APLU-CGA Update

To:      Council of Presidents

Cc:      Council on Academic Affairs

            Council on Research

            Council on Governmental Affairs

            Council on Strategic Communications

            Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Economic Prosperity

From:  Peter McPherson and Hunter Rawlings

Date:   March 27, 2015

Re:      Recommendations to Presidents and Chancellors from APLU and AAU Technology
            Transfer Groups

Dear Presidents and Chancellors:

This past fall, APLU and the Association of American Universities (AAU) each convened groups of our members to examine university policy around innovation, technology transfer, and commercialization, as well as the purposes of university engagement in these activities. President Satish Tripathi of the University at Buffalo and Sethuraman (Panch) Panchanathan, Senior Vice President for Knowledge Enterprise Development at Arizona State University led the APLU Task Force on Managing University Intellectual Property. President Bob Brown of Boston University and President Eric Kaler of the University of Minnesota led the AAU Working Group on Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property.

The groups were both charged with affirming principles to guide our member institutions’ management of intellectual property. Both groups also developed recommendations for steps that institutions can take to ensure that institutional policies and practices align with these principles, and that they are readily transparent to the public, policymakers, and potential university partners.  APLU’s recommendations can be viewed here and AAU’s can be viewed here. 

There is significant overlap between the principles and recommendations the two groups have outlined. Our two associations support and stand firmly behind them.
 

Following is a summary of the principles and recommendations contained in the two documents:

• The primary focus of university technology transfer efforts should be to advance the public interest and public good. Both groups recommend that institutions underscore this purpose by developing a clear mission or purpose statement for the management of intellectual property, in accordance with the first recommendation of the National Research Council’s 2010 report, “Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest.”

• Universities should have high-level policies in place to ensure that intellectual property management and technology transfer practices align with both the public interest and their core research, education and service missions. Technology transfer practices must not conflict with these missions. Many universities already have high-level policies in place, which help ensure that they are managing intellectual property in the public interest. Our associations urge all of our universities to establish such policies and to make them clear and transparent.

• Universities should not deal with patent trolls. With respect to so-called “patent trolls,” many universities have policies in place restricting their dealing with such entities. Universities that do not already have such policies in place should establish them. Such policies need not negate the ability of universities to rightfully employ outside counsel or other organizations to legitimately enforce their intellectual property rights against infringement.

• Technology transfer operations should be evaluated and assessed by several means, not solely or even primarily revenue generation. Revenues generated from university management of intellectual property should be viewed as a positive outcome, providing resources that further advance research and education. However, the primary force driving technology transfer should be the transfer of knowledge and new discoveries from universities to the private sector and others to benefit the public. 

• It is critical for universities to continue to share best practices for managing intellectual property and improving technology transfer operations in ways that serve the public interest. Effective practices especially include those that ensure the quick movement of new ideas and technologies generated with federal support from the laboratory to the marketplace.

For those member universities that have not already done so, we recommend that they take specific actions to protect and preserve these principles. Additionally, we urge you to review the attached recommendations and engage others on your campuses in discussions concerning steps that your institutions might take to implement them.

APLU and AAU will continue to support efforts related to these recommendations. APLU’s task force will collect examples of innovative and effective practices in university intellectual property management and will disseminate those examples later this year. AAU will take steps to identify measures and methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of technology transfer beyond revenue generation. Both associations will discuss the recommendations at upcoming meetings of our presidents and provosts.

Thank you for your attention to these principles and recommendations. We both welcome any responses you might wish to provide us. All of your institutions are fundamental to the nation’s innovation ecosystem. Our collective attention to the public purposes of our intellectual property management and technology transfer will help us maintain that critical role.

Peter McPherson                                            Hunter R. Rawlings III

President, APLU                                            President, AAU

1307 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005-4722   202.478.6040   fax 202.478.6046   www.aplu.org