interaction with industry; and technology receptivity is generally poor.

• Technologies developed for internal purposes (e.g., development of a specialized monitoring instrument) may have limited market applications.

• IP portfolio is generally small; limited resources to manage the portfolio.

• Technologies with commercial implications are likely to be made broadly available. Licensing is the exception rather tan the rule.

Mandate of “Security-Based” SBDAsNational Defence, the RCMP, and the Canadian Space Agency, perform R&D primarily through contracts to meet internal client needs. Commercial exploitation of technologies is generally left up to the contractors and/or others, provided there are no security concerns.

• Industry is typically involved in the early stages of development; commercialization is “part of the journey”.

• National security concerns can limit commercialization of certain critical technologies.

• Resources are devoted to business development activities; although more could be accomplished with access to additional resources and capabilities.

• Provisions for IP are generally covered as part of the procurement contract; separate licensing agreements are also negotiated.

Mandate of “Economic-Based” SBDAsNatural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-food

Canada, Communications Research Center and the National Research Council

Work closely with industry in developing and commercializing technologies. Technology transfer and commercialization are implicit in NRC’s Act.

NRCan and AAF are regarded as “economic” departments, while

still providing policy, standards and regulatory support.

• Most technologies are developed by design to meet the specific industry needs.

.

Mandate of “Economic-Based” SBDAs

• Companies are typically engaged in the early stages of the R&D, and therefore have a vested interest in exploiting technologies.

• Resources are devoted to the management and exploitation of IP; and to business development activities.

• Technologies are transferred predominantly through licensing agreements, along with an on-going relationship with the receptors of the technologies.

• On occasion, these organizations have promoted the creation of new companies to commercialize leading edge technologies.

Mismatched Expectations

• There is a need to rationalize the government’s priority on technology commercialization from federal labs with the actual mandate of SBDAs.

• Some federal labs work closely with industry in developing and commercializing technology; but many support internal government needs in the areas of national security, health, safety and the environment.

Barriers to Commercialization

Opinions varied widely:• Lack of sophistication in the industry to commercialize

advanced technologies. • IP can be a major obstacle to negotiations (e.g.,

because of differing policies and approaches). • Scarce resources devoted to business development

and technology transfer activities.• A highly fragmented system of funding for innovation.• The lack of available support for commercialization for

SBDAs whose mandate is policy and regulatory support.

Need for Commercialization Support

• All SBDAs recognize the need to have access to certain critical services; e.g., in order of priority

– Technology assessment

– Market research and market intelligence

– Business, technical and financial assistance

– Product and process development

– Access to specialized equipment and major platforms for prototype development; fabrication and scale-up

– Facilities/expertise for technology incubation

• “Social-based” SBDAs would prefer to have access to an organization with the needed expertise to facilitate commercialization.

Need for Commercialization Support

• “Social-based” SBDAs would prefer to have access to an organization with the needed expertise to facilitate commercialization

Interviews With Federal IP/TT Managers

The discussions with FPTT Partner managers of IP / TT offices centered around four main subject areas:

- Priorities

- Governance / Structure / Organizational Design

- Training / Professionalism

- Communication / Coordination Activities and Tools

Interview Questions

• What are your organizations highest priorities? What changes are required of current priorities? What activities and initiative could the FPTT undertake that would be of value to your organization?

• What are your most important TT related training needs? Do you agree with establishing more professional designation for TT practioners in federal labs e.g. a certification program?

Interview Questions cont’d

• Should the FPTT Ex Office move beyond its current Cooridiantion and Communication role?

• How should the FPTT be funded in the future?

FPTT STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES

A. Retain the top four activity areas as approved in 2004:

• Networking and Sharing Best Practices

• Professional Development

• Promotion

• Research and Advocacy

FPTT NEW STRATEGIC INITIATIVES FOR 2007-08

1. Develop a strategy and recommendations to create a professional category for federal TT practitioners – investigate the development of a federal Technology Transfer Specialist training program that may include certification, options for internship or apprenticeship.

2. The FPTT Executive Office and the FPTT Advisory Committee to create a stronger and active interface / liaison with federal S&T / R&D intramural or horizontal groups (i.e. ADM S&T Committee, ADM Integration Board, etc on matters related to TT / IP elements of the Innovation Cycle.

FPTT STRATEGIC INITIATIVES – 2007-08

3. The FPTT Executive Office to develop an advanced communication strategy in order to raise the profile of the FPTT especially the FPTT Awards Program. Include options to link into other Federal and non-federal Innovation Award programs (i.e. NSERC Synergy Awards).

FPTT STRATEGIC INITIATIVES – 2007-08

4. Conduct an analysis identifying the processes and challenges associated with the non-commercial transfer of R&D outcomes in federal labs.

5. Assist in the development of metrics to demonstrate the impacts of technology transfer from the public sector.

6. Create an FPTT Working Group to review federal policies that may act as barriers to effective technology transfer from federal labs.