University Times

The U.S. Patent office awarded 33 patents to the University and technology commercialization at Pitt generated revenue of more than $6 million in fiscal year 2010, bringing the five-year total for Pitt’s efforts to more than 144 patents and revenues of $34 million, according to the recently released Office of Technology Management annual report.

OTM and the affiliated Office of Enterprise Development, Health Sciences oversee commercialization of University intellectual property.

The bulk of the FY10 revenue — $3.8 million — came from licensing income, with reimbursement of legal fees adding $2.2 million. There were no equity sales from startup companies based on Pitt technologies to include in the FY10 total.

OTM also reported:

• Licensing and options rose to 54 — a 32 percent increase over the prior year.

A change in the way the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) counts licenses and options is changing how the University reports that category. The new system permits the inclusion of sublicenses executed (Pitt had two) and licenses that come under inter-institutional agreements in which Pitt is not leading the commercialization (Pitt had 24). When added to the 54 regular licenses and options,  the new subcategories bring the total to 80.

• Invention disclosures fell to 225, down from 254 in FY09. More than 350 University employees and students were represented in the 225 submissions, which are the first step in the commercialization process.

Marc S. Malandro, associate vice chancellor for Technology Management and Commercialization and OTM director, said FY10 was a year in which the office had to respond to the changing environment in biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors impacted by corporate consolidations, acquisitions and bankruptcies.

Companies can’t afford to make mistakes in choosing which technologies to pursue, so they increasingly are looking farther and farther down the development pathway in the interest of “de-risking,” Malandro said. The days of companies approaching the University with a “what do you have to license?” approach are past; he said today’s trend is to have institutions take innovations as far as possible using federal and other funding sources with more proving, prototyping and testing completed before companies step into the commercialization process.

However, he said, very early-stage research partnerships (which include options to license) are on the upswing. Building broad, deep relationships between universities and businesses — by moving students into companies, networking and conducting sponsored or collaborative research, for example — also helps move technologies toward the marketplace more efficiently, creating a win-win situation.

Looking ahead, Malandro foresees turbulence in the health care sector, given the uncertainty surrounding health care reform.

“Nobody knows where it’s going,” he said. “We definitely will have to deal with it.”

Unlike software, for instance, where commercialization is centered on knowing the potential market for a product, commercializing health care innovations is more complicated due to the additional challenges of navigating the regulatory and reimbursement pathways that likewise impact a product’s marketability.

The ability to commercialize novel treatments or diagnostics hinges on the direction health care reform will take. Given that the uncertainty makes it difficult to strategize, remaining nimble in order to react to whatever changes become reality is important. “It’s a big unknown,” he said. “Understanding how these are going to move forward is challenging.”

OTM reported six startup companies were launched in FY10 based on Pitt technologies.

They are:

• Cerêve, founded by psychiatry faculty member Eric Nofzinger, director of the sleep neuroimaging research program. The company is based on a medical device designed to treat insomnia by cooling the front part of the brain and reducing metabolism during sleep.

• Decision Simulation, a spin-off that has licensed a computer software system developed by James McGee, a faculty member in medicine and assistant dean for medical education technology. The software provides virtual patient simulation for medical education and includes a management system for education and assessment.

• Insituvue, a company established to market the sonic flashlight developed by bioengineering faculty member George Stetten. The technology, which was licensed to a product development company in FY09, replaces ultrasound monitor displays with a virtual image on the part of the body being scanned.

• Parallel Solutions, a startup based on radio frequency identification (RFID) technology developed by Marlin Mickle, the Nickolas A. DeCecco Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and faculty member in electrical engineering, computer engineering, telecommunications and industrial engineering. Designed mainly for first responders, the RFID system provides location, identification and sensory information in buildings. Other markets include life safety for personnel in dangerous situations, child safety, hospital/hospice safety and tracking situations such as in prisons.

• Plexision, a company that plans to develop a line of diagnostic tests and biomarkers that assist in mediating disease pathways. The startup is based on an immune system monitoring system developed by transplantation surgery faculty member Rakesh Sindhi, director of pediatric transplant research at Children’s Hospital. Sindhi’s diagnostic assay system measures the risk of organ rejection and the effects of anti-rejection drugs.

• Telecardia, a company based on technology developed by cardiac surgery faculty member Marco Zenati. Zenati’s “CardioGuard” device is designed to be implanted on the surface of the heart to give cardiac patients early warning of heart attacks.

Licensing is one aspect of technology transfer that fits into the University’s broader mission of teaching, research and service. But the University’s impact goes well beyond counting the number of patents issued. Such figures aren’t necessarily a true measure of how much of the federal investment in research is benefiting the public, Malandro noted, adding that the infrastructure to track it needs further development.

“We count the people we educate as part of the impact,” through such programs as the Academic Entrepreneurship and Benchtop to Bedside courses for faculty, as well as through education of MBAs, post-docs and other graduate students, Malandro said.

Quantifying the number of invention disclosures that make it to the market as products is another measure.

Looking at other economic development metrics figures into the picture: counting jobs created, venture capital dollars leveraged or the types of businesses an institution partners with, Malandro noted.

Malandro noted that one-time events or blockbuster innovations can skew a single-year’s results, making it important to collect information over time.

Three-five years’ worth of data will add to the value of the metrics as an accurate measure of impact, he said.

Better metrics to more accurately gauge universities’ broader impact and the efficiency of technology transfer are on the horizon.

The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy have launched the STAR METRICS (Science and Technology for America’s Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science) initiative to better document the value of federal investments in research and development. (For information, see www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2010/od-01.htm.)

OTM’s 2010 annual report is available for download at www.otm.pitt.edu.

—Kimberly K. Barlow