8 bob kneller tokyo session 2

Building International University-Building International UniversityBusiness links Systemising the TLO/TTO business model including Systemising the TLO/TTO business model, including its sustainability

10 January 2012British Embassy TokyoBritish Embassy, Tokyo

Robert KnellerRobert KnellerUniversity of Tokyo, RCAST, and Stanford Medical Schoolwww kneller asia kneller@tt rcast u tokyo ac jpwww.kneller.asia, [email protected]

10 Jan. 2012R Kneller UK Embassy

2


3


4

But studies by Kanama & Okuwada (2008) and Takahashi & Carraz (2009) show:and Takahashi & Carraz (2009) show:

Prior to 2004 and even 1998, many university 4 99 , y yinventions were being patented by individual faculty or by companies to which they had y y p yassigned their inventions: Here are approx avg # of university inventions patented

per year by individuals or by company assignees

1995‐1997 2001‐2003 2005 2006

Tohoku U. 230 325 391 155

Hiroshima U. 53 95 148 51

Tsukuba U. 28 62 79 66


5

6


7


8

Invention disclosure form 発明等の届出書Little oversight over who are named as co-inventors by the PI and main industry scientist

国立大学法人東京大学総長殿国立大学法人東京大学　総長殿

私(達)は以下内容の発明等(考案、意匠の創作、品種の育成を含む)を行いました。発明等取扱規則で定める職務関連発明であると認定された場合は、その出願権を大学が承継することに同意します。

届出年月年月日

学内発明者名記入欄(学外発明者は下の別枠「学外共同発明者の有無」にご記入ください）

(職)　*3 (発明等の寄与分)*1(所属部局・専攻)*2

（代表届出者）

発明者等

届出年月日

(発明者等記入欄)

(氏名)

代表届出者の連絡先

*1　共同発明等の場合は、各人の寄与分を%で記入してください。学外の共同発明者等がいる場合は、その寄与分を加えて100％に

なるようにしてください。*2　現在は学外者であるが発明時に学生の場合はこの欄に現職名と発明時の所属等を明記してくださ

い。*3　兼業がある場合その旨も明記してください。

TEL E-mail

年月日知的財産部記入欄年月日

発明等の名称発明考案意匠品種

発明等にいたた研究課題

管理番号受付日付受付日付

この欄に記載されている事項に該当する場合は、網掛け部にチェック（? ）を入れてください。

(該当するものに〇）

所属部局知的財産室記入欄

発明等にいたった研究課題

この発明等には、学外に下記の共同発明者等がいます。氏名機関名・所属学外共同発明者等の有無発明等の寄与分

この発明等は私（達）が単独で行いました。


9

Current situation: 10 Jan. 2012R Kneller UK Embassy

10

Current situation: Collaborative research is the dominant

h i f t h l t f d mechanism of technology transfer and TLOs play a secondary rolep y y

• ~50% of all patented university inventions are attributed to joint research

• ~75% of all patented university inventions actually transferred to industry are joint research inventions on which university and company apply jointly for patents


11

Under Japanese Patent Law §73:Co ownership of university patents Co-ownership of university patents gives partner company exclusive g p p ycontrol, with no royalty or d l t bli tidevelopment obligations


12

Collaborative research represents arelationship-based system of tech relationship based system of tech transfer (professor ↔ company)

• Company provides funding, commercialization outlet, & sometimes researchers

• Company obtains exclusive control over IP• TLOs, negotiations over royalties, and negotiations

over development obligations, intrude very littlei h id bl l i• Companies have considerable leeway to restrict

publications (see U Tokyo regulations in extra slides at end of file)file)


13

Prevalence of industry co-ownership of university patents (compiled by R Kneller)

A. Approx. no. B. A (i.e. univ C. % of A D. % of C US patents

issued 2008/4‐2009/3 where

patents) per $1 billion univ R&D spend

where at least one co‐

assignee is a

where co‐assignee is a foreign co

one assignee is a university in this country

private co.

Canada 92 11 10 50

Germany 38 4 16 33

125 6 61 0Japan125 6 61 0

UK 70 9 6 100

2250 48 3 0USA 2250 48 3 0


14

All the Japanese companies in the above sample were large companiesabove sample were large companies

MEXT data also show dominance of large companies among co-applicants of joint patents p g pp j pwith major universities

Keio U: > 80% in both 2004 & 20054 5Osaka U: ~78% “U Tokyo: 75% in 2004 86% in 2005U Tokyo: 75% in 2004, 86% in 2005


15

Benefits of Japan’s system of “free pass through of IP to joint free pass-through of IP to joint research partner” p

• Low cost direct mechanism of technology • Low cost, direct mechanism of technology transfer▫ often the only practical mechanismoften the only practical mechanism

• Probably facilitates relatively close interactions between university & industry researchers.between university & industry researchers.▫ Mutual benefits

Drawbacks: 10 Jan. 2012R Kneller UK Embassy

16

Drawbacks:• Huge leveraging and exclusive appropriation of

taxpayer funded discoveries by big companies taxpayer funded discoveries by big companies without development obligations or incentives▫ Joint research < 3% of total national university R&D Joint research < 3% of total national university R&D

funding (OECD)▫ Mean joint research funding/yr/project = $25,000

($ i k )($50,000 in U Tokyo) In US, joint research partner often pays >>$100,000 + royalties

on sales for an exclusive license. In UK, joint research usually pays full economic cost (entire cost

including salaries) for an exclusive license. (Lambert Agreements)g )

• University discoveries “sitting on the shelf” or only partially exploited by big companies is probably a major problem.


17

Fig. 5: Sources of national university R&D funding(excluding tuition, hospital patient charges, & support for salaries & infrastructure)

4500

5000

Donations

3500

4000

1M)

mainly private projects (Joint Res)

i l t j t

2500

3000

(a

pp

rox

$1 mainly govt projects

(Commissioned Res)

COE

1500

2000

108

yen

MHLW Grants-in-aid

Special Coord Funds

500

1000MEXT Grants-in-aid

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


18


19

Prevalence of industry co-ownership of university patents (compiled by R Kneller)

A. Approx. no. B. A (i.e. univ C. % of A D. % of C US patents

issued 2008/4‐2009/3 where

patents) per $1 billion univ R&D spend

where at least one co‐

assignee is a

where co‐assignee is a foreign co

one assignee is a university in this country

private co.

Canada 92 11 10 50

Germany 38 4 16 33

125 6 61 0Japan125 6 61 0

UK 70 9 6 100

2250 48 3 0USA 2250 48 3 0


20

Recall: Under Japanese patent law,co ownership of university patents co-ownership of university patents gives partner companies exclusive g p pcontrol, with no royalty or d l t bli tidevelopment obligations

• But Japan not unique (USA is the exception) • Nevertheless, Japanese co-ownership rates much p p

higher than Germany, UK or Canada

Reasons 10 Jan. 2012R Kneller UK Embassy

21

Reasonsfor outside discussion

Implicationsptechnology lock up, limited opportunities for startups, limitations on academic communication

Recommendations remaining slides


22

General principleN h ld h l i i h • No company should have exclusive rights to a university invention unless

) i i d l i h i ia) It proves it is developing the invention,b) it pays substantial annual royalties, orc) It pays the full economic cost (FEC) of the

research (Britain’s Lambert Agreements are a d d l)good model)

• Most exclusive licenses should be limited to a ifi fi ld f specific field of use.


23

If a company wants to own an invention• It must pay the full economic cost (see Lambert • It must pay the full economic cost (see Lambert

Agreements)▫ All attributable salaries & other personnel costs▫ All attributable salaries & other personnel costs,▫ Building and infrastructure costs,▫ Etc ▫ Etc.

• Otherwise, universities become taxpayer-subsidized contract research labssubsidized contract research labs.▫ Which makes neither economic nor academic

sensesense.


24

TLO revenue (sustainability)TLO revenue (sustainability)

• Reforms on previous two slides should increase • Reforms on previous two slides should increase TLO revenue substantially

• The TLO should be linked to the office handling • The TLO should be linked to the office handling contract and joint research with companies, and the TLO should receive part of the overhead (間the TLO should receive part of the overhead (間接経費) charged to every such contract.


25

TLO sustainability (continued)• For TLOs with little money, consider the

“California Institute of Technology” model gy▫ 2 or 3 person office applies for patent but will pay

application costs for only 1 year. ▫ Marketing is the responsibility of the inventor

• Regulations of some universities => It the guniversity does not decide within 1 month that it will apply a patent, the ownership right remains pp y p , p gwith the inventor. ▫ Some UK & US TLOs should adopt this policy.p p y


26

ReferencesReferences*Kneller, Robert. 2010. Importance of new companies for drug

discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 9 (November) 867-882.

*Kneller RW 2010, ‘The changing governance of Japanese public science’, In R. Whitley, J. Gläser & L. Engwall (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relations in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation,

f d f d (i bli i h d l d f l )Oxford: Oxford U. Press (in press, publication scheduled for July).**Kneller, RW. 2007. Bridging Islands: Venture Companies and the

Future of Japanese and American Industry. Oxford U. Press.

*available via www.kneller.asia** chapter on industry-university cooperation available via p y y p

www.kneller.asia


27

Thank you for yourThank you for yourconsideration and

attention!attention!

Documents

8 bob kneller tokyo session 2