SMERI RAZVOJNIH POLITIK
1. PRIMERJAVA: FINSKA, ISLANDIJA, SLOVENIJA – slike!!!!
(povzetki po Lojzetu Sočanu)
2. US Technology transfer Principles and developments
The history of technology transfer (TT) in the US is much longer than in Europe. In December 1980 the US Congress enacted the “University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act”, which states that the policy and the objective of the Congress was among other to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development and to encourage maximum participation of small business firms between commercial concerns and non-profit organizations, including Universities and Institutes (Bayh-Dole, 1980).
The Act applies to all inventions wholly or partially funded by federal funding (except grants for training). Institutions are obliged to report inventions to the funding agency, however if the Institution decides to retain title to the invention, the agency may not take over. In this case the Institution is responsible for all procedures and costs associated with protecting its invention (patenting and marketing to potential licensees). It also enjoys the right to all royalties and other monies from the licensing of its invention to others. In marketing, institutions must give preferences to SME's (less than 500 employees in US), however if a large company has been involved in development it may also be awarded the license. Any company holding an exclusive license that involves selling in the US must also substantially manufacture in the US. Indeed the greatest benefit of this Legislative Act seems to have been the change in mentality of senior academic management, who now recognize both the importance and the benefits of good Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) management. Moreover, the Act forced scientists and engineers to disclose inventions as a matter of routine, facilitating the role of Technology Transfer (TT) Officers. Negotiations between universities, institutes and the industry have been greatly facilitated by the Bayh-Dole act, since questions of ownership and exclusive licensing are rarely discussed.
Moreover, the Act gave rise to two different Research Programs (US Commerce, 2007), supporting industry and research collaboration. The Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR). Within SBIR the federal funding agencies with research budget e.g. over 100 mio USD must reserve 2.5% for collaborative efforts between small business and non-profit research institutions. Within STTR a 0.3% of federal R&D budget is reserved for award to small business and non-profit research institution partners (ProTon, 2007). A nice example of how efficient are the IPR protection strategies and licensing principles of the Bayh-Dole Act, is the North Carolina State University (NCSU).
3 European TT Funding Principles
The EU has evolved a similar funding to encourage SME's to outsource research from publicly funded research institutions. Within the FP7, a “Research for SME's” Program is now open for project proposals. The SME participants are the direct beneficiaries of the project: they invest in the RTD project and outsource (subcontract) most of the research to RTD performers and receive in return the technological know-how they need to develop new or improve existing products, systems, processes or services (Cordis, 2007). The 5-10 participants can share up to 1.5 mio EUR in up to two years. SME's by European standards employ fewer than 250 persons and have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. The EU Member States have earmarked a total of € 1'336 million for funding (a high percentage of) SME's research support over the duration of FP7.
There is a lack of systematic funding support to applicative research or research for the industry in the EU. Moreover, in EU in general a larger financial investment than in the US is needed for a patent to be obtained and maintained in general. Therefore it is difficult to directly compare US and European TT practices. However, there are a few successfully operating European TT Offices, e.g. at the University of Leuven, Belgium, founded in 1972 (University was founded in 1425) or at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, founded in 1989 (the European Organization for Nuclear Research has been founded in 1954).
EU (Marjeta, od DG Enterprise in PRO Inno)
The innovation pyramid outlines our strategy for innovation policy in Europe. The Enterprise Europe Network is the foundation of the triangle. It has own tools and instruments like the sector groups and the technology transfer services. The main asset is the European wide coverage of the partnerships. Best suited to make available tools in the regions. Europe INNOVA brings together funding agencies and other financial organisations, incubators, intermediaries and research institutes that are involved in the provision of support services in specific areas of political priorities. These networks are public-private partnerships. We will group them under 4 themes: -Knowledge Intensive Services -Lead Markets related to Eco-Innovation -Cluster cooperation. The Europe Innova actions typically establish communities which overlap with the organisations and clients of the Enterprise Europe Network. Their services are more focused and go much deeper. Moving further up in the pyramid, the Pro Inno Europe activities build on OMC, which is Open Method of Coordination, whereby policy makers from the Member States come together. Also, we envisage to support a number of INNONETs, where policy makers commit themselves to develop innovation policy around themes and with clear goals. Three INNO-Nets develop trans-nationally coordinated cluster policies for example in the Alpes - Danube area. The EOS project is a coordinated approach to offer soft-landing and market exploration tools in a network of incubators. The Pro-Inno Europe has a more political and strategic approach - in particular with respect to international cooperation in support to innovation. The feedback with the network is more related to the host organisation than on the direct provision of services to the SME clients.
SLIKA: Podporno okolje, kot ga vidi DG Enetrprise.
Komentar na to iz Marjetine e-pošte o "Innovation pyramide"
ANALYSIS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF DEMAND ACTORS (SMES) AND PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS/UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE
(po EC.Knowledge_Transfer) – vmes so tudi priporočila!!! NAJDI!!!
KEY ISSUES RELATED TO THE LINKS BETWEEN PUBLIC RESEARCH CENTRES AND SMES
Throughout Europe work is being done to increase the collaboration between academia and industry, i.e. further knowledge transfer and all actors agree that more intensive industry-science cooperation is a crucial factor for better commercialisation of R&D results. The outputs of these activities are as varied as the types of institutional solutions put in place. Typical outputs and forms of income include: • research projects with SMEs (R&D and development work); • EU research projects; • patents and IPR management; • licensing (royalties); • contract research; • start ups/spin outs etc.
Different methods are used, in some places knowledge transfer offices (or TTIs technology transfer institutions) are situated at the universities reaching out to industry, elsewhere the knowledge transfer offices are private entities working as intermediaries between academia and industry, others have set up public private partnerships or joint venture companies, whilst in other regions technology transfer institutes are working closely in collaboration with Innovation Relay Centres (now known as the Enterprise Europe Network).
Knowledge transfer offices are considered central actors to the knowledge transfer process for several reasons as they: • contribute to faster and better commercialisation of research results; • improve innovation performance and accelerate the dissemination of new technologies; • lead to better management of intellectual property and research capacities of public research organisations; • identify specific research requirements through dialogue with enterprises; • help companies grow and become more competitive. The discussions between the WG members highlighted that the main weaknesses encountered in most regions were the lack of resources available for SMEs to undertake R&D activities, lack or low levels of networking, clustering in smaller regions and lack of IPR compatibility in companies. On the academia side there is a lack of IP policy, knowledge transfer offices are scarce and they can be very different, there is lack of entrepreneurship and lack of funding for R&D and for supporting entrepreneurship and start up activities and finally often too much bureaucracy.
The main strengths in some regions are the “one stop shops”, e.g. in Lahti, Finland, where one knowledge transfer office connects four different universities to industry. Science and business parks have been developed based on good practices experiences drawn from other regions and models such as the triple helix approach, connecting academia, industry and public bodies, have been put in place. Additional resources are being focused on brokerage services to facilitate the creation of links between SMEs (particularly low tech SMEs) and research resources. Interesting examples also exist in Northern Ireland and Western Sweden. Entrepreneurship education for all new academics has been introduced in a number of regions, for example in Latvia it has been decided to develop an entrepreneurship programme based on the Chalmers Institute model (Western Sweden).
Though the development of the Innovation Relay Centres across Europe has given a boost to technology transfer at the regional level, it is significant that these have tended to develop opportunities for the most commercially viable products and processes. Thus the promotion of a culture of science-industry collaboration among a wider group of university staff is not being achieved. Thus regional initiatives to foster such collaboration should be one of the primary focuses in any policies aimed at stimulating university interaction with industry. Such policies should have positive institutional incentives to increase and professionalise their activities as well as bring about a reduction in counterproductive legal frameworks that can form a significant barrier to university entrepreneurship.
Another interesting issue that needs to be considered concerns aspects of demand push i.e. the way in which Knowledge transfer offices sell and market their services. Indicators such as number of clients, turnover from companies etc compared to the best in class can provide further insight into these issues. Questions of visibility and links with other key actors were raised by a number of WG members as means by which marketing actions can be organised.
Territorial issues, such as proximity to centres of excellence, participation in clusters and networks can also influence take-up of knowledge transfer/SME activities. Regions such as Brittany with strong research centres with a high technology transfer potential such as Rennes (universities, research centres, science parks, clusters etc) have created a number of regional brands (Bretagne Valorisation) and put in place charters to bring together the key actors involved in knowledge transfer to ensure better geographical coverage of SMEs. Finally, the nature of the financing of knowledge transfer activities can also have an impact on the nature of services and the types of marketing services developed. For example patent exploitation, licensing, royalty incomes, research contract management, service and consultancy contracts, spin off creation and VC funding etc.
Some experiences from the Working Group regions are described briefly below.
In Malta there is no structured Academic/Industry relationship. Most of the research done in collaboration with industry is done on an ad-hoc basis and based on personal networks. On the one hand this is due to the fact that in Malta there is only one university and a vocational college, and only the university is research based. On the other hand the demand for knowledge transfer services is limited as most of the SMEs in Malta are service companies.
Iceland resembles Malta with respect to the sparse population (312,000), but differs in a sense that in the country there are eight higher educational institutes, all of which have the status of university. The University of Iceland situated in the capital, Reykjavík, is by far the biggest university and the oldest. The Research Liaison Office of the University of Iceland was established 20 years ago, with the aim of connecting academia with industry, and the Regional Research Centre Institute was established in 2003 aiming at merging regional strategies and research throughout the country.
Hamburg differs a lot from the small islands of Malta and Iceland. With a population of approximately 2 million nearly 90,000 SMEs stemming from all sectors and working in a highly competitive environment are confronted with 16 universities teaching and researching often similar and intersecting technological subjects. Several private, public and PPP knowledge transfer institutions have been established in order to make the knowledge transfer landscape more transparent and build a bridge between the heterogeneous partners. They are managed by various institutions; some of them specialized in faculties or clusters. Moreover numerous regional and national support programmes exist, aimed at alleviating financial, legal and administrative problems of acquiring technology.
In South East England there are 25 Universities and numerous centres of excellence in, for example, health, biotechnology, engineering and aerospace, with 8 science parks and 50 innovation and enterprise centres; however levels of engagement between SMEs and Universities are still considered as being low. The region is ranked higher than any other in the UK by the EU Regional Innovation Scoreboard (2006), yet, on some aspects of innovation, creativity and knowledge transfer, the region lags behind other European regions and it is recognised that there is a strong need to increase levels of innovation through business support for Research and development and technology transfer. Current efforts of the UK government and SEEDA are focused on the need to simplify and achieve a ‘no wrong door’ approach to business support due to a plethora of business support products confusing the market place.
Some Solutions Knowledge transfer offices can be part of the solution for closer links between SMEs and HEI, if they: • are managed by and employ experienced staff. Where possible, networking between different players involved in technology transfer at regional and national levels, should ensure the sharing of technology transfer capacity. The Regional Network of Technological Supply (RENTS) project operating in Crete (www.Innocrete.gr) and Help-Forward (www.help-forward.gr) programmes in Greece provide good examples of this network approach to knowledge transfer. • assist in the enhancement of the entrepreneurial skills of academics so as to provide support for commercialisation activities. • are capable of identifying the majority of commercialization opportunities, and not just “the next big thing”. • offer ‘free’ advice on innovation and skills thus creating specific demand for knowledge transfer. • offer simple funding advice and routes (quick solutions to start engagement). • provide a simple standard format/ agreement to help facilitate the negotiation of Intellectual Property IP. • highlight the people potential – utilise graduate recruitment and placements as a first step to build relationships, in the UK the KTP (Knowledge Transfer Partnerships have had considerable success in this field); • adapt and develop suitable marketing and awareness raising activities for SMEs. • inject a degree of PPP into the organisations to ensure that they become more market driven. • develop knowledge transfer activities beyond the technology sphere to include all aspects of the innovation supply chain (ie: providing access to such themes as HR, marketing, design, internationalisation etc.)
Other solutions suggested could be the “one stop shops or no wrong door approach”, the triple helix model or the cluster model. All of which are being actively pursued in some regions. Cluster policies are also growing in importance in Europe and they can provide a useful entry point for delivering better knowledge transfer services, for example the Pole de Compétitivité model in France is driving forward greater Industry/Research actor interactions in over 70 locations/projects across the country.
PRIMERI DOBRE PRAKSE
The example of North Carolina State University (NCSU)
Around 200 mio EUR is spent annually on research activities at NCSU including corresponding administrative costs. A 14% share of resources come from Industry, which is more than the average 5-6% of USA. The NCSU TT Office involves 5 Licensing staff, 6-7 administrative staff, each of which handles 350 cases at a time, but is not engaged in seeking licenses or active contract negotiations. Marketing and partnership search involves another 7 members and 200 academic staff is engaged with Campus based companies (similar to IJS Technology Park). Over 70 companies or government agencies are based on the Campus, with the goal to have companies integrated with the university, so that it will take students on placements, employ graduates, use consultancy expertise and services and fund research activities.
On average in NCSU each year 200 invention disclosures are made (patents proposed), 110 patents are filed and 40 license deals are done. Only in 2006, 6 new companies were formed based on IP from the University and there were already 18 companies in incubators on the Campus. NCSU takes 5-10% equity on each company created from University IP and agrees on licensing before a company is released from the Campus. The value of license income is approximately 3.6 mio USD or approx 2.4 mio EUR per year. (ProTon, 2007)
1 LEUVEN R&D (spletne strani http://lrd.kuleuven.be, prosojnice s predavanj)
13th of June 2008 LRD has won the IPTEC Tech Transfer Award
Centrally located in Flanders and Europe, the Leuven Region, with its renowned knowledge institutes, its science parks and its presence of venture capitalists, provides a fertile breeding-ground for spin-off companies as well as for international research-intensive businesses. Knowledge institutes like the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, the Gasthuisberg University Hospital and the Inter-university Micro-Electronics Centre (IMEC) generate a huge inflow of state-of-the-art knowledge that may bring about innovative ideas for new as well as existing companies.
K.U.Leuven Research & Development, in close co-operation with the City of Leuven, has created a favorable business climate for high-tech entrepreneurship. In particular, K.U.Leuven R&D is an active partner in the setting up of a number of networking initiatives and technology clusters as well as in the planning, setting up and exploitation of Incubators, Science Parks and Business Centers in the Leuven Region.
Ustanova je razdeljena na 7 enot in skupaj obsega 54 zaposlenih (po velikosti je ustanova podobna naši agenciji JAPTI), od katerih se z logistiko in notranjo administracijo ukvarja 6, torej 10 %, 5 pa jih predstavlja centralno vodenje ustanove. Drugi zaposleni delajo v okviru štirih enot, ki delujejo na štirih temeljnih področjih podpore pri prenosu znanja iz raziskovalnih ustanov v prakso: pogodbeno raziskovanje domače -5 evropsko -7 ustvarjanje odcepljenih (spin-off)podjetij in podpora inovacijam - 9 varovanje in izraba intelektualne lastnine -7 financiranje: finančna administracija projektov - 1 EU-projekti - 2 bilateralne pogodbe -3 računovodstvo -4 državni projekti (Belgija) -3
Struktura zaposlenih obsega ljudi s pravno, znanstvenoraziskovalno in ekonomsko osnovo, velik delež osebja je imel dodaten trening ASTP ali se je izobraževal v inovacijskem in tehnološkem menedžmentu.
Podpirajo različne vrste sodelovanja.
Research collaboration Researchers at the K. U. Leuven undertake different types of collaborations for which K. U. Leuven R&D can provide legal, financial and administrative support. Flemish and European funded research projects and initiatives, where typically an agreement has to be concluded with third parties such as the industry or other R&D institutes, are supported by the legal counsels and the EU advisors of K. U. Leuven R&D. The legal counsels of K. U. Leuven R&D offer their support to researchers in negotiating a fair deal with the industry and draft the appropriate research or service agreement. The EU advisors guide the researchers with their projects in consortia, provide financial and administrative advice and support the negotiation rounds in these consortia. Juridical support is also provided for negotiations of agreements between the university and/or high schools of the association and industrial or other partners worldwide. Tenders with governmental agencies are also supported by the legal staff of K. U. Leuven R&D.
K. U. Leuven has a long spin-off tradition. Over the past 35 years, the growing entrepreneurial culture among researchers, in combination with the support provided by K. U. Leuven Research & Development, has led to the creation of over 70 spin-off companies, having a combined total turnover of well over 400 million EUR and employing more than 2000 people. Here you find the list of spin-off companies.
Two of the critical success factors, when setting up a spin-off company, include: the availability of a highly motivated team that can realise the technology transfer from the involved research group(s) to the spin-off company. Usually, the research expertise available has to be complemented with management experience. the availability of a sufficiently large platform with respect to scientific expertise, technology and products/services on which the spin-off company can build on and on the basis of which a sustainable business can be established within a highly competitive market place. K. U. Leuven Research & Development offers support with respect to: development of business plan protection and exploitation of intellectual property finding investors negotiation & legal support finding infrastructure management of growth of the spin-off company stimulating networking & clustering
Gemma Frisius Fonds A partner in spin-off creation Gemma Frisius Fund K. U. Leuven (GFF) is a seed capital fund, established in 1997 as a joint venture between K. U. Leuven, the KBC Group and the Fortis Group. The objective of the fund is to stimulate the creation and growth of university related spin-off companies at K. U. Leuven by: Providing seed capital in the very early phases of research-based spin-off companies. Combining the research & technology transfer expertise of the university with the financial and investment expertise of the financial partners.
Gemma Frisius Fund I, totalling 12.5 million Euro, was founded in October 1997. During the period 1997 to 2002, Gemma Frisius Fund I invested a total amount of 11.5 million Euro in 17 spin-off companies. As a result of the success of the first fund, the three partners - K. U. Leuven Research & Development, Fortis Private Equity and KBC Private Equity - unanimously decided to continue this unique form of collaboration between the academic and the financial world. Hence, on July 3rd, 2002 Gemma Frisius Fund II was founded. Like its precursor, it provides seed capital to spin-offs that wish to commercialise research results and know-how that was developed within the university. With a capital of 8.5 million Euro, which can be extended to 12.5 million Euro, Gemma Frisius Fund II will invest in new K. U. Leuven spin-off companies during the period 2002 to 2008. Investment policy GFF's scope is not restricted to a specific technology domain. Instead it considers every opportunity where know-how developed at the K. U. Leuven is involved. The investment period typically ranges from 7 to 10 years, before an exit will be realised. As a seed capital fund, GFF mainly focuses on first round financing. However, in order to support a spin-off company's growth during the initial years, GFF also provides second round financing, if necessary, in co-operation with other external partners. Capital is invested in exchange for capital shares. In addition to capital shares, founder shares are awarded to the founders and the university, based on a valuation of the intellectual property (IP) that is brought into the start-up company. In addition, warrants can be created for founders and key personnel. GFF offers active guidance and support in the growth process of the spin-off company and is usually also involved in the company's board of directors. Organisation & Support The operation of GFF is strongly interlinked with the activities of K. U. Leuven Research & Development, the technology transfer office of the university. Most opportunities are presented to GFF via the network of K. U. Leuven R&D.
The operational units of GFF consist of two boards: the advisory board and the board of directors. The advisory board meets on a regular basis. It is responsible for the evaluation of the spin-off ideas and assists in the (further) fine-tuning of the business plan. Given the innovative nature of the products/services, the finalisation of the business model often requires several rounds of interaction. Next, the final business plan is presented for approval to the board of directors, which consists of members of K. U. Leuven R&D, Fortis Private Equity and KBC-Investco.
Through an extensive network of national and international contacts, GFF and its partners look for potential commercial partners during the start-up and initial growth phase of the spin-off company. If necessary, GFF contacts external funds and/or venture capitalists. GFF is also a member of the European CREA-network, which is supported by the European Commission.
The companies in which Gemma Frisius Fund I and II have invested can be found in the list of active K. U. Leuven spin-off companies in which GFF has invested.
CERN Technology Transfer (poročilo CERN TT za leto 2007)
High-energy physics needs very sophisticated instruments using technologies that often exceed the available industrial know-how. Many of these technologies have made our daily lives more efficient, practical and comfortable. CERN encourages technology transfer, or generally speaking the access to technologies, expertise and industrial processes to universities, laboratories and industries. Technology dissemination and implementation The dissemination and implementation process reflects truly successful TT. This activity requires a formal framework, however, such as an agreement that corresponds to the maturity of the technology concerned and the readiness of the acquirers. The stages of ‘proof of concept’, ‘prototyping’ and ‘technology acquiring’ will be executed as necessary. In order to draft a suitable agreement, close collaboration is needed between the TT group, the technical experts, the external collaborators and those involved in the contract circulation procedure. The agreement tool may encompass pre-competitive collaborative R&D, partnerships, licences and services, and external funding.
Phases in the development of technologies and projects
Število patentov v CERNU
3.1 The case of CERN TT Office
Figure 1: CERN. Number of patent cases and licensing per year.
CERN with approximately 3000 employees (and estimated up to 3 times more external collaborators) has a total budget of 1'075 mio CHF (approx 675 mio EUR) in 2008 coming from its 20 member states. The CERN TT Office earns approximately 0.3% of this budget by TT licensing agreements (Le Goff, 2007). This means more than 3 mio CHF or more than 2 mio EUR. Since the TT Office was founded the number of proposed patents has increased by a factor of 3. However, a net number of patented disclosures has remained the same with an increase of income from licensing agreements, as can be seen also from Fig. 1.
IJS 1 Analysis of the Situation at the Jožef Stefan Institute
Analysis showed that three different types of technology transfer policies (TT policies) take place within the Jožef Stefan Institute Technology Transfer Office (TT Office). 1."Helping SME's" is a policy to improve innovation strategies through the Sixth Framework Program (FP6) - Innovation Relay Center (IRC Slovenia) project, following its predecessor the FEMIRC project, operating since 1997, and similar projects. IRC's goal is in assisting companies and research institutions to reach agreements on research and technology cooperation. This is done with standard tools such as visiting companies and researchers, identification of their technology offers and needs, formulation of offers and requests to be ready for European IRC database of technology offers and requests. In the past few years this was the main course of work of the Institute TT Office (Šušteršič, 2008). 2."Technological assistance" to the industry and interested third parties in form of consultancy and expert work is the second policy, operating at the Institute. This activity has been well developed during the last years through different projects of the Institute and the TT Office. 3.Technology transfer "from the Institute to the Industry" (the "inside out TT" policy) is a policy, aiming at locating a powerful technology, assessing it from technological and market point of view and finding partners in industry for further development and/or licensing. This is an important activity, however it has been under-focused in the past within the TT Office activities.
Analysis showed that the “inside out TT” is supported by providing three steps: 1.Technology assessment and IP protection, including Market assessment for each technology proposed for patenting, to estimate its potential value and locate potential partners (Tschirky, 2003; Le Goff, 2007-2); 2.Technology Promotion; 3.Dissemination through TT R&D projects, leading to licensing IPR to the industry or through start-up companies.
Depending on the phase of development, the technology in question can be either ready for exploitation or requires maturity before a transfer can be achieved. 1.If technology needs maturity before it can be transferred, TT R&D projects – partnerships with industry - are required to increase industry interest and secure external resources for such activities. Only joint IP expertise, financial, human and laboratory resources enable sufficient technology development. 2.If technology is ready for exploitation it can be - licensed or transferred via know-how transfer agreements - produced and provided to the industry via supply agreements - provided through consultancy agreements when a unique experience of some of the Institute staff is to be provided outside the Institute.
“Inside out TT” is not to be confused with technology collaboration or "ready-made TT", especially within the IRC project.
1. A comparison between NCSU, CERN and Jožef Stefan Institute
The Jožef Stefan Institute has a budget of almost 39 mio EUR (in 2006) (Šušteršič, 2007) and approximately 800 employees. A study of sources in (Letno poročilo, 1996-2007) gives information about patenting on the Institute. There are on average (of the last 12 years) 10.6 patents (6.8 Slovene and 3.8 foreign) granted per year, with an increase in the last years (in 2006 10 Slovene and 9 foreign patents were obtained). To draw reliable conclusions, particular patented technologies should be tracked through time. Preliminary results are however given in Fig. 2 and 2A.
Figure 2: Jožef Stefan Institute. Number of patent cases per year filed and obtained in Slovenia.
For the Institute to be comparable with the NCSU (with a 5 times larger research fund) 40 patent disclosures should be made at the Institute every year, 22 patents should be obtained and 8 license deals done.
Figure 2A: Jožef Stefan Institute. Number of foreign patent cases per year filed and obtained. Data may not be complete, as some patents are filed through foreign partners.
Due to Legislation differences between US and EU, a more instructive comparison can be made with a TT Office of a research institution within the EU – e.g. TT Office at CERN. The research budget of the Institute is for a factor of 17 smaller than the budget of CERN. The number of Slovene patents obtained at the Institute is equivalent to the one of CERN. Proportionally at CERN with 3000 employees there are up to 0.2 patents/100 employees obtained every year, whereas at the Institute on average 1.3 patents (0.47 foreign) /100 employees per year are obtained. The institute in this respect is more open to patenting than CERN.
In terms of research money spent per patent at NCSU a 2 mio EUR of research money is invested per obtained patent per year and a yearly return from licensing is 1.2% of the yearly research funds. In the case of CERN a 112 mio EUR of research money is invested per obtained patent a year and an approximately 0.3% of the yearly research funds is returned in the form of licenses. In the case of the Jožef Stefan Institute a foreign patent is produced every 10.1 mio EUR of research money, exact data about revenues from licensing is not available.
It can be noted that at NCSU in 2006 50% (~100 out of 200) and at CERN on average in the last 7 years 18% (26 out of 144) of disclosed technologies proposed for patenting were actually patented. At the Institute in the last 10 years more than 90% of all officially proposed technologies have been patented. This is due to a specific patent proposal treatment, where no internal proposal is issued until technology has been positively evaluated. However, this evaluation is not produced systematically and data about patents internally filed is not available.
IPR protection principles and licensing strategy of CERN and NCSU is based on Technology and Market Assesments (Tschirky, 2003; Le Goff, 2007-2). These serve as input data for evaluation of proposed patents (by a Commission of scientific and legal experts (Regulations, 1998)) and facilitate patenting decisions. Assesments are introduced in (Regulations, 1998) but are not a regular praxis of the Institute TT Office.
1 Comparison of IJS TT and CERN TT Office employees education
To understand IPR protection strategies and licensing principles of the Institute, an overview of development of Jožef Stefan Institute TT Office staff from 1994 to present (Fig. 3) is shown. Also a comparison of the 2007 Institute TT Office data with the case of the CERN TT Office (Le Goff, 2007-2) is made (Fig. 4). A number of staff with university degree, but no scientific education was gradually increasing at the Institute TT Office, with the peak in 2006. Comparing this configuration to the CERN TT Office staff configuration we can see that the quantities of Economists and BSc's are reversed as at the Institute. The Institute TT Office employees 3 times more Economists than BSc's, whereas CERN employs 3 times more Bsc's than Economists in the TT Office. This might be a potential reason why Technology and Market Assessments and licensing according to (Tschirky, 2003; Le Goff, 2007-2) are not a regular practice as a support to the Commission of scientific and legal experts (Regulations, 1998).
Figure 3: Jožef Stefan Institute. Staff of Technology Transfer Office by education from 1994 to 2007. (Up to 2004 1 BSc with a MSc degree.)
Figure 4: Jožef Stefan Institute and CERN, 2007. A comparison of staff of the Technology Transfer Office by education. (IJS: Up to 2004 1 of the BSc with a MSc degree. CERN: 1 BSc with an MBA.)
PODROBNEJŠI OPIS MANJŠIH PRIMEROV
Malta - Higher Education Institutes and SME collaboration This first example illustrates how a region with little history in the field of knowledge transfer has addressed the situation. In Malta there are two Higher Education Institutions, the University of Malta and the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST). The MCAST is mainly a vocational college. The University of Malta is the only institution that can confer degrees. There are no private research institutes. The University of Malta was established in 1592 whilst the MCAST was re-established in 2001. Traditionally both of these institutions are mostly oriented at teaching rather than research and it was only in the past 20 years or so that a major effort has been made to increase the research output of the University of Malta. This has resulted in the setting up of a number of applied (and basic) research centres in particular within the Engineering, Physics, Alternative Energy, Pharmacy and Medical departments. In view of its relative infancy, the MCAST is still oriented mostly at teaching required in new economy skills within the vocational group, though plans to start research programmes are in hand. Though successful within the European Framework Programmes, there are still no structured Academic/Industry relationships – with most of the research in collaboration with industry occurring on an ad-hoc basis. Plans are presently at hand to address this situation. These plans include the following: 1. The re-organisation of the University Commercial Entities into one group of companies – Malta University Holding Company Ltd. In this way it is envisaged that the Academic-Industry relationship is brokered through this company. 2. The formulation of new strategy plan for the University together with the re-organisation of the administrative sector of the University including the setting up of a Knowledge Transfer Office. 3. Structural Funds are being sought to strengthen the University expertise in areas that are important for the new knowledge driven economy, which are at present missing. 4. The University (and the MCAST) is actively seeking partnerships with foreign institutes and industry. Knowledge Transfer implies at least a two way interaction i.e. interaction between industry and the academic world. The Maltese SMEs are mostly service oriented, family-run, micro enterprises with their major concern being to tap new markets and master new technology – with little emphasis on developing their own original product/service. They also have a low awareness of funding opportunities or perceived difficulty in applying for funds. There are no organised networks of firms that permit reciprocal exchange of knowledge and information.
Plans are at hand between Malta Council for Science and Technology, Malta Enterprise, Federation of Industries, MCAST and the University to utilise structural funds and other funding programmes to set up projects that should: • instil entrepreneurial ethos on campus and encourage spin-offs; • improve the marketing of facilities and services; • improve inter-company cooperation between SMEs (at present around 16%); • set up Science and Technology centres and attract foreign research and technology oriented companies (a major initiative has been the formation of SmartCity); • set up industrial clusters; • introduce Public Technology Procurement.
Hamburg - CAN (Centre for Applied Nanotechnology): CAN offers a new approach to knowledge transfer activities in the region of Hamburg as it is an institution embedded in a cluster and targeted at SMEs and their technology needs. It was established in November 2005 as a PPP, as a joint venture by the Free and Hansestadt Hamburg, the University of Hamburg, several firms, the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce and the Hamburger Sparkasse. The focus of the CAN activities is the utilisation of new findings in chemical nanotechnology and nanoanalysis especially in the areas of consumables, specialty polymers and health care. CAN is a link between universities and firms with respect of the special needs of smaller firms. CAN experts carry out contract research and development projects in cooperation with the university. CAN offers to process small orders and perform feasibility studies in order to enable SMEs to incorporate the latest findings in nanoparticle technology into existing or planned production processes. In 2006 CAN acquired 18 development and support orders for industrial nanotechnological application with a sales volume of approximately €900,000. The staff of 6 employees at the beginning of 2006 has now grown to 15 and is expected to grow to a size of 50 by the year 2010.
Iceland - University Regional Research Centre Institute Iceland is a relatively large country but sparsely populated with a population of 312,000. Approximately two thirds of the population live in the south west, in the Reykjavík area, and the rest is spread along the coast, There are eight universities in Iceland, four in the Reykjavík area and four outside the capital area. The University of Iceland, founded in 1911, is by far the largest university; it is a public, state-run university that aims at serving the whole country. To meet the demands of the inhabitants for local university education and research, the University Institute of Regional Research Centres was founded in 2003. The objectives of the Institute are to meet the demand for research and education all over Iceland, to connect the University to regional industry, and to enhance research conducted by the University of Iceland all around the country by: • providing facilities for university personnel for research projects dealing with local environmental conditions/local enterprise; • providing facilities for student field work; • to enhance possibilities for education in rural areas; • to strengthen the University of Iceland’s relationship with local enterprise and daily life in rural areas. Eight research centres have been established strategically around the country. Each centre is set up in collaboration with the local authorities and local industry, using the triple helix model in financing and governing, i.e. state, local authorities, private institutions/companies. The centres also cooperate with other local institutes, for example the local Regional Natural History Institutes which they frequently share offices with. The desired synergy effect is 2+2 = 5! The economic impacts of the regional research centres are: • more skilled work done in the regions; • fewer people move away from the regions; • more opportunities for young people in the regions; • one researcher + spouse + children = multiple impact on society; • money put into regional research goes to the region. The Regional Research Centres can be a solution for small regions, where a critical mass is needed to connect local research and industry.
SEEDA Region - The Business Fellow Network - Knowledge Transfer through Brokering The London Technology Network (LTN) Recruit, train and support 36+ research scientists covering top science & technology departments in the SEEDA region. The network supports Business Fellows to map departmental business-relevant capability and capacity and act as contact points for Knowledge Transfer offices & LTN. It expects Business Fellows to stimulate their colleague’s engagement with businesses and report evidence of “added value” and “pro-activity”. In conjunction with all of the above, LTN provides the following services which provide a forum/ channel for business fellows to interact with regional businesses. Networking Events – “Business Application” focused and Technology matchmaking For the project as a whole, the approach to evaluation and performance measurement has been structured along four dimensions: contact and awareness-raising; engagement; impact; and satisfaction. Total investment in R&D in the SEEDA region, including investment by businesses based elsewhere, is expected to reach £8 - £9million. SEEDA regional challenges: 1. Perceived or existing barriers to innovation can hinder businesses from innovating regardless of demand. Barriers perceived by businesses are mainly related to cost factors, such as innovation costs and economic risks, as well as the need to meet government and EU regulations. 2. Poor demand from the SME market highlights a lack of interest and understanding of the implications of innovating through knowledge transfer.
The following is a Nanotechnology/Life Science Case Study, i.e. an example of a “user of LTN”. Trace analysis company Mesophotonics made contact with the London technology Network (LTN) to broaden the application of their products – the beginning of a relationship that has seen three successful collaborations with universities across London and the South East. Mesophotonics’ R&D manager Majd Zoorob met London Technology Network, the Southampton-based company was seeking pharmaceutical applications for their novel product – an advanced sensor technique. LTN’s technology team helped refine Mesophotonics’ technology request and presented a list of academics working in the field. From that report the company chose two researchers, one from the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (Imperial College London), and the other from the London Centre for Nanotechnology (University College London).
At this stage the company sought further assistance – to help analyse their sensors in new ways. The new request was sent out to LTN’s broad network of academic contacts – resulting in successful contact being made with Richard Curry of the Advanced Technology Institute (University of Surrey). Mesophotonics are now able to access the facilities of the University’s Focus Ion Beam (FIB) to further develop the technology. Mesaphotonics said LTN really helped narrow down the options, rather than looking blindly and wasting resource to find the right match. LTN helped optimise the searching and provided a Technology Analyst with sector specific expertise. The language barrier between the two technologies was effectively bridged by the LTN service. Other interesting programmes presented by the regional actors aimed at increasing the links to SMEs using further education and training organisations to break down the barriers and help SMEs access knowledge transfer activities and actors included the Swedish Better concept, the Northern Ireland FUSION & CONNECTED project and the German PVA (Patent Valorisation Agency) concept developed in the region around Rostock (Mecklenburg Pommerania).
Västra Götaland Region: The Better Concept The “better concept” is an interesting practice on how the region can promote further training of SME employees and build confidence between university colleges and local SMEs. It focuses on competence development for SMEs by developing and giving free of charge university distance learning courses. The key element of the project is the demand driven approach referring to the real life problems that SMEs face in their daily work. The Six Better Criteria developed by the concept designers (three universities of the Västra Götaland region) makes the courses unique in Sweden. Being demand driven and applying knowledge gained during the courses are two of them. Another innovative feature is that SMEs are encouraged to send groups of participants, a sine quoi non condition for effective knowledge transfer performance. The budget for the development of courses represents €200 k yearly. The running expenses are covered by the universities. The Universities also ensure the external communication and promotion. They are limited however by the available time of senior lecturers necessary to deliver the courses. In terms of main outcomes: 13 courses have been developed; the courses were given 27 times during 4 years for 830 participants (very high level of attendance) in 26 municipalities. The project work in the courses results in measurable improvements. ”Better Production” course generates a total of € 250 k yearly! The concept achieved good visibility: one more university in Sweden has joined the programme. To date of 830 participants in the programme 90%+ have completed the courses. Credits count towards Life Long Learning accreditation.
Northern Ireland: FUSION and ‘CONNECTED’ – THE HIGHER EDUCATION/FURTHER EDUCTION COLLABORATION FUND Promoting the transfer and embedding technology in SMEs on a cross-border basis is at the heart of the joint Northern Ireland / Ireland initiative FUSION launched in 2001 and delivered through InterTradeIreland. FUSION links regions (all-Ireland coverage), and knowledge transfer actors: companies with technology based development needs, academic institutes and graduates. More that 200 projects have been supported during the period 2001-2007. Altogether the programme has provided assistance totalling €19.4m which has levered an estimated additional €24m from industry. The “CONNECTED” collaboration Fund, a new NI financial mechanism that has just been put in place (April 2007) aims to extend the range and depth of knowledge transfer collaboration between NI’s higher and further education sectors. The primary focus is on the needs of regional business. The investment represents £3 m over three years and is dedicated to supporting the activities referring to knowledge transfer from the universities and FE colleges into business; new technology focused on the generation of solutions to real world problems (including training in their application); and networking promotion, staff exchanges and placements between the universities and the further education colleges. The key philosophy behind the project is that sometimes it is best for small SMEs to start working at a local level (with FE colleges) before contacting major university research teams. A growth path of technology transfer support can then be mapped out and in some cases FEs can act as a broker for other technology transfer actors.
PVA-MV (po EC.Knowledge_Transfer)
The patent Valorisation Agency (PVA - MV ) In the German region of Mecklenbourg-Pomerania, PVA-MV (Patent Valorisation Agency), a private company, was set up by a group of nine research centres and universities and a private specialised innovation consultancy company (inno AG), in order to gain value from research results. PVA-MV ensures the detection of inventions, the evaluation of the maturity of projects (market, proof of concept), intellectual protection and market implementation. The typical outputs (figures up to 2006) are shown below: • 153 inventions detected • 70 patents • 57 patent opportunities • 25 patent agreements • € 88,288 royalties • € 60 m research projects co financed by the private sector • 8 start-ups created Figure 6: PVA structure This activity is supported by a foundation, put in place using the remainder of the structural funds not used in the region (around € 2 million) and in preparing itself to Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE) Secretariat 38 receive a portion of the structural funds to come (2007-2013). It also depends upon a private investment fund, MORE, created under a PVA-MV initiative and which brings together investors ready to invest in start-ups. To date, a portfolio of 8 have been supported. Another interesting approach discussed during the meetings concerned the growing role of private and public-private initiatives that have taken the form of research or innovation/valorisation foundations. For example, in France the Pierre de Genes Foundation has been created to detect and support high technology start ups emerging from a selected number of engineering schools and universities. The new approaches are often inter-disciplinary and are searching for innovative ideas at the crossroads of traditional research fields. Such foundations are also very active in Sweden and Germany is showing interest, for example the new elite university of Karlsruhe has just supported the creation of a new foundation. The multi-disciplinary approach is also being promoted in the research field with new joint laboratories mixing “hard science” and social sciences or management fields to be more responsive to business needs. Working Group members all agreed that this was an interesting policy area requiring further research.
SLIKA: EC. Knowledge_Transfer, str. 37