3rd Annual Florida Tech Transfer Conference

It’s been long past due for an update on what happened at the Florida Technology Transfer Conference held in Sarasota on May 23rd. To sum everything up, we learned a lot about how the tech transfer process actually works, which may have slightly altered our entire outlook on the access problem.

The keynote speaker during breakfast was Mr. Robert Bell from Biotechnology Development. He gave a talk on how to “Pave the Way for Generic Biologics.” His talk focused on the difference between drugs which are regulated by FFDC, and biologics which are regulated by PHSA, without a generic pathway. It’s nearly impossible for generic production of biologics such as Human Growth Hormone because they must be deemed therapeutically equivalent. Since biologics are synthesized by microorganisms (generally) there is a large concern about the immunogenicity of the name brand versus that of the generic. Presently in the US, all follow-on biologics have to meet the same regulatory benchmarks as the name brand product. This is a huge barrier for getting generics out to market because of the expense of all the clinical trials. If you want more information, here is a paper that goes over many of the same points Bell made in his presentation.

Next we went to the session on Trends in Technology Transfer.

• First, we heard from Bonny Harbinger, the Deputy Director of the Office of Technology Transfer at the National Institutes of Health. They have many presentations available at their website, and plenty of articles about the OTT. Only 8% of the NIH budget goes into intramural research, falling under the authority of the OTT. Most of the research done is basic science rather than focusing on a solution to a specific problem. The NIH does not patent the tools that they develop, but they have made over $100 million in licensing revenues from research nonetheless. Harbinger also discussed that many times there is difficulty finding buyers for NIH technologies, not because they aren’t out there, but because NIH doesn’t have the means to find them. They contracted Discovery Logic to develop software, called TechMatch, to facilitate in the process of licensing their intramural research to the private sector. A really cool application, only it appears that there many have been parallel development on text-mining software between different branches of the government.
• The second speaker was Glenn Ladwig from the Saliwanchik law firm in Gainesville. He gave a talk on the current trends and reforms in patenting, concentrating on HR2795 (summary) and HR5096. Over 1/3 of patent applications are continuing applications in order to gain broader rights. By increasing the charge for refiling, they hope to decrease the strain of the patent examiners, so that they have more time to spend on new applications. His talk made clear that it is long past due for patent reform.
• Michael Otworth was the next to speak, although his talk was mainly just PR for XL TechGroup. I’ll save you the hassle.
• John Fraser, the Director of Technology Licensing at FSU and the current president-elect of AUTM was the last speaker of the session. Only half of research done at the university is eventually patented, and of that, only 15% is licensed out to be developed into a product. I haven’t heard any stats on how many of the licenses actually bear fruit in a marketable product. AUTM estimates that 50 current FDA approved products have arisen out of universities. Fraser also discussed the venture philanthropy FasterCures and its mission to “accelerate the process of discovery and clinical development of new therapies for the treatment of deadly and debilitating diseases.”

Next, I went to the session on International Technology Transfer.

• First up to speak was Clemens Caicedo, the Director of Strategic Alliances in Latin America for Merck & Co. He emphasized that a country’s knowledge is highly dependent on their prosperity. His presentation was mainly a breakdown of the statistics from the Global Competitiveness Report. Latin America failed at commercialization and technology transfer, in great part due to the lack of infrastructure. Licensees are not trusting of Latin American markets because of the lax regulatory framework for going after patent infringers. While the government is spending a comparable amount of the GNP on research as many industrialized nations, private sector investment is only about a quarter of what is seen in industrialized nations. It is suspected that if patent rights were enforcable, private sector investment would dramatically increase.
• Next in line was Sam Liao from Sanofi Pasteur a vaccine joint venture with Merck. His presentation was mainly about his organization (15.3% of sales return to R&D) and cultural barriers in executing licensing deals.
• The final speaker of the panel was Allan Jarry from a private tech transfer company for universities in Chile. For every 500 disclosures, there is only one big, moneymaking deal. Chile is leading Latin America in its tech licensing, coming in 23rd internationally. Strong efforts are being made to educate people on the value of bridging public sector work to the private industry.

The keynote speaker for the luncheon was Walter Moos, from SRI International a private spin-off from Stanford University. He highlighted the fact that there has been a 5% decrease in industry support of academic R&D. Of $881 million put into drug development and testing last year, $665 million was put into drugs that eventually failed. If we could somehow make drugs fail earlier in the process, prices should fall as well. The Critical Path Institute works to accelerate the development of new medications. While we’re at it, might as well plug Pharmastart as well.

After lunch, was a slew of university briefings on the research that they have been doing. You can get many of their presentations here.

Hope you’ve enjoyed your virtual tour of the conference!