TTO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING

(1)

Fuentek, LLC

www.fuentek.com

TTO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING

Laura Schoppe| [email protected] 9 September 2020

Laura Schoppe

President

Founded Fuentek in 2001, a technology commercialization consultancy

BSE – Carnegie Mellon University (mechanical) MSE – Princeton University (aerospace) MBA – University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 1

(2)

Fuentek

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Make and implement well- informed, market-based decisions about patenting, marketing, and licensing the IP portfolio.

MARKETING &

COMMUNICATIONS Raise the profile of the IP portfolio and your office, successfully securing stakeholder support and boosting researcher participation.

STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS Increase your efficiency and enhance your effectiveness both inside your institution and in the broader innovation ecosystem.

3

Celebrating Success

Get the recognition you need — and deserve — for your successes.

•Success Stories

•Awards

•Reports

•Presentations

Celebrating Success

Get the recognition you need — and deserve — for your successes.

•Success Stories

•Awards

•Reports

•Presentations

Covering the Tech Transfer Lifecycle

Fuentek offers services to support your organization wherever you need it

Operations Where things stand, where you want to go, and how to get there.

•Structure

•SOPs & Policies

•Benchmarking & Metrics

•Reporting to Management

•Strategic Planning

•Communications

•Social Media

•Websites

•Training

Operations Where things stand, where you want to go, and how to get there.

•Structure

•SOPs & Policies

•Benchmarking & Metrics

•Reporting to Management

•Strategic Planning

•Communications

•Social Media

•Websites

•Training

4

Doing Deals

Secure win-win agreements that align with your goals for the technology.

•Due Diligence

•Deal Structure, Scope, Terms

•Negotiation

•Valuation

•Sponsored Research

•Launching Startups

Doing Deals

Secure win-win agreements that align with your goals for the technology.

•Due Diligence

•Deal Structure, Scope, Terms

•Negotiation

•Valuation

•Sponsored Research

•Launching Startups

Marketing

Develop and implement strategies to take techno- logies from lab to market.

•Market Validation

•Marketing Strategies

•Identify, Contact, Vet Prospects

•Marketing Materials

•Briefings and Webinars

•Social Media

•Websites

Marketing

Develop and implement strategies to take techno- logies from lab to market.

•Market Validation

•Marketing Strategies

•Identify, Contact, Vet Prospects

•Marketing Materials

•Briefings and Webinars

•Social Media

•Websites

Triage

Make strategic decisions for individual inventions and the entire portfolio.

•Patenting Decisions

•IP Portfolio Management

Triage

Make strategic decisions for individual inventions and the entire portfolio.

•Patenting Decisions

•IP Portfolio Management

Investments &

Inventions

Keep the pipeline filled with technologies poised for success in the market.

•Researcher Relations

•Industry-University Relations

•Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

•Competitive Analysis

Investments &

Inventions

Keep the pipeline filled with technologies poised for success in the market.

•Researcher Relations

•Industry-University Relations

•Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

•Competitive Analysis

3

(3)

Fuentek’s Benchmarking Experience

Organizational analyses

 Policies and procedures

 Interviews

 Performance data analysis

 Observations, recommendations, and actionable strategies

5

Fuentek’s Benchmarking Experience

Organizational analyses

 Policies and procedures

 Interviews

 Performance data analysis

 Observations, recommendations, and actionable strategies Proprietary tool based on AUTM Survey

5

(4)

1. Understand purpose and benefits of benchmarking

2. Identify key steps in analyzing data 3. Explore how to use the results

Today’s Goals

7

Why Benchmark

Proactively manage organization Roadmap trend – President’s new 2030 vision

New VP of Research Budget cuts

8

7

(5)

Understanding Sequential Impacts

Investment ^{• Amount}• Diversity

Innovation ^{• Quality}_{• Quantity}

Strategy • Market Fit

• IP Protection & Marketing

Deals (Return) ^{• Licenses}• Sponsored Research Almost no control over

Research Expenditures (RE)

Educate inventors to improve quality and quantity

Meat of TT Activities

When to Benchmark

Typically…

 Process already started

 Decisions made (initially formulated)

 React and on the defensive

9

(6)

When to Benchmark

11

Every year

 Know your data and what it means

 Inform and educate regularly to influence decisions

 Avoid surprises

How to Benchmark – Normalize the Data

Transform data to common frame of reference

Research Expenditures (RE)

 Drives activity level

 Vastly different

12

11

(7)

How to Benchmark – Normalize the Data

13

Normalizing factor is $10M RE to create standard scale and allow for apples-apples comparisons (e.g., invention disclosures per $10M RE)

Ratios (e.g., licensing income per license) also provide insight into performance

What to Benchmark Against

AUTM Survey

 Over 180 institutions in 2018

 Universities, research institutes/hospitals, corporations, national labs

 Accessible (free to participants)

 Publish summary results

13

(8)

What to Benchmark Against

AUTM Survey Peer Selection

 Type of institution

 Medical v. no medical

15

Peer Selection – Initial Data Set

16

15

(9)

Peer Selection – Eliminate Outliers

17

Peer Selection – Eliminate Anomalies

17

(10)

Peer Selection – Define Peer Group

19

Peer Selection – Create Data Set

20

Select only schools in peer group

Calculate averages

Analyze normalized and

ratio data

19

(11)

Comparing Averages

21 My University

Sequential Impacts of the Data

Investment

Innovation

21

(12)

Investment: Research Expenditure Source

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

AUTM Average Medschool Average No-Medschool Average

Peer Average My University

Research Expenditures

RE Total Federal RE per Total RE Industry RE per Total RE

23

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 HERD Expenditures (billions of constant 2012 USD)

All R&D Federally funded Nonfederally funded

Interpreting Research Expenditure Data

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000 Research Expenditures

RE Total Federal RE per Total RE Industry RE per Total RE

24

23

(13)

Innovation: Invention Disclosure Efficiency

25 0.0

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Invention Disclosures per $10 M RE Invention Disclosures per Total Office FTE Invention Disclosures per Licensing FTE AUTM Average Medschool Average No-Medschool Average Peer Average My University

Drill Down

25

(14)

Interpreting Invention Disclosure Data

27 0

10 20 30 40

Invention Disclosures per

$10M Fed+Ind RE

Invention Disclosures per Total Office FTE

Invention Disclosures per Licensing FTE AUTM Average Med School Average No Med School Average

Peer Average Univ Y

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

AUTM Average

Peer Average

Med School Average No Med

School Average Univ Y

Licensing FTE per $10M Federal+Industry RE

Inventor Activity

28

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

FORREST TREE SEASHORE BURROW VODKA HOMBRE SHANK TINKER CHOW SKY

Number Patents

Inventor

27

(15)

College/Department Activity

29 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

Licensing Income per $10M RE Invention Disclosures per $10M RE 0.0

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

Licensing Income per $10M RE Invention Disclosures per $10M RE

Back to

My University Example

29

(16)

Strategy: Patenting

31 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

AUTM Average Medschool Average No-Medschool Average Peer Average My University New Patent Applications per $10 M RE New Patent Applications per Invention Disclosure Provisional Patent Applications per Patent Applications Filed

Strategy: Legal Fee Efficiency

32 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

AUTM Average Medschool Average

No-Medschool Average

Peer Average My University Licensing Income per Legal Fees Reimbursed Legal Fees per Total Legal Fees

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000 AUTM Average

Medschool Average

No-Medschool Average Peer Average

My University

Legal Fees per Patent Application

31

(17)

Deals: Licensing Income

33

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

Licensing Income per $10 M RE Licensing Income per License Running Royalty Income per Royalty Licenses AUTM Average Medschool Average No-Medschool Average Peer Average My University

Interpreting Licensing Efficiency

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

33

(18)

Other Analyses

35

Funding

Areas for growth

Internal

Focus inreach efforts

Deals

Policy or preference

impact

Startups

Alignment with portfolio

Impact of 2020 pandemic

Keep Pipeline Full

36

Educate about IP and commercialization

Motivate inventors and departments

to participate

35

(19)

Proactively Manage Innovations

37

Leverage filtering approach Identify resources

needed

Strategy for a changing

environment

Influence Expectations

37

(20)

Thank you!

Laura A Schoppe| [email protected] www.fuentek.com

@fuentek 919.267.1200

39