working together to build successful and effective industry-university cooperative research centers...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Together to Build Successful and Effective Industry-University Cooperative
Research Centers
NCURA Region VI & VII MeetingApril X, 2010
Newport Beach, California
Sherylle Mills Englander, Director Randall Draper, DirectorOffice of Technology & Industry Alliances Office of Contracts and GrantsUniversity of California Santa Barbara University of Colorado, Boulder
What is a Center?
An organizational unit established to enhance the working relationship between industry and universities characterized by:
industrial relevant fundamental research;
industrial support of and collaboration in research and education;
direct transfer of university developed ideas, research results, and technology to industry.
What are the benefits to industry?
Proprietary information for sponsors;
Rapid technology transfer to the sponsors;
Leveraged resources = research savings;
Access to faculty, students, and facilities;
Exposure to new ideas;
Interaction among sponsors, faculty, and student researchers.
What are the benefits to universities?
Alternate sources of funding;
Levering existing resources;
Long-term partnerships with industry:
Seed grants; Intellectual property; Student support (e.g. REU); Student placement; Exclusive research opportunities.
How are Centers structured?
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) Model
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Model
University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) Model
Other, e.g. Engineering Research Center
How are Centers organized?
By-Laws
Membership Agreements
Operations Memorandum
Other:
Letters of Commitment License Agreements Non-Disclosure Agreements
Who are the players?
Government (Federal and/or State)
Industry
Other (e.g. NOAA/NIST/NREL)
Universities:
Faculty Investigators Center Administrators Business Developers Industry Representatives Central Administrators (sponsored projects/technology transfer)
What are some of the potential governance issues?
Single Institution – Multiple Institutions
Large Businesses – Small Businesses
Single Focus – Multiple Foci
Advisory Committee – Executive Committee
Shared Research – Exclusive Research
Faculty initiated – Strategically initiated
The Center for Membrane Applied Science and Technology (MAST)
NSF IUCRC, established in 1990
CU is the lead institution with participating investigators from NJIT, CSM, CSU, Clemson, Cincinnati
Industry/Laboratory Participation
Anasys Instruments Corporation Pall Corporation Compact Membrane Systems QinetiQ North America Conoco-Phillips EPRI National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Eli Lilly and Company U.S. Army Tank Automotive R&D Center : W.L. Gore & Associates U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Millipore Corporation
Research and Educational Mission: To advance the technology of membrane separations,
including basic research and related developmental activities for the use of membrane technologies in separation processes; timely and effective technology transfer ; promotion of education in membrane science and technology.
Research opportunities for 35 Ph.D. and 26 M.S. degrees and 218 undergraduates
Annual Revenues: $650,000 Projects: 80 Faculty/Researchers: 30
Costs: $50,000/year membership fee; 3 year agreement
Benefits: “Proprietary” research and information; Cutting edge research results; Efficient technology transfer; Leveraged resources; Low overhead (6%); Access to faculty members, students, and facilities; Student recruitment
Intellectual Property: 7 patents
“UARC” (university affiliated research center) funded by the U.S. Army
UCSB is lead, with Caltech and MIT as subawardees Five primary research foci, each with separate
funding task orders under master agreement: Biomolecular Sensors Bio-Inspired Materials/Energy BioDiscovery Tools Bio-Inspired Network Science Cognitive Neuroscience
60 faculty and 150 researchers across the three institutions
Motivations for ICB Industry Partnership Program: Accelerated tech transfer is key metric in
Army evaluations Need for additional funding to help meet
matching requirements Attract as many companies as possible
Big, small, local, national, in any market area.
Tiered Benefits (annual fee): Top Level (paid membership fee required):
First right to negotiate a license to inventions fully developed on ICB’s 6.1 (basic) DOD research funds.
Second Level (no fee; free membership): Companies have right to submit proposals for 6.2 funds allocated to ICB
for research collaborations between company, university and Army lab.
UCSB provides a first option to negotiate an exclusive license in an appropriate field of use
Both levels: members receive invitation to attend annual research
symposium and various ICB events throughout the year.
Intellectual Property Intellectual property benefits did not prove to be a
driving force! IP can be needlessly tied up in election periods for
companies that clearly have no interest
Assuring IP Policy works for UCSB, Caltech and MIT Cat herding was a key skill Post-award: assuring all three universities are implementing
policy
Automatic license rights to 6.2 collaborators Is the company in the best position to bring the technology
forward?
Non-IP Issues Smaller companies may not have worked with federal grants
before. Significant hand holding by Sponsored Projects to assure subrecipient compliance contract delays common with no IDC rates and need for
additional admin controls Sponsored Projects cannot control which company is
selected.
Some companies found funding paperwork intensive – used to researching with less administrative burden
Due to diversity of research thrusts, hard to attract higher level, fee-paying members
When working with a new Center:
Understand from the faculty (and design structure accordingly): What research areas/markets are involved What companies they want to attract Whether they anticipate start up companies forming Sophistication of person responsible for industry outreach
director
Engage your tech transfer to understand (to prevent needlessly encumbering IP): What types of rights do the particular markets run on? How critical will patent rights be for product development?
(software v. pharma compounds)
Center for Biorefining and Biofuels (C2B2)
Strategic Center, established in 2007 Part of the Colorado Collaboratory for Renewable
Energy supported by the State of Colorado Consortium of CU, CSU, CSM, and NREL Industry participation:
Catchlight Energy GICON
Ceres Korth O”Neil Engineering
Cobalt Biofuels Live Fuels
ConocoPhillips Mascoma
Ecopetrol OPX Biotechnologies
Flad Architects Shell Global Solutions
General Motors Solix Biofuels
Genesis Biofuel Valero
Gevo ZeaChem
Research and Education Mission:
C2B2 exists to improve fundamental understanding and develop new technologies in areas relevant to the future commercialization of integrated, sustainable biorefining, and biofuels processes in accordance with the following objectives:
Integrating renewable sources of materials and energy into the chemical industry;
Providing relevant training for students and industrial scientists;
Creating a vertically and horizontally integrated research and training environment.
Research Thrusts: Feedstock Engineering, Plant Biotechnology & Crop
Science; Biochemical Engineering; Thermochemical Engineering; Process Engineering; Product Engineering; System Assessment and Analysis.
Projects: 29
Faculty Investigators: 168
Annual Revenues: $1M; $1.5M; $1.5M; $500K
Cost: $50,000/year membership fee for large companies; $10,000/year fee for small companies; 2 year agreement
Benefits: Expertise in virtually all aspects of biofuels and biorefining research
World-class facilities: CU, CSU, CSM & NREL
Talent for hire: Outstanding students and post doctoral researchers
Networking: Interaction with diverse C2B2 member companies
Return on investment: Access to intellectual property rights and substantial institutional and state matching contributions
SeedgrantsFellowshipsRED ProgramsSeminars/ShortcoursesVisiting Scientists
SPONSORED RESEARCH SHARED RESEARCH
C2B2 Agreements Diagram
MembershipAgreements
Corporate $50,000
Small Business $10,000
Colorado Collaboratory (State)
Master CRADA Interagency Agreement
Task Orders
CSU CSM CU NREL
Master Sponsored Research Agreements
RFPs
Research Project Agreements
By-Laws
General Issues: Purpose
Industry: University:
Business Focus Mission Focus
Private Purpose Public Purpose
Private Knowledge Public Knowledge
Product Development Personnel Development
General Issues: Culture
Industry: University:
Profit Non-ProfitProtection PublicationCompetition CollaborationCentralized DecentralizedLine Authority Diffuse AuthoritySingle Pt. of Contact Multiple Pts. of ContactFast Turnaround Deliberation/Consensus
Specific Issues
Multiple “Participating Institutions” Conflicting business culture w/ National Lab Complicated structure and functions Pressure to perform (“Seamless Business Model”) Growth and sustainability Moving members from “shared research” to “exclusive
research” Intellectual Property Publication/Disclosure Exclusivity/Non-Compete
Funded 100% by for-profit sector 14 multi-national companies pay $500,000/year UCSB has top researchers in area.
Mission: to develop novel solid state based technologies for energy efficient lighting and displays, power electronics, and renewable energy
118 invention disclosures received from SSLEC/SSLDC research since 2002. 80% of inventions under active license or option with member(s). (92.5% before October, 2008)
Invention Disclosures Over Time
SSLEC runs without research contracts SSLEC has an IP Policy that outlines the membership’s
access in detail
Members remit payment
Upon payment, SSLEC issues letter indicating the company is entitled to the benefits outlined in the SSLEC IP Policy (attached to letter for clarity)
Elected inventions added to one umbrella single license/option agreement between UCSB and the Member
Streamlined, highly efficient administration.
A contract is not always needed! Can unduly complicate member’s entry into center,
particular with foreign companies
For a potentially “IP intensive” center: Review center visitor procedures very carefully to avoid IP
“gaming” (where a company asserts joint ownership to get free rights)
Work with tech transfer to assure obligations to membership are affordable Long election period with lots of inventions could be
unaffordable!
Experiences from the audience
What can you share with us about starting and supporting successful (or unsuccessful!) Centers