HK BIP Forum, December 4-5, 2014

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "HK BIP Forum, December 4-5, 2014"

Calvin Baker
6 years ago
Views:

1 HK BIP Forum, December 4-5, 2014 Building Success in Technology Transfer Dr Andy Sierakowski, Former Chair, KCA and Joint Chair International Committee ITTN Beijing

2 Australia China Trade Shows Strong Growth China has strengthened to be Australia's number one trading partner over the last decade Total value for Australia is around $150B in which is around 25% of the Australian total In addition, China and Australian have just signed (Nov 17) a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which was nearly 9 years in discussion

3 This talk : A look at technology transfer from the university and public sector and why it is important Some key commercialisation metrics data from Australia (for measuring success) Innovation clusters. A historical look including the factors for success, lessons learnt and opportunities for Hong Kong and China

4 Typical university technology transfer overview $1.3 M 1-5

5 University technology transfer - what s the challenge?

6 Intellectual Property Development Latent IP Research publications and know how Patent applications Software programs Publications/Copyright Equipment access Real IP Granted patents Licences Products/ services Trademarks PBR s Know-how Requires investment Develop and convert through industry engagement Increases in value Increases in impact

7 Industry and Research Engagement Market Push University Supporting Programs Market Pull INDUSTRY Current research activities including publications Invention disclosures Patent applications OII opportunity documents * May not be matched to industry needs UWA Pathfinder ARC linkage Enterprise Connect CRC program Ausindustry R&D tax incentives Innovation Precincts Inadequate research expertise Business challenges looking for solutions Company s patent applications * May not understand university capabilities or who to contact

8 The Commercialisation Challenge Costs $ Risk Discovery Commercialisation & Development Marketing & Manufacturing Universities and research institutions Time

9 Interactions and Collaborations University to private sector interactions and collaborations are diverse, often complex and numerous $ $$$ LOA s and spin out companies Invention disclosures Leading to IP Formalised alliances, research contracts/ consultancies Community interaction Individual interaction O U T C O M E S O U T R E A C H

10 Industry Engagement and Commercialisation Some key activities are inter-related Industry Research Contracts These lead to licences with industry partner Also lead to spin-off company formation These lead to more funding of research at the university These are formed from industry research contracts Spin-out Companies Licensing to Industry Lead to more research funding to support licensee

11 Relationship of a university s patent applications to Negotiated Research Contracts with Industry

12 University Spin-out Company-why? There are a number of reasons for creating a spin out company Secure access to particular funding options Package IP in special purpose vehicle and establish proportional ownership Companies can be established with a view to long term revenue streams or for shorter term commercialisation projects Expectation is that the company can complete project and then sell or license results Typically, IP is assigned or licensed to company in exchange for equity (ownership) It is a higher risk option compared to licensing as financial return is tied to company valuation and exposed to broader market conditions 12

13 13

Global Technology Transfer Successes Gatorade Google

formulation for replenishing fluids in athletes

Taxol Bristol Myers Squibb Nicotine Patch Genentech

originally derived from a natural product The pharma

benefit for smokers trying to quit The company

14 Global Technology Transfer Successes Gatorade Google University of Florida and a balanced drink formulation for replenishing fluids in athletes Stanford University and the global search engine Taxol Bristol Myers Squibb Nicotine Patch Genentech Florida State University and a major cancer cure originally derived from a natural product The pharma company that marketed Taxol UCLA, California and a benefit for smokers trying to quit The company largely founded on the Boyer and Cohen recombinant DNA patents (UCSF and Stanford Universities)

Australian Technology Transfer Successes Gardasil The

cancer CSIRO + WLAN CSIRO technology globally adopted

bionic ear from University Melbourne and helping

Sydney and helping people with sleep apnoea Sensear

15 Australian Technology Transfer Successes Gardasil The vaccine from University Queensland preventing cervical cancer CSIRO + WLAN CSIRO technology globally adopted and helping us to be more connected Cochlear The bionic ear from University Melbourne and helping people hear Resmed Originally from the University of Sydney and helping people with sleep apnoea Sensear UWA and a technology preventing deafness in high noise environments

16 Commercial success: top 10 inventions POLYMER BANKNOTES 3. RELENZA FLU VACCINE 4. EXTENDED WEAR CONTACT 1. WLAN Wireless Local Area Network 5. AEROGARD 6. TOTAL WELLBEING DIET 7. RAFT POLYMERISATION 8. BARLEYMAX 9. SELF TWISTING YARN 10. SOFTLY WASHING LIQUID

17 Some UWA Successes 17

18 Introduction to Public Sector Technology Transfer In Australia The pre-eminent organisation representing technology transfer in Australia & New Zealand There are approximately 350 staff in the sector working across CSIRO and the university sector

19 Growing Level of Disclosures

20 International Comparison

21 Invention Disclosure Summary Comments Australian data shows good growth over last decade but generally behind US,UK, and Canadian numbers. The reasons for this are generally understood Dependent on the university and its approach to technology transfer, each disclosure usually requires between $2-5M of research spend Obviously the quality of disclosures is more important than quantity but this is always a gamble as already discussed

22 Australian Innovation System Report 2012 Commercialisation

23 International Comparison

24 Income Summary Discussion Australian data again shows good growth from around 2006 onwards due to several known factors and second to the US overall Data shows variability year on year due to cash exits/equity sales and CSIRO WLAN licensing incomes Income generation is not the focus of a university TTO, it is the by-product of getting technologies to market!

25 Contract Revenue

26 High Technology Clusters Let s change direction slightly and discuss how university and public sector research technology transfer (licences, spin-out companies, industry contract research) can assist to grow high technology clusters and provide economic development locally, nationally and even internationally!

27 High Tech Clusters - sounds like a breakfast cereal for serial entrepreneurs!

28 Some Elements of High Tech Clusters At least ONE major research university Co-operative climate between governments, industry, universities etc Funding sources (Governments, venture capital including angels ) Incubators & science parks for spin-out companies Critical mass researchers, employees etc Adsorptive capacity of industry and interdependence suppliers, SME s etc Quality of life

29 Historical Development of Clusters California and US Biotechnology Genentech is an interesting case-study and major factor in the San Francisco cluster & US biotech industry growth Recombinant DNA technology from Boyer & Cohen (Stanford, UCSF). Patents filed Company formed 1976 by Boyer and a VC, Robert Swanson. Genentech receives FDA approval for synthetic human insuin in 1982 Many more Genentech drugs receive FDA approval over the next two to three decades. Genetech and similar companies viz Amgen kick-started the Californian/US biotech industry In March 2009 Swiss drug firm Hoffmann-la Roche acquires Genentech for $47 Billion

30 Historical Development of Clusters California and US Biotechnology In a 2011, a Californian (Bay Bio, PWC) report on the biotech/biomedical industry in California reported that: 268,000 people are employed directly in the industry, second only to Information Technology. A further 738,000 were supported by the industry It accounts for $59B in direct wages and additional related personal income of $86B $2.5B of venture capital supported the industry in start ups and company growth

31 Historical Development of Clusters California and Biotechnology A second strong biotechnology cluster developed in California at San Diego. That cluster is based on research at UCSF, Salk, Scripps institutes amongst others In fact, UCSF runs a very successful networking and cluster facilitation program called CONNECT Successful cluster growth also led to social structures promoting innovation and a high mobility of employees among companies. This leads to knowledge sharing as staff move from one company to another Another key factor in cluster growth is the number of company founders who are serial entrepreneurs forming more than 5 or even up to 10 companies. There is often one anchor company ( like a Genentech or an Amgen) which can spawn off new start-up companies when people leave. Over the period 1976-today both San Francisco and San Diego clusters have been huge facilitators in public company formation (from zero to hundreds of companies)

32 Historical Development of Clusters Boston and Biotechnology Similar story to California. In 1975, only one pharmaceutical company headquartered there. Astra AB This grew significantly over the next two decades with technology transfer and spin-out companies from local research intensive universities such as Harvard, MIT, Boston, Tufts etc.. Accelerated further in 2002 when Novartis (Swiss pharma) moved its global R&D organisation to Boston/Cambridge More recently biotech cluster has seen other technology firms moving in (Google, Amazon, Pay-Pal etc) Today Boston (Massacheusetts) is pushing California as number one biotech cluster

33 Lessons learnt - Ideas for Hong Kong/China Remember that both of the US examples provided demonstrated steady organic growth of the cluster (with a few specific events) over three decades. Not easy to copy and not sure we should try! So what should we do next? Some ideas in very broad strokes: -Review progress to date and what is working & what isn t -Establish how HK & PRC will support each other on innovation and technology transfer. Does HK have a special role here? -How to network and link PRC and HK networks better? -Establish a group to collect tech transfer metrics for both PRC and HK. --Continue to strengthen university research performance as measured by Jiao Tong assessment

34 Hong Kong Innovation & Technology Initiatives Last 15 years or so there have been numerous initiatives commenced: Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) established (2000) ITC manages various funding support schemes including Innovation of Technology Fund (ITF), R&D Cash Rebate Scheme (2010) Set up five R&D Centres in various disciplines (2006) to conduct industry relevant R&D Science and technology co-operation with the mainland includes Guangdong/HK Technology Funding Scheme (2004) and Shenzhen/HK Innovation Circle (2007) Fostering an innovation culture and Internship Programme REGULAR REVIEW, PROGRAMME TUNING AND PROSPECTIVE NEW PROGRAMS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED

35 Thank you Views ofp

36 Dr Andy Sierakowski m

Session 8: Marketing and Strategy (Practitioner) Athena Prib, RTTP Commercial Director, gemaker Chair of Marketing Committee, ATTP

Session 8: Marketing and Strategy (Practitioner) Athena Prib, RTTP Commercial Director, gemaker Chair of Marketing Committee, ATTP Session 8: Marketing and Strategy (Practitioner) Marketing versus selling