Association of University Technology Managers®
By Jon Sandelin, M.B.A., Stanford University
30Years of Innovation
By Jon Sandelin, M.B.A., Stanford University
Editors
Anne C. Di Sante, Wayne State University
Ann Hammersla, J.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Catherine Innes, University of Washington
Contributors
Stephen H. Atkinson, Acambis Inc.
Louis P. Berneman, Ed.D., University of Pennsylvania
Howard Bremer, J.D., Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
Karen Hersey, J.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
William Hostetler, Oregon State University
Katharine Ku, Stanford University
Lita Nelsen, M.B.A., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James A. Severson, Ph.D., University of Washington
Teri F. Willey, ARCH Development Partners
Terry Young, M.B.A., The Texas A&M University System
Association of University Technology Managers: 30 Years of Innovation
Since its inception, the Association of University Technology Managers® has been a leader in the education of academic technology transfer professionals and the development of the technology transfer profession.
Launched in 1974 as the Society of University Patent Administrators, the association was the first to focus specifically on university patent issues in the complex environment of the 1970s — before legislation offered guidelines for federally funded academic research, university patents and developing ways for discoveries to actually reach the public.
The association’s early goals were clear: to urge the adoption of consistent government policies regarding funding and licensing of academic innovation so that new technologies could be licensed and products benefiting the public could be developed. Six years later, the U.S. Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which fostered access to university research by providing a new and uniform way to handle and transfer federally sponsored research results at academic institutions.
For the past three decades, AUTM® has worked tirelessly to achieve its mission to promote, support and enhance the global academic technology transfer profession through internal and external education, training and communication. Membership has increased from 50 to more than 3,000 members, and results from the AUTM Licensing SurveyTM show the impact that technology transfer has had on university innovation, economic growth and benefits to the public.
Now, AUTM invites you to join the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of AUTM. Association leaders past and present realize that the accomplishments of the last 30 years would not have been possible without the support and dedication of volunteers, members and public-policy decision-makers. As we reflect on our history, we gain the vision and strength to embrace our future.
AUTM’s leaders, members and colleagues look forward to many more years of working to help members build expertise, promote the development of academic innovation and, ultimately, improve the quality of life for people around the world.
— Patricia Harsche Weeks, 2003 AUTM President
Copyright 2004 Association of University Technology Managers®. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written consent of the copyright owners is prohibited. Association of University Technology Managers®, AUTM® and are registered trademarks of the Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM Newsletter, AUTM Journal, AUTM Licensing Survey, AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual, AUTM Educational Series, AUTM Annual Meeting, AUTM Basic Licensing Course, AUTM Technology Operations and Organization Licensing Skills Course, AUTM Start-Up Business Development Course, AUTM Canadian Basic Licensing Course, AUTM Software, Multimedia & Digital Media Course, AUTM Graduate Course, AUTM Executive Forum and Howard Bremer Scholarship are trade and service marks of AUTM.
Printed in the USA.
30 Years of AUTM
By Jon Sandelin, M.B.A., Stanford University
Planning Begins
On Oct. 15, 1974, at a meeting during a conference at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, a few of the breakout meeting attendees agreed to contribute funds to form a new association. Little did they know, but this was the birth of AUTM.
One of the original founders, Ray E. Snyder, University of Missouri, describes the start of SUPA: “At the 1973 annual meeting of National Council of University Research Administrators, … part of one afternoon of the total program was devoted to patents. Most of this involved the compliance with government requirements. Not an exciting undertaking. The truly significant part of this meeting was the principal luncheon speaker, Dr. Betsy A. Johnson. At that time, Dr. Johnson held the post of deputy secretary of commerce, and part of her duties included the oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office. The theme of her speech was astounding. She said that the government’s treatment of the universities’ inventions was disgraceful, and she asked why did we not get together and do something about it.”
Meanwhile, George Pickar, Ph.D., a former law professor leading industry relations at the University of Miami, had frequently suggested forming a group to discuss intellectual property issues as he felt the need for the formation of a professional association. It was Pickar who called for the breakout meeting at the end of the day, Oct. 15, after formal sessions had ended.
At the breakout meeting, Pickar suggested creating a new society of individual members to promote networking and a greater understanding and awareness of intellectual property issues, as well as support positive intellectual property legislation. It was not unanimous among those attending the meeting that another organization was needed and, if formed, what would be its purpose. Nevertheless, during this meeting, which many consider to be the founding meeting, Pickar agreed to propose a structure for the possible new association, as well as work with Larry Gilbert, California Institute of Technology, and Mark Owens, University of California, to draft articles of incorporation. In addition, participants were asked to contribute $100 to help cover postage and mailing expenses.
Following the meeting, Pickar took the lead by drafting proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws for this new association, which he named the National Association of University Patent Administrators. He forwarded the drafts to Gilbert and Owens for additional comments. Gilbert suggested the revised name Society of University Patent Administrators (SUPA), because he wanted it to be a “super” society, and, therefore, filled the factual descriptor words to fit the acronym.
After securing a meeting room at the Pick Congress Hotel in Chicago, the charter meeting for what would become SUPA was set for Feb. 3, 1975.
In a December 1974 letter from Pickar to Gilbert and Owens, the revised articles of incorporation and bylaws were enclosed for final review prior to their presentation at
1974:
Seven people commit $100 each to form a new association devoted to university patenting and licensing issues.
1975:
Bylaws and articles of incorporation for Society of University Patent Administrators approved.
the charter meeting for approval. They reflected Gilbert’s suggested name of SUPA. The bylaws also called for a governing board of five officers: president, three regional vice presidents and a secretary-treasurer. The first Eastern vice president would serve for one year, the Central vice president would serve for two years, and the Western vice president would serve for three years. Thereafter, the vice presidents would serve for two-year periods. The temporary officers were listed as Pickar, president, with Gilbert and Owens as vice presidents.
According to an attendee listing, 75 people were present at the charter meeting, representing 40 universities plus Research Corporation, Mount Sinai Hospital and a U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Laboratory. The articles of incorporation and bylaws were approved, and five officers were elected.
Gilbert created the first brochure seeking to attract new members. It read: “SUPA was organized in 1975 to fill a growing need to more fully exploit the university patent resource. The membership of SUPA shall consist of any person who in his university or business activities has some responsibility for the administration of university-generated intellectual property. SUPA hopes to stimulate and foster the transfer of university patent resources to the public sector by: (a) presenting educational seminars to the membership on all aspects of technology transfer from the university point of view; (b) generating self-help programs to enable universities to establish an in-house patent technology and licensing capability; (c) developing a unified university position on legislation that may have impact on university patent rights; and (d) effecting interchange of views amongst university patent administrators.” It is interesting to note that these goals are still very much a part of AUTM today, in addition to the new goals and members that have been added along the way.
In late April 1975, Ralph Davis, Purdue University, AUTM’s first vice president Central Region, sent a draft membership application form to the four members of the Membership Committee for comment. The proposed membership fee was $10, with annual dues of $30. The draft was accepted, and SUPA began recruiting members. By the end of 1975, 51 people had signed up, and SUPA was ready to host its first annual meeting under the SUPA banner.
AUTM members have been working together to tackle complicated issues and share best practices for the past three decades.
president
roles at the 1988 summer meeting in Evanston, Ill.
opportunities during the 1988 AUTM Summer Meeting.
Past president Lita Nelsen and Peter Kramer take the alwaysfestive Closing Dinner and Reception to a new level during the 2001 AUTM Annual Meeting in New Orleans.
1976: Eighty-five people attend SUPA's first Annual Meeting.
1976: SUPA president testifies before a congressional committee on university patenting of inventions.
Past
Steve Atkinson, from left, past president Teri Willey and Bob Compratt take leading
Shirley Brown, from left, Dianne Plunkett and Joyce Brinton take advantage of networking
SUPA’s Role in the Bayh-Dole Legislation
Newly elected SUPA President Howard W. Bremer, J.D., Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, in a letter to the SUPA membership dated July 6, 1978, sent a copy of “the proposed bill for a uniform federal patent policy for small business, universities and nonprofit organizations for your review and comment.” This appears to be the first emergence of what would eventually become the Bayh-Dole legislation, and, thus, the start of a campaign to advise on the content of the legislation and on obtaining support for its passage.
In an Aug. 14, 1978, letter to SUPA, Sen. Bob Dole began, “I should like to apprise you of my activities in the area of patent legislation and its relationship to the problems of transfer of technology.” The letter continued by referring to “the unfortunate situation in HEW’s [Department of Health, Education and Welfare, now known as the National Institutes of Health] biomedical technology program.” Dole then explained his actions to correct that situation and wrote, “I plan to follow up the amendment by introducing, on Sept. 13, along with Sen. [Birch] Bayh, a bill that would establish a governmentwide patent policy.”
On Oct. 10, 1978, in a letter from Bremer to the SUPA membership, it was announced that 15 senators “have already agreed to co-sponsor the bill.” However, more sponsors were needed, so the letter was accompanied by a listing of all senators and the names and telephone numbers of the senators’ staff. Bremer requested that any comments to improve the bill be sent to him and a committee “of our most experienced advisers,” who would distill the comments into a consensus position. He also reported that the senators wished to obtain case histories for review by the Government Accounting Office “that have resulted in either delay or frustration of the technology transfer process due to government involvement in determining ownership or conditions of ownership.”
There were parties strongly opposed to the Bayh-Dole bill, led it seems, by Sen. Russell Long, who wrote a letter dated Feb. 20, 1980, giving his reasons for opposing Bayh-Dole. He stated, “I am convinced that this bill is one of the most radical and farreaching giveaways I have seen in the many years I have served in the United States Senate. S. 414 would allow a single company to monopolize a product invented with public funds. I adamantly oppose this concept and am convinced that the American public shares my belief — that title to publicly financed inventions should belong to the public.” Long made a number of other arguments against Bayh-Dole and enclosed a statement by Adm. Hyman G. Rickover giving his reason for opposition to S. 414.
However, such opposition was in the minority, as S. 414 passed in the Senate by a vote of 91 to 4. Dole, in an April 28 letter sent to SUPA, noted, “In view of the problems that have arisen over the past 30 years from the lack of a uniform patent policy and from the arbitrary decision-making by individual federal agencies, I feel that the passage of S. 414 signifies a major step in the right direction toward easing the transfer of technology from the research stage to that of development, thus increasing American productivity from the decline it has entered.”
In early December 1980, then SUPA President Clark McCartney, University of Southern California, informed the membership of the passage by Congress of the Patent Law Act of 1980, to become widely known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The next step, McCartney said, was to draft implementing regulations. McCartney urged SUPA mem-
1978: Affiliate membership category introduced.
1979: SUPA conducts first formal membership survey.
bers to actively participate in the review and comment stages of the process. And indeed, SUPA followed the implementation of the regulations very closely and played an active role in shaping the final product.
Other Key Events in AUTM’s First Decade Fighting the Urge to Merge
Even as SUPA was forming, many held the view that SUPA should become a part of a larger, established and financially secure organization. Before the 1976 Annual Meeting, SUPA members were advised, “One of the items which will be discussed at the annual meeting is the possibility of SUPA establishing a loose affiliation or perhaps becoming a division or section of an existing organization whose interests overlap or complement those of SUPA. Possible groups might be the Licensing Executives Society, the Society of Research Administrators or the National Council of University Research Administrators.” However, nothing definitive resulted, and the issue faded away until 1978.
In February 1978, founding member Gilbert raised the issue again, leading to a poll of the SUPA membership in May 1978. Of those who voted, 33 favored an affiliation with another organization and 28 opposed. However, despite this majority vote, there was apparently sufficient resistance to the idea within SUPA and LES that nothing happened and the idea didn’t resurface.
Affiliate Members Added
In March 1976, the first application for membership from a person employed by a commercial firm was received. Under the bylaws, this application could not be accepted. The applicant argued that he did have an interest in university patents from the point of view of potential licenses for his company. The issue was presented to then SUPA President Raymond Woodrow, Princeton University, who suggested creating an affiliated or associate membership category. The exact definition of this new membership category proved difficult, and it was not until 1978 that the affiliate membership category was approved.
On the Government Policy Scene
On Sept. 23, 1976, Woodrow testified before the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of the House Committee on Science and Technology with regard to university patents and federal grants and contracts. Thus, SUPA was now on the government policy-making radar screen, setting the stage for future SUPA interaction with government policy-setting groups.
Evolutions for SUPA
The second decade of SUPA/AUTM’s existence was a time of profound change. At the beginning of 1984, SUPA was a volunteer-managed association of 269 members, almost all of whom represented universities. SUPA held one meeting per year, in the Washington, D.C., area.
By the end of 1993, SUPA had changed its name and was a vibrant and rapidly growing association of 1,015 members, with 45 percent in the affiliate members category. AUTM policy now was to rotate annual meetings between the Eastern, Central
1980: Bayh-Dole Act receives congressional approval and is signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.
1984:
SUPA holds first summer educational meeting.
and Western Regions moving from a Washington, D.C., focus. The 1992 AUTM Annual MeetingSM had a record attendance of 532 attendees. In 1993, each of the three U.S. regions had conducted successful meetings during the summer, and the first Canadian Regional Meeting was held jointly with LES at Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. In 1992, the first ever formal AUTM licensing course received rave reviews, prompting a decision to hold this course annually.
By the end of 1993, the AUTM NewsletterTM was a quarterly publication. The AUTM JournalTM was in its fourth year of publication and the AUTM Technology Transfer Practice ManualTM debuted in draft form at the October 1993 Basic Licensing Course. The AUTM Licensing Survey, covering the years 1991–92, also had been completed.
Further, at the beginning of 1984, the cash reserves of SUPA were $22,000, which seemed quite adequate for an organization that had few operating expenses. Annual member dues of $30 and an Annual Meeting registration fee of $70 produced a modest surplus for the year.
By 1993, Bayfield Associates had assisted in managing the rapidly growing association for several years; AUTM reserves were at $274,000 with expenses for the year of $314,000. Annual member dues were $75, and the Annual Meeting registration fee was $295, again producing a surplus to support nonrevenue-generating AUTM activities.
Evolution of the SUPA Name
In April 1986, then SUPA President Steve Atkinson, Acambis Inc., convened a Strategic Planning Committee to study, among other things, whether the name SUPA, and its implied focus only on patent administration, was too limiting and did not accurately reflect the evolving responsibilities of AUTM’s members. SUPA was enjoying strong name recognition by 1986, so the change was a serious issue. But by February 1988, the board recommended a name change to the membership. At the July 1988 board meeting, four finalists emerged from more than 30 proposed names: Society of University-Industry Licensing Associates, Society of University Intellectual Property Administrators, Society of University Technology Licensing Executives and Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM was selected and a mail ballot was sent to the membership. More than 75 percent voted to change the name to AUTM, and the change was implemented at the February 1989 Annual Meeting.
Evolution of Meetings
The first educational meeting was held in June 1984 in St. Louis. It was well-attended and received excellent reviews, prompting the SUPA board to hold annual summer meetings on college campuses, keeping them informal and with an educational theme. However, over time, the summer meeting program evolved into a more formal and diverse agenda and began to resemble a mini-annual meeting. In 1990, a joint meeting with LES was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It was a great success, but it was far from the informal, on-a-campus, education-theme format. Thus, AUTM President Martin Rachmeler, University of California at San Diego, suggested regional meetings, and the final AUTM summer meeting was held the next year. In 1992, Regional Meetings began.
1986/87:
Association publishes summaries of presentations at the annual meetings.
1987: First increase in annual dues — from $30 to $50.
Evolution of Publications
Following a two-year hiatus, the SUPA Newsletter restarted in 1987 and has since progressed to a quarterly schedule in 1993 and eventually to a bimonthly publication in 2003.
During the mid-1980s, there was frequent discussion, and at least two failed attempts, to create a Technology Transfer Practice Manual. But it was recognized that the effort required far exceeded the capacity of AUTM’s volunteers. When Jean Mahoney, Princeton University, assumed chair of the Publications Committee in 1988, she convinced the board that paid help was required, and Diane Hoffman was hired as editor. Hoffman not only was key in getting the TTP Manual published, but also was instrumental in the assembly, editing and publication of the annual AUTM surveys. She also helped produce the AUTM Journal, the first issue of which was distributed in March 1989. [For more on the survey, see the sidebar “AUTM Licensing Survey: History and Highlights” on page 12.]
Legislative Matters and Government Relations
During the entire 1984–93 period, SUPA/AUTM continued to monitor, under the leadership of Bremer, proposed legislation affecting AUTM members. A major issue was patent harmonization, and Ed MacCordy, Washington University, was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to be the AUTM representative on a 20-person committee studying the matter. The committee report was finished in mid-1992, but MacCordy refused to sign it, and resigned from the committee in protest of the recommendation for prior user rights (a hot issue still today). The AUTM board supported MacCordy at the August 1992 board meeting, where a proposal to establish a voice in Washington, D.C., was put forth. However, after examining the costs, the board decided to instead continue and strengthen AUTM’s formal relationship with the Council on Governmental Relations. Thus, COGR would serve as AUTM’s eyes and ears in legislative matters, an alliance that has worked well over the years.
AUTM Grows
During AUTM’s third decade (1994 to present), the leadership of AUTM has been challenged by the demands of a rapidly growing membership base. At the start of 1994, the membership had just passed the 1,000 mark. Today it exceeds 3,100.
In 1993, the AUTM board of trustees held its first strategic planning meeting, the outcome of which was a proposed major reorganization of the governance and committee structure. Three board positions were eliminated — secretary
and two trustees — and the treasurer was renamed vice president for finance. Four new vice president positions were created: planning, membership, communications and external relations.
More dramatically, 14 new committees were proposed to augment the existing six, and nine special interest subcommittees were suggested. However, the final version of the reorganization reduced the number of committees to 18, and the subcommittees were not included. Members voted to approve the new structure by a 119 to 3 margin, which went into effect at the 1995 Annual Meeting.
Though there has been fine-tuning of the organizational structure since then, the basic structure has held up remarkably well. There have been two additions to the board: vice president for affiliate members and vice president for international relations.
AUTM’s major event each year remains the Annual Meeting. At the 2000 Annual Meeting, the first Technology Exchange and Networking Fair was introduced. This has been a popular event at annual meetings ever since and was in direct response to the interests expressed by the affiliate membership.
Growth in Many Directions
The international membership in AUTM has grown from a handful in 1994 to nearly 300 today. The first AUTM-sponsored international conference, in partnership with Science Alliance, was held in Amsterdam in May 1997. This successful partnership led to well-attended follow-on conferences in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, AUTM held its first solo international event, when the AUTM Edinburgh 2000 conference drew 182 delegates from 18 countries.
The growth and maturing of the membership created a demand for more diverse courses. At the start of 1994, the Basic Licensing CourseSM was the only educational course offered. In December 1994, the first Advanced Licensing Course was held in Scottsdale, Ariz. It was a great success, and soon attracted members with various levels of experience. After a few years, it evolved into the Advanced Topics Course. It is now named the Graduate CourseSM, and it is targeted to professionals in mid-career. A new event — to be offered for the first time in 2004 — the Executive ForumSM, will fulfill the professional development needs of AUTM’s senior members.
AUTM
Annual Meeting Attendance History
Launched in 1996, the Technology Operations and Organization Licensing Skills CourseSM (TOOLS), held concurrently with the Basic Licensing Course, addresses the educational needs of licensing office support staff. And, in 1998, the first Software Licensing Course was held. In 2000, a new
course — the Startup Business Development CourseSM was held in conjunction with the Basic Licensing and TOOLS courses and has been offered each year since.
A movement toward greater use of electronic communications and publishing began in 1995 with the introduction of the AUTM Web site, which has been redesigned and reintroduced twice since then, with a third revamp scheduled this year.
The Technology Transfer Practice Manual, first offered for sale at the 1994 Annual Meeting, was expanded to three volumes in 1995, and a completely updated and revised version — with four volumes — was released at the 2003 Annual Meeting.
In addition to increased issues, the AUTM Newsletter, beginning with the January/February 2003 issue, is now distributed electronically, as is the summary for the AUTM Annual Licensing Survey.
With the exception of 1988, the AUTM Journal has produced an issue each year since 1986. However, the first two issues were simply summaries from presentations at the 1986 and 1987 annual meetings. The size and quality of the journal has continued to improve over time, and is today a highly respected source of information on university patenting and licensing issues.
The first AUTM Educational SeriesTM, “An Inventor’s Guide to Patents and Patenting,” published in 1996, sold more than 13,000 copies in the first year. Four additional volumes have been added, and the sixth volume is scheduled for release this year.
As the size and complexity of the organization and its events, especially the Annual Meeting, continued to expand, it became clear AUTM needed additional staffing resources. In 2000, after Janet Scholz, University of Manitoba, led an effort to issue a request for proposals for the necessary administrative support required by AUTM, The Sherwood Group Inc., located in the Chicago area, assumed operational responsibility for AUTM support in May.
Today AUTM is a strong, financially secure association with a growing membership. It has members representing 35 separate countries. And it continues to search for ways to better serve its membership and fulfill its mission: to promote, support and enhance the global academic technology transfer profession through internal and external education, training and communication.
After several days of intense sessions during the 1991 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, front from left, Dave Schetter, past president Katharine Ku, Roger Ruggeri, back from left, Martin Rachmeler and Duke Leahey, relax during the closing dinner and reception.
1996 Advanced Topics Course, held in Arizona.
Attendees enjoy a
during the 1997 Eastern Regional meeting in Portland, Maine.
1993: AUTM holds first Canadian Regional Meeting.
1994: The first annual Licensing Survey, covering FY1991 and FY1992, is published.
Past president Marvin Guthrie and Alla Kan take in the sites during the
clambake
AUTM Licensing Survey: History and Highlights
More than a decade ago, AUTM conducted its first licensing survey so the association could provide members of the U.S. Congress with proof that the Bayh-Dole Act was working and indeed benefiting the public. What began as a one-time poll has grown into an intense, annual effort.
To understand the breathtaking growth in academic technology transfer activities, consider comparisons between the early years and fiscal year 2002:
• 130 institutions participated in the fiscal year 1991 survey; 222 provided data for fiscal year 2002.
• 2,201 new U.S. patent applications were filed in 1991; 7,741 were filed in 2002.
• 1,131 U.S. patents were issued in 1993; 3,673 were issued in 2002.
• 1,148 licenses and options were executed in 1991; 4,673 were executed in 2002.
• The average technology licensing office in 1992 comprised 3.77 FTEs for licensing professionals and support staff; the average in 2002 was 7.82 FTEs.
• Total research expenditures at reporting institutions were $11.49 billion in 1991 — and $37.02 billion in 2002.
The ultimate goal of technology transfer professionals is, of course, to enable the introduction of new products that improve quality of life for our global society. Survey data show that AUTM members are making great strides in meeting that objective.
Since AUTM began collecting data about product development in 1998, institutions have reported 2,076 new products including:
• Taxol, the most important cancer drug in 15 years, according to the National Cancer Institution;
• 3TC, an AIDS antiviral, and Panretin®, a topical treatment for AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma;
• Artificial lung surfactant, which each year saves 20,000 babies born with collapsed lungs;
• DNA sequencer, the basis of the entire Human Genome Project;
• Leustatis, a chemotherapy drug used to treat leukemia;
• StormVision™, which airport safety managers use to predict the motion of storms;
• Osteomark®, a urine test that measures bone resorption;
• Prostate-specific antigen test, now a routine component of cancer screening;
• V-Chip, which allows families to control access to television programming;
• Lycos®, the online search engine and resource guide;
• GlucoWatch®, a wristwatch-like device that painlessly monitors blood-sugar levels of diabetes sufferers;
• Cohn Cardiac Stabilizer™, a device that assists surgeons who perform beating-heart open-heart surgery;
• SpeechEasy®, a wireless prosthetic device that virtually eliminates stuttering through the use of delayed auditory and frequency altered feedback;
• Plasma electric generator, which uses hydrogen and boron to produce clean, scalable, distributed electric power; and
• Double transgenic mouse, a breed of mouse that takes a fraction of the time to demonstrate Alzheimer’s pathology compared with previous animal models, allowing scientists to significantly speed tests of potential new drugs.
1994: Association releases first edition of the Technology Transfer Practice Manual. 1994: AUTM holds first Advanced Licensing Course.
Presidents’ Perspectives
Howard Bremer, J.D., 1978–1979, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
As a voice from AUTM’s SUPA past when membership hovered around 100 or so individuals, my two-year term as president was a blur of pushing for a uniform patent policy to apply to all governmental agencies.
Almost immediately after taking office, the university community was faced with an attack on the existing Institutional Patent Agreements. It seemed particularly ironic that the senator from my own state, Gaylord Nelson, was the proponent for doing away with IPAs. His action was a response to a General Service Administration notice making IPAs applicable to all governmental agencies. His action led to a flurry of activity to disabuse him of his position and ultimately to hearings before his subcommittee on the issue.
Apart from the early and long battles to obtain the IPAs, the Nelson hearings were a preface to the continuing educational effort needed to persuade the legislative branch of government that a uniform federal patent policy was in the best interest of the country. It is interesting to note that despite his early objections to IPAs, Senator Nelson became a co-sponsor of the Bayh-Dole Act.
After achieving a successful outcome in that confrontation, the remainder of my term as president had me engaged in a progressive series of legislative initiatives in the form of bills introduced in Congress to achieve a legislatively mandated uniform federal patent policy. Those activities entailed frequent testimony before Congressional committees on the issue as well as even more frequent confrontations with various government agencies that were vociferously and actively opposing our efforts. Not the least of such opposition lay with Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, credited as being the father of our naval nuclear propulsion program and development. Testifying immediately after him at a number of hearings gave a night-and-day perspective to the urged patent policy positions of the university sector and government agencies such as Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and NASA.
The progression of attempts to achieve what the university community was seeking led to the introduction and ultimate passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 — the crowning achievement of university technology transfer proponents.
Stephen H. Atkinson, 1986–87, Harvard Medical School (Acambis Inc.)*
In 1986, SUPA’s membership numbered approximately 380 and only a small percentage of the members were experienced, trained technology transfer professionals. Thus, at the beginning of my term at the 1986 Annual Meeting, I began working with the board to introduce significant changes in SUPA’s identity, mandate, public presence and activities. Our accomplishments included:
• Changing SUPA’s name to more accurately reflect the responsibilities and activities of members. This effort — which involved the board, numerous individual members and relevant outside parties — started at the 1986 Summer Meeting, finally achieving consensus during the 1988 Summer Meeting (during the term of Katharine Ku, Stanford University). The new name: The Association of University Technology Managers.
Major reorganization of the board and committee structure — eliminating three board positions, creating four vice president positions and adding 12 committees — becomes effective.
1995: 1995: AUTM unveils Web site.
• Revamping the bylaws to enable SUPA/AUTM to meet the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities of the rapidly expanding field of university-industry relationships. Of all the initiatives pursued during my term, this was the most controversial and labor-intensive. Many complex issues arose, including nominations and elections, new board positions and committees, membership criteria, regional meeting requirements and financial management. After more than a year of debate, the board reached consensus at the 1988 Summer Meeting. Members cast their ballots in October 1988 and approved the changes nearly unanimously. The revised bylaws went into effect at the February 1989 Annual Meeting.
• Auditing SUPA’s membership to implement two major goals: maximizing focus on and commitment to university-industry technology transfer-based relationships and expanding the second generation of SUPA members. We conducted a detailed audit of members and nonmembers to identify individuals whose principal responsibilities and professional commitment was focused on technology transfer. Members not primarily focused on technology transfer moved on, and others who wanted to enhance skills related to technology transfer joined. A marginal decrease in the membership initially resulted, but by 1989, membership stood at 691.
• Expanding professional development and training opportunities through initiatives such as: developing a definition of academic technology transfer, surveying members about position descriptions and compensation, publishing a journal, appointing a new vice president for professional development, conducting multiple career-development workshops and retreats, and introducing mentor and fellows programs.
• Expanding public presence by establishing a Public Affairs Committee, developing a long-term strategic plan and increasing financial resources to enable expansion of the association’s activities.
• Significantly increasing financial resources through staged increases in membership and meeting fees to enable expansion of SUPA’s activities.
• Implementing SUPA’s first use of a management-service organization, Bayfield Associates (following selection of Bayfield during the term of Spencer Blaylock, Iowa State University Research Foundation).
The years 1986-89 (my and Kathy Ku’s terms) were a transforming time for SUPA. Initially most of the activities summarized here were led by the board and a small group of dedicated volunteers, but eventually the entire membership participated in making major decisions and implementing the resulting changes. There was more than enough work to go around and controversy and healthy debate were also in good supply. Many enduring friendships were forged and our folklore enriched by numerous colorful characters and stories behind the story. And for the record, let it be known: We had a great time.
Katharine Ku, 1988–89, Stanford University
During my tenure as president, SUPA’s board and members were wrestling with the organization’s identity. Starting during the term of Steve Atkinson, Acambis Inc., we had a long-range Strategic Planning Committee that looked at many issues, including the important one of a name change. The Society of University Patent Administrators sounded too bureaucratic and administrative to a portion of the membership; but to others, changing names seemed too daunting a task — and for what purpose? At the end of
1996: The first Educational Series installment is published.
1996: AUTM holds first Technology Operations and Organization Licensing Skills Course (TOOLS).
On a side note, I believe I was the last president to serve five years: two years as president-elect (and that was when the president-elect was responsible for organizing the Annual Meeting), two years as president and one year as past president. The term of president was changed after my tenure. It was an incredibly long commitment, which we decided was too much!
Lita Nelsen, M.B.A., 1992, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The years 1989–92 encompassed an era when university technology licensing was scarcely visible on the horizon, and government was very concerned that Bayh-Dole wasn’t working. (Just the opposite of the current era, when they’re afraid it’s working too well and universities are making too much money.) We made many trips to Washington, D.C., to persuade legislators that results were accelerating and that there was no need for them to fix what ain’t broken.
During my presidency, government staffers asked: “So where’s the data; all we have here are anecdotes.” So we decided to conduct a survey to give them some data. Previously, there had been many surveys conducted by individual universities, but they were all based on small samples, each had a different purpose and each used a different set of questions.
This project was the beginning of the AUTM Licensing Survey. However, the difference between it and the current AUTM Licensing Survey is that it was designed to be a one-time survey — not an annual undertaking. The motto was “a few good questions.”
In addition to answering congressional staffers’ requests for data about the effectiveness of tech transfer, we included questions to help people staff their offices — hence the questions about FTEs. This data also would allow universities to benchmark.
William Hostetler, 1994, Oregon State University
The major effort during my tenure as president was the completion and availability of the AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual. We also made great strides in increasing communication with other associations such as the Association of American Universities, Council on Government Relations, Society of Research Administrators and National Council of University Research Administrators.
I believe that I was the first president from a one-person technology transfer office, and I relied heavily on former administrator Penny Dalziel of Bayfield Associates. I still appreciate her efforts and her loyalty to AUTM.
Teri F. Willey, 1996, Purdue Research Foundation (ARCH Development Partners)*
In 1995, I was fortunate to serve as president-elect with Joyce Brinton as president. She was and is a model of equipoise, a leader by example and a solid practitioner. As president, I had a strong foundation, a hard working board and strong committee chairs. It was becoming clear to me that, as our profession emerged, the demands would continue to be that of the practitioner: best practices in patent law, licensing, business and science. But on top of this, as our environment became more complex, the emerging demands were political, interpersonal and international.
1997: the day, we obviously decided to change the name to the Association of University Technology Managers.
By cooperating with the Science Alliance (a technology transfer organization based in The Hague, Netherlands) to offer first European conference in Amsterdam, AUTM establishes global scope.
1997: AUTM approves vice president for affiliate members board position.
It was an exciting but complex time as we found new ways to collaborate with other organizations, reach policy-makers, launch international efforts and deal with our own administrations in explaining what the royalty income means in terms of university mission, economic impact and public benefit.
In addition, AUTM’s affiliate membership was growing, and we were working to embrace this situation as an opportunity to quickly and effectively solve problems between companies and universities. The broad AUTM community gave us the ability to consult one another and solve problems in a very open manner. As competition for research funding increased, as the deal value and legal liabilities grew, one of the most important issues for our profession was the ability to maintain the level of camaraderie and cooperation, balanced with healthy competition. How we treat each other would and will ultimately define us.
I hope for AUTM and its members continued learning, constant questioning and continued success through innovation in more than just the laboratory. May we never lose sight of the fact that we are operating at the interface of for-profit and not-for-profit systems. To be successful, we must understand and appreciate both and diminish neither. Knowing how to work at this interface creates benefits that neither system can create on its own. This is what we are about. Regardless of our membership category, this is our vocation.
Karen Hersey, J.D., 1998, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
In 1998, AUTM broke the 2,000-member mark. This staggering fact defined much of the year to come. Plans for new programs, outreach and new directions were relegated to the proverbial back burner as the board decided to undertake a comprehensive strategic re-evaluation of AUTM’s role as an organization.
Under the organizational leadership of Kathleen Denis, Ph.D., Rockefeller University, then vice president for planning, a strategic planning meeting focused on reviewing the internal and external missions of the organization was held in conjunction with the July board meeting. The goal was to reach consensus about where AUTM’s future energies might be best directed to serve the needs of the membership. Not without considerable debate, the board considered three options, retrenchment, expansion or maintaining the status quo, ultimately choosing to retain the status quo, but resolving to do it better by reorganizing priorities and management functions.
As part of redirected priorities, the organization also began a year of outreach. AUTM communicated with historically black colleges and universities, and regional vice presidents sought out smaller organizations not yet taking advantage of AUTM. In other landmarks during this year, the Canadian members established a separate summer regional meeting for Canada, and the board took the first steps toward creating the position of vice president for affiliate members.
The year 1998 provided me with challenges, successes and a feeling of not enough time to reach personal goals. Not to be overlooked, the board that year was setting the stage for the leadership to come. Future presidents with whom I had the privilege of serving that year included Lou Berneman, Ed.D., University of Pennsylvania; Jim Severson, Ph.D., University of Washington; Terry Young, M.B.A., The Texas A&M University System; Janet Scholz, University of Manitoba; and Pat Harsche Weeks, Fox Chase Cancer Center — a cornucopia of riches!
1998: First Software Course held in Chicago.
2000: Association holds first event in Europe: AUTM Edinburgh 2000.
Louis P. Berneman, Ed.D., 1999, University of Pennsylvania
During my presidential term, AUTM recognized the need for professionalizing the management of the association and began researching various methods for doing so. Throughout the 1990s, AUTM experienced significant increases in membership, meeting attendance and members’ expectations regarding services. We anticipated these needs and responded effectively by transitioning to a more comprehensive association management organization: The Sherwood Group Inc.
During this period, we also recognized that, in addition to the traditional needs and expectations of our members regarding meetings — quality education and networking — we needed to provide opportunities at AUTM meetings for registrants to do business among ourselves and with licensees and to have fun.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as an AUTM president and appreciative of the selfless contributions of the entire leadership. I am also truly indebted to many AUTM colleagues who have helped me professionally and personally over the years. These friends and colleagues include many of the past presidents noted here, with special thanks to Karen Hersey, J.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Kathleen Denis, Ph.D., Rockefeller University, who received the AUTM President’s Award in 2000.
James A. Severson, Ph.D., 2000, Cornell Research Foundation (University of Washington)*
I saw my presidential year as a transition year. After the strategic planning meeting in 1998, AUTM had initiated a process to solicit applications for management-service firms.
In the year before my term, Janet Scholz, University of Manitoba, led a task force that crafted a request for proposal and solicited applications from a significant number of firms. The task force reviewed these applications, interviewed a number of teams and recommended to the board that The Sherwood Group Inc. become AUTM’s association management firm. The contract with Sherwood was signed just as I took office in March 2000.
In my view, AUTM needed a year to make a smooth transition to Sherwood, and the transition was the most important activity of the year for the association. The transition went very well, and both AUTM and Sherwood spent the year learning about each other, figuring out how to work together within the scope of work that was negotiated and transitioning to a different style of management. I spent much less time on transition issues than I anticipated.
One of the highlights of the year was the first AUTM international conference, AUTM Edinburgh 2000, held at Herriot-Watt University. This meeting was a very energizing meeting of nearly 200 professionals from around the world and was an unqualified success.
During the year, the board asked me to explore the possibility of developing a program in public communications for key stakeholders of AUTM, including the U.S. Congress. It was the view of the board that any discussion of Bayh-Dole and technology transfer was lost in the many other issues that universities raise at the federal level, so we initiated discussions with a firm in Washington, D.C.
To our surprise, several other university-based associations in Washington, D.C., learned of this effort and initiated discussions with Terry Young, M.B.A., The Texas
2000: The new Start-Up Business Development Course is held. 2000: Annual Meeting includes first Technology Exchange and Networking Fair.
A&M University System, then president-elect, Lou Berneman, Ed.D., University of Pennsylvania, then immediate past president, and me regarding the intent of the program and directions that we planned to take. These discussions resulted in the formation of a Technology Transfer Working Group headed by the Association of American Universities. Young continued AUTM’s participation in this working group with success during his term as president.
My only addition to this brief history is that I thought that the board was terrific to work with. We got along quite well, and we were able to deal with difficult issues in a very direct and respectful way. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to lead the organization during a very interesting period.
Terry Young, M.B.A., 2001, The Texas A&M University System
Notable achievements during by term include:
• Creating a new board position — vice president for international relations — and appointing the individual to hold the office for the first year;
• Renewing emphasis on developing the international membership and benefits to international members, laying the foundation for the International Federation of Technology Transfer Organizations, formed during the 2003 Annual Meeting;
• Finalizing the update of the AUTM logo, which began during the presidency of Jim Severson, Ph.D., University of Washington;
• Leading a meaningful strategic planning session — focused on honing the association’s vision, mission, goals and objectives to increase efficacy and member benefits — in August 2001;
• Celebrating the 10th year of the AUTM Licensing Survey;
• Continuing to develop the Technology Transfer Working Group comprising the Association of American Universities, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Council on Governmental Relations, AUTM and other groups, as initiated the previous year by AUTM Presidents Severson, Lou Berneman, Ed.D., University of Pennsylvania, and me; and
• Taking part in a highly successful 2002 Annual Meeting. A large contingent from the Peoples Republic of China attended — the first time a Chinese delegation crossed the Pacific to join in an AUTM event.
2000: Vice president for international relations board position is approved.
2000: AUTM releases first edition of the Directors’ Kit.
SUPA Presidents*
1975 George H. Pickar, University of Florida
1976–77 Raymond Woodrow, Princeton University
1978–79 Howard W. Bremer, J.D., Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
1980–81 Clark A. McCartney, University of Southern California
1982–83 Roger Ditzel, University of California at Berkeley
1984–85 Spencer Blaylock, Iowa State University Research Foundation
1986–87 Stephen H. Atkinson, Harvard Medical School (Acambis Inc.)
1988–89 Katharine Ku, Stanford University
AUTM Presidents*
1990 Edward MacCordy, Washington University
1991 Martin Rachmeler, University of California at San Diego
1992 Lita Nelsen, M.B.A., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1993 H. S. (Duke) Leahey, Washington University (Pfizer Inc.)
1994 William Hostetler, Oregon State University
1995 Joyce Brinton, Harvard University
1996 Teri F. Willey, Purdue Research Foundation (ARCH Development Partners)
1997 Marvin C. Guthrie, Massachusetts General Hospital
1998 Karen Hersey, J.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1999 Louis P. Berneman, Ed.D., University of Pennsylvania
2000 James A. Severson, Ph.D., Cornell Research Foundation (University of Washington)
2001 Terry A. Young, M.B.A., The Texas A&M University System
2002 Janet E. Scholz, University of Manitoba
2003 Patricia Harsche Weeks, Fox Chase Cancer Center
2004 Ann Hammersla, J.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*Attribution includes name of institution during presidency, current organization is included in parenthesis where applicable.
A Note From the Author
This publication is part of a larger effort to fully document the founding and evolution of the Association of University Technology Managers. This project reveals a remarkable story of enormous volunteer effort and dedication. A story that documents AUTM, as a volunteer-managed association with astonishing accomplishments and a worldwide reputation for the quality of its products and services. It is my pleasure to dedicate the history of SUPA/AUTM project to the people who have served the organization as president. Their tireless efforts and dedication have created an AUTM of which we can all be proud. Immense thanks also to the myriad volunteers who have contributed countless thousands of hours to the creation and support of this wonderful association. Here’s to another 30 years of innovation!
— Jon Sandelin, M.B.A., Stanford University
2003: Technology Transfer Practice Manual, Second Edition, is published.
2003: AUTM presents the inaugural Howard Bremer Scholarship during the Annual Meeting.