Advertise on podcast: AUTM on the Air

What happens when nearly 10,000 patents from the earliest years of the American patent system are lost, scattered, or destroyed? Those records tell a much bigger story than who invented what. They capture a period when inventors were solving practical problems, sometimes arriving at the same ideas independently, sometimes getting things wrong, and often making small improvements that helped move American industry forward. My guests are Scott B. Guthery, Julie Burke, and Michael Risch, coauthors of Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology. Scott is an inventor with more than 50 U.S. patents and an author on technology and its history. Julie is a former USPTO patent examiner and quality manager, the founder of IP Quality Pro, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association for American Innovation. Michael is a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law whose work includes patents, information access, and America’s earliest patent records. We talk about how the X patents came to exist, why so much of the original record disappeared, and what it took to piece parts of that history back together. We also look at some of the unusual inventions the authors uncovered, what failed and overlapping ideas can teach us about the way innovation really happens, and what this early chapter of the patent system may still have to say to today’s inventors, patent professionals, and technology transfer community. In This Episode: [02:23] Scott B. Guthery explains what X patents are and how nearly 10,000 early patent records were lost. [05:27] Reconstructing the patent record after the 1836 Patent Office fire. [09:14] Julie Burke on what X patents reveal about America’s early Industrial Revolution. [11:15] Scott shares how the idea for *Unfettered Invention* began and how AI helped unlock handwritten patent records. [14:04] Michael Risch discusses his earlier research into America’s first patents and what it revealed about patentable subject matter. [18:13] How the U.S. patent system worked before 1836 and the role courts played in defining patent law. [22:11] Julie compares early Patent Office operations with the challenges faced by the USPTO today. [25:03] How ordinary inventors learned to navigate the early patent system. [27:47] Thomas Jefferson, Jacob Isaacks, and an early example of outside technical review. [29:09] Thomas P. Jones and the *Franklin Journal’s* role in sharing patent and technology information. [32:35] Reconstructing lost patents through archives, historical societies, court cases, and auction records. [36:23] How AI helped uncover missing patents and make difficult historical documents more accessible. [39:52] Examples of overlapping inventions and what they reveal about independent innovation. [43:06] Memorable inventions, including water turbines, horse-powered ferries, alarm clocks, and coil mattresses. [46:55] What failed inventions can teach us about experimentation, timing, and technological progress. [51:06] The drawbacks of an early patent system where inventors often had little access to existing patent information. [52:57] Lessons from the X-patent era for Patent Office administration, preservation, and access to information. [56:07] What technology transfer professionals can learn about supporting promising inventions. [57:05] Why the X patents still matter today. Resources:  AUTM Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology Association for American Innovation Julie Burke PhD - LinkedIn Michael Risch - LinkedIn Michael Risch - Villanova University Scott Guthery - LinkedIn Patents by Inventor Scott B. Guthery

Canada has a strong research base, but turning discoveries into lasting economic and societal value is not always easy. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, I talk with Sarrah Lal about the launch of AUTM’s Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee, or CPPAC. As the committee’s inaugural chair, Sarrah brings insight into why the group was created and why this is a timely moment to look more closely at the policies that shape research commercialization across Canada. We discuss the gaps that can slow promising research on its way to the marketplace. Funding is one challenge, but so is the lack of a clear path from discovery through commercialization. We also explore how CPPAC is bringing together technology transfer and innovation professionals from across the country so they can compare experiences, identify shared problems and build practical recommendations that reflect what people working in the field are seeing firsthand today. We also look at what CPPAC hopes to accomplish over the next 12 to 18 months. We discuss the need for stronger early-stage support and better access to growth capital, along with sustainable resources for technology transfer offices. We also look at why success should be measured through long-term outcomes rather than short-term activity and how greater alignment across the innovation ecosystem could help strong Canadian research create meaningful impact. In This Episode: [02:10] Sarrah Lal explains why AUTM’s Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee (CPPAC) was created and why this is an important moment for research commercialization in Canada. [04:43] Canada has a strong research foundation, but fragmented programs can make it difficult for innovations to move smoothly from discovery to commercialization. [08:11] Measuring research commercialization success means looking beyond patents and startups to the broader economic and societal outcomes that develop over time. [11:58] Commercialization barriers often involve incentives, industry engagement, institutional capacity, and access to capital rather than the quality of the research itself. [15:13] CPPAC is using evidence, stakeholder input, surveys, and focus groups to develop practical policy recommendations that address gaps in Canada’s innovation ecosystem. [19:54] Systems thinking can help policymakers understand how funding, regulation, infrastructure, incentives, and other parts of the commercialization pathway affect one another. [23:18] CPPAC’s priorities include improving early-stage funding, attracting growth capital, and creating more sustainable support for technology transfer offices. [25:45] Greater alignment around shared national priorities and stable long-term policy could help Canada translate more of its research strengths into economic growth and lasting impact. Resources:  AUTM Sarrah Lal - McMaster University Sarrah Lal - LinkedIn AUTM Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee

Technology transfer offices usually keep score with patents, licenses, startups and revenue. It's real proof research is moving beyond the lab. Yet it can miss some of the most interesting parts of the story. A technology might reshape clinical practice, influence public policy or strengthen a community without ever producing a commercial outcome that fits neatly into an annual report. As tech transfer evolves, there's a growing opportunity to look past the traditional scorecard and ask how does university research actually create value, how can that value be tracked, and how can TTOs make those connections more visible? I'm joined by Dr. D. Max Crowley, Director of the Prevention Research Center at Penn State, the C. Eugene Bennett Chair in Prevention, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Public Policy, and Director of the Evidence to Impact Collaborative. His work sits at the intersection of prevention science, economics, public policy and implementation, focused on translating research into better outcomes for children and families. He's been funded by the NIH, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and other major organizations. His career-long focus on how knowledge moves into practice gives him a distinctive perspective on how we define and measure impact in tech transfer. We talk about what it means to treat commercialization as one stop on a much longer road from discovery to real-world use. We talk about why relationships with industry, government, healthcare systems, nonprofits and communities can matter as much as the transaction itself. TTOs are uniquely positioned to help universities track where their research actually ends up. We also dig into the challenge of measuring impact that can take years to surface, the limits of short-term metrics, and what belongs on a more meaningful impact dashboard.  In This Episode: [03:04] Why universities may be using the wrong scorecard to measure research impact and what a broader definition of success could look like. [04:39] Traditional tech transfer metrics such as patents, licenses, startups, and revenue only capture part of the value created by university research. [07:58] The growing opportunity for TTOs to take a leadership role in demonstrating the broader public impact of research. [11:56] Moving discoveries from basic research into real-world use requires stronger connections across the university rather than leaving the responsibility solely to technology transfer. [14:35] Building stronger relationships with licensees can give universities greater insight into what happens after a technology is commercialized. [18:28] Changing incentives for faculty and staff could encourage greater recognition of research adoption, collaboration, and public impact. [26:01] Annual reporting requirements can be difficult to reconcile with meaningful outcomes that may take years or decades to emerge. [29:00] A broader impact dashboard could track external partnerships, policy influence, and where university research is actually being used. [32:59] One practical place for TTOs to begin is by mapping their existing relationships with government affairs, outreach, and other externally focused offices. [35:02] Looking ahead, successful TTOs may play a much larger role in telling the complete story of university research and its impact on society. Resources:  AUTM D. Max Crowley, Ph.D. - Penn State Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative Overton Index Pennsylvania’s Public Universities Seek to Strengthen Partnerships, Boost Trust, and Deepen Impact Daniel Max Crowley - LinkedIn

Some of the most impactful innovations don’t fit neatly into the traditional technology transfer model. Feel Your Best Self began during the COVID-19 pandemic as a collaboration between educational psychology and puppetry at the University of Connecticut, with a simple goal: give children practical, research-based ways to understand and cope with big feelings. What started in a single classroom has since grown into an award-winning toolkit reaching families, educators, and communities far beyond UConn. Joining us to share the story are Dr. Sandy Chafouleas, Emily Wicks, and Dr. Christopher Conners. Sandy is a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor and Neag Endowed Professor in UConn’s Department of Educational Psychology and co-founder of the Collaboratory on School and Child Health. Emily is Manager of Operations and Collections at UConn’s Ballard Institute and Museum of Puppetry and Director of Puppetry Education for Feel Your Best Self. Chris is Director of Licensing for Life Sciences at UConn’s Technology Commercialization Services Office, where he helped guide the project through its intellectual property and commercialization journey. We talk about how an unexpected collaboration between psychology and puppetry became Feel Your Best Self, why creativity and joy are such important parts of teaching emotion-coping skills, and how the team designed the program to remain flexible and accessible. We also explore the university-wide collaboration behind the project, the decision to license a social innovation and create FYBS and Co., and what this experience can teach technology transfer professionals about recognizing valuable innovations that may look very different from the technologies they usually encounter. In This Episode: [04:21] We discover the origins of Feel Your Best Self and how a pandemic-era collaboration brought educational psychology and puppetry together. [07:19] Why they decided to explore an unconventional partnership and how rigorous science and creative expression proved to be a natural fit. [09:03] The earliest virtual classroom sessions, including puppet kits, short videos, and feedback that helped the team keep the program simple and adaptable. [12:04] Early responses from teachers and students helped Sandy and Emily realize Feel Your Best Self could become much more than a temporary response to the pandemic. [15:05] The research behind the program’s Calm, Catch, and Connect framework and why different emotion-coping strategies work for different people and situations. [18:18] The team discusses the four values that guide Feel Your Best Self credibility, accessibility, joy, and creativity and how those principles shape the program. [21:09] How puppet making gives children and adults a chance to explore coping strategies together rather than simply being told what they should do. [23:04] Puppets can lower the stakes around difficult conversations, giving children another way to express emotions that may be uncomfortable to discuss directly. [25:00] Their surprise at how strongly middle and high school students responded to puppetry and continued using their puppets after the workshops ended. [27:25] The Feel Your Best Self toolkit includes videos, storybooks, activities, educator resources, puppet-making materials, and other tools that families and professionals can customize to their needs. [31:11] The thoughtful design process behind creating three characters children could recognize and relate to. [34:47] How the team turned evidence-based coping techniques into memorable three-step strategies with names children can easily understand and use. [37:05] Translating Feel Your Best Self into Spanish required the team to think beyond individual words and consider how language and context vary across cultures. [38:18] UConn’s technology transfer role and why copyright-based and social innovations can create meaningful public impact alongside more traditional patentable technologies. [41:03] How collaboration with UConn’s Proof of Concept Center transformed puppet-kit production from a labor-intensive manual process into something that could scale. [44:25] Philanthropic support helped Feel Your Best Self move from small classroom experiments to professional video production, broader dissemination, and national reach. [46:25] The team explains why UConn licensed Feel Your Best Self to FYBS and Co. and how they balanced free access to the program with physical products and other services needed for continued growth. [49:23] The unexpected path from a grant-funded passion project to entrepreneurship and the learning curve that came with building a company. [50:25] Awards and media attention have helped expand the program’s reach, but some of its most meaningful impact comes from seeing educators, families, and communities adapt the resources in their own ways. [52:25] Reflections on how Feel Your Best Self changed the way UConn’s technology transfer office views social innovations, copyrights, and other projects that fall outside its traditional STEM portfolio. Resources:  AUTM Feel Your Best Self Dr. Sandy Chafouleas - UConn - Neag School of Education  Dr. Sandy Chafouleas - LinkedIn Emily Wicks - UConn - Ballard Institute and Museum Emily Wicks - LinkedIn Dr. Christopher Conners - UConn - Technology Commercialization Services Dr. Christopher Conners - LinkedIn

University research can produce ideas with enormous potential, but turning those discoveries into something that reaches the market is rarely straightforward. Funding is part of the equation, but so are timing, evidence, relationships, and the ability to connect promising technologies with the right partners. As research and investment become increasingly global, universities are also looking beyond their own regions and countries for the capital, expertise, and opportunities needed to move innovation forward. Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, and Stuart Wilkinson, CEO of Knowledge Exchange UK, join us to build on a recent Global Roundtable exploring why investors are increasingly looking to universities for new opportunities. Steve and Stuart bring perspectives from two different innovation ecosystems, but their discussion makes clear just how much overlap there is in the challenges universities face. They explore how different types of capital can support research at different stages, why early de-risking matters, and how the role of technology transfer is expanding beyond patents and licensing. We also dig into the importance of building investor relationships earlier, the growing flow of capital across borders, and the need for universities to think more broadly about impact rather than focusing only on licensing revenue. Steve and Stuart share examples from the U.S., UK, and other countries, while looking at what technology transfer professionals can learn from one another as commercialization becomes more collaborative, more international, and increasingly dependent on strong connections across the innovation ecosystem. In This Episode: [02:17] Steve Susalka and Stuart Wilkinson explain how the Global Roundtable grew from conversations about the similarities and differences between innovation ecosystems around the world. [03:41] The discussion examines whether university innovation faces a shortage of capital or a need for stronger evidence and de-risking to unlock existing investment. [08:44] International investment creates new opportunities for university startups, but outside funding can also pull companies and economic activity away from their home countries. [10:41] Different sources of capital, including venture funding, government support, philanthropy, and patient-focused organizations, serve different purposes throughout the commercialization process. [17:42] Funding models that prioritize societal impact can support important research areas that may not offer the financial returns traditional investors expect. [23:23] Technology transfer is evolving beyond patents and licensing as universities place greater emphasis on knowledge exchange and broader economic and societal impact. [29:50] De-risking requires more than funding, with expertise, talent, market knowledge, prototypes, and early validation all helping technologies move closer to commercialization. [36:10] Strong relationships, shared language, and trust between universities, investors, industry, and government become increasingly important as innovation operates across borders. [42:03] Universities can strengthen their connections to capital by investing strategically in early de-risking and building relationships with investors beyond their local ecosystems. [45:28] Differences in terminology, including the meanings of startups and spin-outs, demonstrate why a common language matters in an increasingly global innovation community. [55:14] Better data, shared expertise, and international collaboration can help universities demonstrate the impact of knowledge exchange and identify new opportunities for investment. [58:58] The conversation closes with a look at upcoming Global Roundtables and opportunities for continued collaboration across the international technology transfer community. Resources:  AUTM Why Global Capital is Betting on University Research Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM Steve Susalka - LinkedIn Knowledge Exchange UK Stuart Wilkinson - LinkedIn

Drug repurposing and reformulation can open new possibilities for therapies that already exist, but these projects come with commercialization challenges that can look very different from traditional drug development. Questions around patent protection, regulatory pathways, market exclusivity, and industry interest can all affect whether a promising opportunity ever makes it out of the university. Helping us explore this unique area of tech transfer is Michael Coyle, a licensing officer at Vanderbilt University’s Center for Technology Transfer and Commercialization. Mike manages more than 200 technology disclosures across roughly 45 therapeutic research programs, but his path into tech transfer began in the lab, where Parkinson’s disease research led him through NSF I-Corps, the launch of a startup, and eventually into licensing. That experience also helped inspire him to create AUTM’s Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG. We talk about what Mike learned moving from research and entrepreneurship into tech transfer, why repurposed drugs require a different commercialization approach, and how the new SIG is bringing people together to share experience and practical resources. We also discuss the growing interest in drug repurposing, what the SIG has learned from its members so far, and how greater participation from industry could help move more of these opportunities forward. In This Episode: [02:11] Michael Coyle shares how Parkinson’s disease research, NSF I-Corps, and the launch of a startup ultimately led him to a career in technology transfer. [05:12] Mike explains how I-Corps helped him understand the market, regulatory landscape, investor needs, and other commercialization considerations that researchers may not encounter in the lab. [08:10] Mike discusses the broad range of technologies he worked with at Binghamton University and why he developed a particular interest in small molecules and drug development. [11:28] Managing roughly 200 disclosures across 45 therapeutic programs may sound overwhelming, but Mike explains how Vanderbilt’s team structure and pipeline approach make that portfolio manageable. [14:20] Rather than marketing individual technologies, Mike often presents companies with an entire pipeline of related assets that can include multiple compounds, disclosures, and patents. [17:54] Mike describes how an AUTM mentorship experience and an unexpectedly strong response on the AUTM Discussion Board led to the creation of the Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG. [20:35] Mike defines drug repurposing and reformulation and explains why these projects present distinct regulatory, intellectual property, and commercialization considerations. [23:36] Growing federal, nonprofit, university, and investor interest is creating new momentum around drug repurposing, but understanding which opportunities have real commercial potential remains essential. [26:25] An early SIG survey revealed members with experience levels across the entire spectrum, reinforcing the need for both foundational education and more advanced discussions. [29:18] Mike explains how the SIG’s webinars, case studies, and other educational resources can help licensing professionals and researchers evaluate different repurposing strategies. [31:40] In addition to educational resources, SIG meetings give members an opportunity to discuss current projects and connect with others facing similar regulatory or commercialization challenges. [34:19] Looking ahead, Mike would like to see greater industry participation, stronger connections between members working on similar projects, and more opportunities for advocacy around drug repurposing. [35:32] Mike shares how AUTM members can join the Drug Repurposing and Reformulation SIG and become part of the growing community working to move these opportunities forward. Resources:  AUTM Michael Coyle - Vanderbilt University Michael Coyle - LinkedIn Michael Coyle - AUTM

Pneumococcal disease remains a serious global health threat, particularly for young children, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems. Developing effective vaccines has never been simple. The bacterium can produce roughly 100 different serotypes, each protected by its own sugar capsule, which means immunity against one strain may offer little protection against another. In this episode, we look at the science that changed how these vaccines are tested and the technology transfer strategy that helped those advances reach developers around the world. At the center of that story is Moon Nahm, M.D., an emeritus professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and one of the world’s leading authorities on pneumococcal vaccines. Born in Seoul shortly before the Korean War, Moon came to the United States as a teenager and went on to earn degrees in physics and medicine from Washington University in St. Louis. During more than two decades at UAB, he and his team characterized approximately 20 pneumococcal serotypes and developed the Multiplexed Opsonophagocytic Killing Assay, better known as MOPA. The assay is now a global standard for evaluating whether vaccine-generated antibodies can actually protect against disease. Joining him is Diptiman Chanda, Ph.D., a Senior Licensing Associate at UAB’s Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Diptiman brings more than 20 years of research experience spanning reproductive endocrinology, cancer therapies, and fibrotic lung disease. Since joining the Harbert Institute in 2021, he has helped manage the international licensing of Moon’s technologies, supporting a non-exclusive approach that has made MOPA strains and related tools available to pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and vaccine developers in low- and middle-income countries. We talk about the scientific breakthroughs behind more effective pneumococcal vaccines, why research tools can be just as valuable as patented inventions, and how more than 80 licenses helped turn one laboratory’s work into a worldwide public health resource. Moon also shares the story behind SunFire Biotechnologies, the company he founded to provide clinical-stage vaccine testing services, while Diptiman explains what this portfolio can teach other technology transfer offices about access, long-term thinking, and strong relationships with inventors. In This Episode: [04:35] Moon and Diptiman join the conversation, and Moon explains why the many protective “sugar coats” surrounding pneumococcal bacteria make vaccination so challenging. [07:15] The discovery of serotypes 6C and 6D revealed important gaps in vaccine coverage and changed how researchers approached vaccine design. [08:20] Conjugate vaccines connect the bacterial sugar coat to a protein, producing a stronger immune response in young children. [10:05] MOPA measures whether vaccine-generated antibodies can functionally destroy bacteria rather than simply counting how many antibodies are present. [12:40] Early skepticism gave way to worldwide adoption as researchers traveled to UAB to learn the assay, which eventually became a global standard. [14:30] A more accurate third-generation ELISA earned World Health Organization acceptance and helped establish UAB as a WHO reference laboratory. [16:15] Seeing vaccines developed with his assays gives Moon a personal sense of satisfaction, especially knowing that millions of people may benefit. [18:20] Diptiman describes how Moon’s scientific reputation and persistence became the foundation of UAB’s commercialization strategy. [19:35] Non-exclusive licensing allowed multiple companies to develop vaccines at the same time, expanding supply and improving access around the world. [22:45] Managing a global licensing portfolio creates new opportunities when vaccine developers need strains that have not yet been characterized. [24:15] A close working relationship keeps the science and licensing strategy aligned while allowing each person to focus on his area of expertise. [26:20] Making MOPA strains freely available through the NIH’s BEI Resources has supported academic research and vaccine development in lower-resource settings. [28:10] Training more than 100 researchers created an international support network that continued long after participants left the UAB laboratory. [30:40] The portfolio demonstrates the value of thinking long term, recognizing the importance of research tools, and using non-exclusive licenses strategically. [33:20] Research tools can retain significant value without traditional patent protection when their quality has been validated across laboratories over many years. [34:15] Moon explains how his childhood dream of using a successful company to support research eventually led to the creation of SunFire Biotechnologies. [35:45] SBIR funding gave the young company the equipment, staff, and financial foundation needed to accept larger vaccine-development projects. [38:00] UAB’s technology transfer office helped Moon navigate unfamiliar business, university, and state requirements during the transition from inventor to entrepreneur. [40:10] New university resources now connect faculty founders with experienced executives, fundraising guidance, laboratory space, and support for SBIR and STTR applications. [41:20] Affordable pneumococcal vaccines are already being produced for only a few dollars per dose, fulfilling a goal Moon once hoped to achieve. [43:10] Federal research funding and the Bayh-Dole Act helped turn discoveries from a university laboratory into licenses, jobs, companies, and widely available vaccines. [45:15] Curiosity continues to drive Moon’s research into the molecule responsible for producing the pneumococcal capsule and its potential as an antibiotic target. [46:10] Next-generation vaccines with broader strain coverage are creating continued demand for newly characterized strains and corresponding MOPA testing tools. [47:05] Moon encourages researchers to choose a major problem and pursue it like a North Star, while Diptiman stresses trust, communication, and understanding an inventor’s mission. Resources:  AUTM SunFire Biotechnologies Moon Nahm - UAB Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine Moon Nahm - LinkedIn Diptiman Chanda - UAB Bill L. Harbert Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Diptiman Chanda - LinkedIn

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to detect early, and that challenge leaves clinicians and patients facing uncertainty when pancreatic cysts are discovered during imaging for other health concerns. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we look at how a discovery from a Purdue University lab became the foundation for PanCystPro™, a diagnostic test developed by Amplified Sciences to help clinicians better distinguish between benign pancreatic cysts and those that may carry a higher risk of malignancy. Joining us are Diana Caldwell, CEO of Amplified Sciences, and Joseph Kasper, Assistant Director of Business Development and Licensing for Life Sciences at the Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization at the Purdue Research Foundation. Diana brings more than 25 years of life science leadership experience, including senior roles at Eli Lilly, co-founding and scaling Pearl Pathways before its acquisition by Versiti, and serving as an Entrepreneur in Residence at the Purdue Foundry. Joe works with Purdue’s life science technologies, helping evaluate commercial potential, identify licensing partners, negotiate agreements, support intellectual property strategy, and guide inventor-led startups through the Purdue Incubator. Together, Diana and Joe walk us through the journey from Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s research and the BioMatra™ platform to the creation of PanCystPro™, showing what it takes to move a promising university discovery toward real-world clinical impact. Their conversation offers a closer look at the science, the startup path, the role of technology transfer, and the ecosystem support needed to turn an academic innovation into a tool that could help improve decision-making for one of medicine’s most challenging cancers. In This Episode: [04:44] Diana Caldwell explains why pancreatic cancer is so difficult to detect early, including the lack of general screening guidelines and the challenge of identifying patients before the disease reaches later stages. [05:54] Diana describes pancreatic cystic lesions, why they can signal elevated risk, and how the comparison to colon polyps helps explain the clinical challenge. [08:36] Joseph Kasper discusses the Purdue origins of the technology, including Dr. V. Jo Davisson’s lab, the early intellectual property, and the reagent technology behind BioMatra™. [10:19] The conversation explores how Amplified Sciences joined forces with Purdue and how the platform’s ultra-sensitive dyes created opportunities for diagnostic innovation. [12:40] The discussion turns to how pancreatic cancer became the right first market, including UCSF collaborations and the need for better tools in pancreatic cyst risk stratification. [15:15] PanCystPro™ is explained as a tri-analyte test supported by the BioMatra™ platform, with discussion of the optical detection system and the importance of sensitivity and specificity. [19:24] The technology transfer journey is outlined, including Purdue’s IP strategy, early startup support, I-Corps resources, and the express license program. [22:14] Purdue’s institutional support, including Purdue Strategic Ventures, startup investment, and the credibility university backing can bring to an early-stage company. [24:14]How Purdue’s support has continued as Amplified Sciences has grown, from marketing assistance to the launch of a pivotal clinical utility study. [26:28] The potential patient impact of PanCystPro™ is discussed, including how it could help reduce uncertainty, avoid unnecessary procedures, and guide appropriate monitoring. [28:53] Indiana’s life sciences ecosystem and how university research can support broader economic development. [31:06] Amplified Sciences’ decision to grow in West Lafayette is discussed, including the importance of proximity to Purdue, wet labs, and scientific talent. [33:56] The value of Purdue’s research park ecosystem is explored, including shared resources, lab capabilities, collaborations, and access to scientific services. [36:26] The Purdue team’s role in supporting the PanCystPro™ journey is discussed, including IP protection and continued engagement as the company developed. [38:47] What makes Purdue Innovates helpful for startups, along with the challenges entrepreneurs can face when navigating a large academic institution. [40:54] The need for more flexible wet lab space, shared services, and lower barriers to entry for research-intensive startups is discussed. [42:35] Amplified Sciences’ next steps are outlined, including reimbursement, Medicare coverage, early access, and building a broader diagnostic pipeline beyond PanCystPro™. [44:09] The guests share final takeaways on what it takes to move a university discovery into real-world impact, emphasizing people, teamwork, risk-taking, and a strong innovation ecosystem. [47:12]How PanCystPro™ demonstrates the real-world value of technology transfer, university research, and experienced entrepreneurial leadership. Resources:  AUTM Amplified Sciences PanCystPro™ Diana Caldwell - Amplified Sciences Diana Caldwell - LinkedIn Joe Kasper - Purdue Innovates Joseph Kasper - LinkedIn PanCystPro™: A Breakthrough Test for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer Risk Vincent Jo Davisson, PhD - Amplified Sciences

The way the federal government supports scientific research could be headed for a significant shift. A new White House report, *Science: A New Golden Age*, lays out a different vision for federal research funding—one that places less emphasis on the traditional university-centered grant model and more on mission-driven research, commercialization, and fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, semiconductors, space, and robotics. For universities and technology transfer offices, those changes raise some big questions about research funding, peer review, indirect costs, and the infrastructure that supports moving discoveries from the lab into the marketplace.  Today, we are joined by Jeffrey Mervis, a veteran science policy reporter for Science who has spent more than three decades covering the intersection of science and government. His reporting has taken him across five continents, and since joining Science in 1993, he has closely followed federal research policy, science education, and the changing scientific workforce.  We talk with Jeff about what the White House report is actually proposing, why universities may have reason to pay close attention, and how ideas such as regranting and alternatives to traditional peer review could change the way federal research dollars are awarded. We also look at the push toward faster commercialization, the potential impact of cuts to grants and indirect-cost support, and what technology transfer professionals should be watching as agencies begin translating these priorities into budgets and funding decisions.  In This Episode: [01:49] Jeffrey Mervis explains the origins of Science: A New Golden Age, how it draws on Vannevar Bush’s landmark vision for postwar science, and why the report was released just before a House Science Committee hearing. [04:33] The timing of the report’s release and how it fits with executive orders and other actions the administration has already taken on research funding and universities are discussed. [07:24] The report’s call to prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions is examined, along with why separating researchers from the university infrastructure that supports their work may be difficult in practice. [10:28] The push to direct more federal funding toward grand challenges and mission-driven research rather than relying primarily on the traditional investigator-led grant model is explained. [13:41] The administration’s concerns about university indirect costs are discussed, along with why changing how research overhead is funded could have broad consequences for institutions. [16:56] The conversation explores how the administration could redirect existing research dollars toward its priorities even when Congress does not support the major budget cuts it has proposed. [19:53] The concept of regranting is explored, including how federal grant recipients could redistribute funding to individuals or organizations that may not have the infrastructure to compete directly for federal awards. [22:46] The risk that reduced indirect-cost support and changing funding models could place pressure on university laboratories, shared facilities, compliance operations, and technology transfer offices is discussed. [25:53] Concerns that changes to federal grantmaking could give political appointees greater influence over which research receives funding are examined. [28:59] The conversation explains how political oversight could affect the traditional peer-review process at multiple stages, from the initial screening of proposals through decisions to terminate grants that have already been awarded. [32:00] The administration’s emphasis on fields such as AI, quantum science, fusion, space, semiconductors, and robotics is discussed, along with what that shift could mean for institutions with large biomedical and life sciences portfolios. [35:28] The tension between accelerating technology development and commercialization and maintaining the long-term fundamental research that makes those advances possible is considered. [38:45] The conversation explains how priorities are likely to appear in the fiscal year 2028 budget process as federal agencies begin translating the administration’s broader vision into funding requests. [41:32] Proposals involving national laboratories, industry partnerships, SBIR, and STTR are discussed, including whether those changes are likely to significantly alter how university technology transfer offices operate. [43:55] University funding, grant levels, and indirect-cost support are identified as the issues technology transfer professionals should watch most closely over the coming months. [45:11] The episode closes with where technology transfer and research professionals should look for signs of what comes next, including agency solicitations, funding announcements, and changes involving cost sharing. Resources:  AUTM Jeffrey Mervis - Science Jeffrey Mervis - LinkedIn White House Report Calls For Big Changes To ‘Calcified’ U.S. Science System Trump Adviser’s Golden Age Report On U.S. Science Is A Missed Opportunity, Critics Say Science a New Golden Age - White House Report Ushering in a New Golden Age of American Innovation: Fiscal Year 2028 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities Unleashing the Golden Age of Science: Examining the Priorities of the FY2027 Research and Technology Enterprise

Plant discoveries can be some of the trickiest inventions for a technology transfer office to manage. A new variety may come out of years of breeding work, field trials, university research, or newer tools like CRISPR, but the protection strategy is not always obvious. Depending on the plant, the market, and how it will be commercialized, a TTO may need to think about utility patents, plant patents, Plant Variety Protection certificates, contracts, international rights, and the practical realities of working with breeders and licensees. Today, we explore what every TTO needs to know about plant IP with Heidi Sease Nebel, a Member and Chairperson of the Biotechnology/Chemical Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC in Des Moines, Iowa. Heidi is an intellectual property attorney with more than 30 years of experience obtaining patents and developing IP strategies in biotechnology, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, with deep expertise in plant-related intellectual property. Her work has supported more than 30 universities and research institutions, as well as Fortune 500 companies around the world. Heidi brings a rare perspective shaped by some of the most important developments in plant IP law, including her involvement in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., which confirmed the availability of utility patent protection for plant varieties. She has also served on the USDA Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board, as Vice Chair of the USPTO Patent Public Advisory Committee, and as a member of CIOPORA, and more. She is a longtime AUTM contributor, a 2022 Iowa Biotechnology Association Biotech Leader Award recipient, AV Preeminent® rated by LexisNexis/Martindale-Hubbell, and has been recognized for multiple consecutive years by IAM Patent 1000 for her top-tier patent expertise. We discuss the practical issues that make plant IP different from many other university technologies. We also talk about how CRISPR and gene editing affect patent strategy, why TTOs need to be careful with AI tools and public databases, and why it is so important to protect the actual product that will reach the market, whether that is a seed, plant, fruit, or trait-bearing variety. We also walk through licensing, enforcement, MTAs, international protection, and the relationship-building that needs to happen with plant breeders long before a variety is ready for release. In This Episode: [04:42] Heidi Sease Nebel explains the main forms of plant IP protection in the U.S., including utility patents, plant patents, and Plant Variety Protection certificates. [07:18] Why utility patents often provide broader protection for plant varieties, and when a university might consider additional forms of protection. [10:36] The J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred case and how it confirmed utility patent protection for traditionally bred plant varieties. [13:42] How the 2018 Farm Bill expanded PVP protection to asexually reproduced plants, hemp, and cannabis. [16:45] International plant protection, UPOV, plant breeders’ rights, and the importance of tracking first-sale dates. [19:55] Why experienced foreign counsel matters when pursuing plant protection outside the United States. [20:34] CRISPR and gene editing strategy, including the need to claim the actual commercial product rather than only the molecular invention. [22:45] The CRISPR patent pool created by Pioneer/Corteva and how it can help universities address licensing obligations. [24:02] AI in plant breeding, potential public disclosure risks, and why TTOs should ask more specific questions about tools like ChatGPT and BLAST. [27:00] Licensing challenges unique to plants, including saved seed, breeding rights, sequencing, genetic modification, and downstream ownership. [28:49] Royalty structures for plant varieties and how the role of a parent line or asexually reproduced plant can affect licensing terms. [31:16] Enforcement strategies, including sequencing, third-party storage, chain of custody, private investigators, and sampling licensee offerings. [33:06] The role of the Seed Innovation Protection Alliance and how it can support TTOs with audits, tips, and enforcement concerns. [34:47] Building relationships with plant breeders, keeping assignments current, and avoiding disclosure issues during field days. [36:20] Material transfer agreements, germplasm sharing, and the cultural shift from informal seed exchange to stronger protection strategies. [39:03] Enablement trends in biotech case law and how they may affect patent claims involving genetically modified plants. [40:42] Section 101 patent eligibility concerns, naturally occurring traits, and how breeders can create patentable commercial varieties from wild plant material. [43:25] Europe’s approach to plant patents, essentially biological processes, and the strategic considerations around the Unified Patent Court. [45:38] Emerging issues Heidi is watching, including future PVP litigation, enforcement standards, and questions around seed deposits. [48:26] Why plant IP protection can encourage investment while still allowing breeding under plant breeders’ rights systems. [49:34] AUTM’s growing plant IP community, experienced university resources, and organizations that can help TTOs learn more. [51:10] Final takeaways on plant IP strategy, CRISPR, licensing, enforcement, and the importance of talking with plant breeders early. Resources:  AUTM Heidi Sease Nebel - McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC  Heidi Nebel - LinkedIn J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

It might seem like a leap to connect ant colonies with technology transfer, but the connection is closer than it sounds. Ant colonies operate without a boss, a formal plan, or anyone directing traffic, yet they still find food, protect the colony, respond to threats, and adjust when conditions change. For anyone working in research commercialization, where progress often depends on many people and institutions moving in the same direction without anyone controlling the whole system, that’s a fascinating place to begin. My guest is Deborah M. Gordon, Professor of Biology at Stanford University and one of the world’s leading experts on collective behavior. Deborah has spent decades studying how ant colonies operate across very different environments, from harvester ants in the desert Southwest to arboreal turtle ants in the tropical forests of Mexico and invasive Argentine ants in Northern California. She is also the author of Ants at Work, Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior, and The Ecology of Collective Behavior. In this conversation, Deborah explains how simple interactions between ants can add up to surprisingly sophisticated group behavior. She also talks about what changes when a colony is dealing with desert heat, a crowded forest canopy, a blocked trail, or a changing climate. This conversation focuses on the question of how complex systems keep moving, adapting, and solving problems when no single person is in charge? In This Episode: [03:27] Deborah explains collective behavior as a process that operates without central control, using examples like bird murmurations, fish schools, brains, and ant colonies. [04:36] Complex group behavior emerges through distributed interactions rather than individual direction, which makes natural systems redundant, adaptable, and surprisingly effective. [05:50] The ecology of collective behavior shows how systems evolve in response to changing environments, from predators in the sky to shifting conditions on the ground. [06:45] Ant colonies coordinate largely through smell, with pheromones and cuticular hydrocarbons helping ants respond to the rate and pattern of contact with one another. [08:15] Deborah’s long-term study of harvester ants reveals that colonies can live 20 to 30 years, with the queen producing generations of workers over the colony’s lifetime. [10:14] Harvester ants in the desert and turtle ants in tropical forests show how very different environments shape very different forms of collective behavior. [13:15] Working across biology, mathematics, ecology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience helps Deborah understand ant behavior in ways that a single discipline could not fully explain. [14:16] The strongest parallels between ant colonies and human systems come from zooming out to look at how networks operate rather than focusing only on individual identity. [15:40] Ant task allocation prioritizes redundancy and resiliency, allowing one individual to step into another role when conditions change or a crisis occurs. [17:15] Turtle ants respond quickly to disruption by using local search within a dense network, while harvester ants may shut down and wait when the cost of adapting is too high. [18:54] Network structure matters because modular systems can respond quickly to local changes, while centralized systems may be more thorough but slower to act. [20:23] Research on collective movement in insects, birds, and fish has influenced technologies such as drone swarms and other distributed systems. [21:05] Deborah distinguishes ant colonies from AI systems by noting that no one programs an ant colony, even when its behavior appears complex or difficult to trace. [21:46] Comparisons between brains and ant colonies show that networks of simple interactions can be organized in many different ways to produce very different outcomes. [22:33] Universities are facing a difficult period of uncertainty as students, faculty, and researchers try to predict what kinds of work and support will remain available. [23:14] Climate change has become a central concern in Deborah’s harvester ant research as the desert grows hotter and drier faster than evolutionary adaptation may allow. [23:26] The water stress facing harvester ants mirrors larger human challenges, especially in the Southwest where rivers, climate, and resource sharing are under growing pressure. [24:56] Deborah recommends her TED Talk and Ant Encounters as good starting points for listeners who want to learn more about collective behavior. Resources:  AUTM Deborah M. Gordon - Stanford Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior  The Ecology of Collective Behavior Ants At Work: How An Insect Society Is Organized Inside The Ant Colony What Ants Teach Us About The Brain, Cancer And The Internet The Emergent Genius Of Ant Colonies

Training the next generation of technology transfer and commercialization leaders requires more than exposure to the field. It also means helping researchers think earlier about the real-world impact of their work, the communities they hope to serve, and the pathways that can move an idea beyond the university. At the University of Kentucky, Kendra Hargis-Stenzel has built practical, structured programs designed to bring those pieces together. Kendra is the Director of Innovation Talent Development at the University of Kentucky, where she works within UK Innovate and its Launch Blue initiative. Her mission is to develop the next generation of innovation, commercialization, and entrepreneurial leaders by providing educational and experiential training opportunities that complement students’ current studies. She also works directly with researchers on campus to help them frame their research outcomes in ways that can ultimately impact the populations they seek to serve. Kendra brings a deep, hands-on understanding of the full commercialization pipeline. She has served as a Commercialization Manager for Medical Devices, managed the XOR Program for XLerateNetwork, and served as Project Manager for KYNETIC, the Kentucky Network for Innovation and Commercialization. She also holds a bachelor’s degree in forensic science from Eastern Kentucky University, a Ph.D. in pharmacology, and an MBA with a concentration in entrepreneurship from the University of Kentucky.  In this episode, Kendra shares how her own non-linear career path shaped her work, how the Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program and Innovation Training Micro-Certification help students and researchers build real-world innovation skills, and why universities need to introduce impact, translation, and commercialization thinking much earlier in the academic experience. In This Episode: [04:21] Kendra Hargis-Stenzel shares her non-linear path from forensic science to graduate research, a postdoctoral fellowship in the Technology Transfer Office, and eventually work focused on commercialization, translation, and impact. [07:46] Graduate training exposed Kendra to careers beyond academia, but she saw a gap in helping students understand how to network, communicate their value, and meaningfully engage in opportunities outside the lab. [10:05] CILP, the Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program, gives undergraduate students hands-on experience with real university innovations through projects tied to market research, licensing, stakeholder mapping, and commercialization. [13:18] The ambassador tracks allow students to apply shared foundational learning in different areas, including social innovation, deep tech commercialization, faculty-driven research, and startup support through Invest Blue. [16:05] A typical ambassador week involves real innovation-focused work, giving students experience with ambiguity, ownership, communication, stakeholder engagement, and transferable professional skills. [18:24] The Innovation Training Micro-Certification was created to help faculty, students, and researchers understand how research moves from idea to impact through innovation, commercialization, and entrepreneurship. [20:03] Kendra explains the distinction between lowercase “i” impact and capital “I” Impact, encouraging researchers to think about long-term benefit for the populations and communities their work is meant to serve. [22:05] Social innovation broadens the commercialization conversation by helping community-focused researchers recognize themselves as innovators and understand how tech transfer can support sustainability and long-term impact. [24:16] The entrepreneurship theme helps researchers think through stakeholder engagement, entrepreneurial ecosystems, funding sources, and how to communicate commercialization or sustainability strategies in grants. [26:43] The micro-certification was intentionally designed as a compact on-ramp, using short modules, reflection prompts, and scenarios to help learners apply innovation concepts without overwhelming them. [29:38] The micro-certification complements CILP by giving students a shared foundation and common language before they begin hands-on innovation and commercialization projects. [32:17] Kendra describes the “aha moment” when researchers begin seeing their work as something that could be used beyond the lab, not just studied. [34:56] Institutions interested in building similar programs should begin by identifying the problem they are trying to solve and considering how a scalable framework could support culture change and earlier engagement. [36:58] Time and attention have been major challenges, making it important to embed innovation training into existing experiences and clearly demonstrate its value to students, faculty, and partners. [38:03] Future plans include expanding the micro-certification through external partnerships, licensing opportunities, and more intentional integration into academic experiences such as capstone courses and undergraduate research. [40:03] Kendra believes universities should introduce innovation, impact, translation, and stakeholder thinking much earlier so translational awareness becomes part of the academic culture. [41:02] For students and early-career professionals interested in technology transfer or innovation, Kendra recommends starting with curiosity, asking questions, attending events, and looking for small ways to get involved. Resources:  AUTM Kendra Hargis-Stenzel - University of Kentucky Kendra Hargis-Stenzel - LinkedIn Commercialization and Innovation Leadership Program Innovation Training Micro-Certification

Biopharma commercialization has always required more than a promising discovery. It takes the right team, the right timing, and often, the right kind of capital to move an idea from the university lab toward patients. My guest is Ruben Flores-Saaib, PhD, Senior Director of Investments and Business Development at Ligand Pharmaceuticals, a publicly traded biopharma company with a broad portfolio of partnered programs and approved medications. Ruben brings a rare perspective to this conversation because he has worked inside university tech transfer offices, life science companies, new company formation, and now the investment side of the industry. We talk about Ligand’s evolution from a traditional drug development company into one of the largest biopharmaceutical royalty financiers in the industry, and what that shift means for companies, universities, inventors, and tech transfer offices. Ruben explains how Ligand evaluates opportunities, why the company focuses on programs that address high unmet medical needs, and how non-dilutive capital can sometimes help late-stage biopharma programs move closer to approval and commercialization. He also shares what his time in university tech transfer taught him about the challenges of bringing academic innovation into the market. For tech transfer professionals, this is a practical look at how investment, commercialization strategy, and university innovation can intersect. Ruben talks through what makes a program a potential fit for Ligand, what universities should think about before exploring a royalty-based transaction, and why these conversations are really about matching capital needs with the right asset at the right stage. It’s a useful discussion for anyone thinking about how promising discoveries move beyond the institution and into the hands of companies, investors, and ultimately, patients. In This Episode: [04:24] Ruben Flores-Saaib explains how curiosity and a desire to add value have guided his career across industry, university tech transfer, and investment. [06:26] Time inside university tech transfer helped shape his understanding of how academic innovation moves through complex, sometimes inefficient commercialization pathways. [09:46] Ligand’s shift from traditional drug development to a royalty aggregator model created a more diversified portfolio with multiple shots on goal. [11:00] Royalty finance works by providing non-dilutive capital to late-stage biopharma companies in exchange for future royalties once products reach the market. [13:58] Programs that address highly unmet medical needs are especially attractive because they may have stronger clinical, regulatory, and commercial potential. [15:59] Ligand’s portfolio includes more than 100 partnered commercial and development-stage programs, with approved medications across several therapeutic areas. [18:56] A patient-centered investment lens is both a philosophical commitment and a business strategy, since meaningful therapies may face fewer commercial and reimbursement headwinds. [19:53] Ligand’s Captisol platform supports drug formulation and delivery, helping partners address solubility and bioavailability challenges across multiple approved products. [22:11] Capital can be provided directly to universities or academic centers in exchange for future royalty income, depending on the institution’s needs and the asset involved. [25:36] Inventors may also be part of royalty financing conversations, but Ruben emphasizes that these discussions should happen through the proper tech transfer channels. [26:03] The best first conversation starts with a clear look at the university’s licensed technologies, their development stage, and whether they address highly unmet needs. [28:15] Non-dilutive royalty capital can help late-stage licensees reach the finish line while potentially increasing future royalty returns for the academic institution. [30:06] One misconception is that royalty aggregators simply want to take a university’s best asset, when Ligand is also taking on substantial pre-approval risk. [32:11] Waiting until approval may lead to a better deal, but that choice comes with the major risk that the product may never make it through approval at all. [33:02] Royalty financing is gaining visibility as companies look for capital options beyond traditional venture funding and equity markets. [35:20] Ligand invests across royalty finance, M&A, project finance, and platform technology acquisitions while keeping a broad view across therapeutic areas. [37:15] Oncology, inflammatory disease, cardiology, pulmonary, kidney, and other areas continue to present opportunities where innovative treatments may meet major patient needs. [38:29] Ligand plans to keep focusing on new therapies that fill unmet medical needs, especially pre-approval investments under $100 million. [39:02] Researchers, inventors, and tech transfer professionals are encouraged to reach out if they have questions or potential programs that may fit Ligand’s model. Resources:  AUTM Fall 2025 Connect and Collaborate Ligand Ruben Flores-Saaib - Ligand Rubén Darío Flores Saaib - LinkedIn Ligand Pharmaceuticals Royalty Portfolio

A breakthrough can happen in one lab, but its real value depends on what happens next. How does a new technology move beyond its point of origin, reach the people and industries that can use it, and eventually become part of everyday life? The World Intellectual Property Organization’s “World Intellectual Property Report 2026: Technology on the Move” takes a wide-ranging look at those questions, drawing on 250 years of technological history and five decades of patent data to explore why some innovations spread rapidly while others take years, or even decades, to gain traction. Joining us are Julio D. Raffo and Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento, two members of the WIPO team behind the report and returning guests to AUTM on the Air. Julio is Head of the Innovation Economy Section in WIPO’s Department of Economics and Data Analytics in Geneva, where he led the team that prepared the 2026 report. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Université de Paris Nord and has conducted research at institutions including the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, the Institut Français des Relations Internationales, and the Pan American Health Organization. His work focuses on innovation, intellectual property, and development, and he has helped expand WIPO’s patent and innovation analytics capabilities. Intan is a Senior Economist in the same department and has contributed to the World Intellectual Property Report since its inaugural edition in 2011. She earned her doctoral degree in Economics of Innovation from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and holds advanced degrees in international economics and international law and economics. Before joining WIPO, she worked at the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. With more than 15 years of experience in innovation economics and international trade, her work has placed particular emphasis on intellectual property and less developed economies. In this conversation, we look at the difference between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers, and why those distinctions matter for anyone working to move research into the marketplace. We also talk about the role of patents as both a source of protection and a global repository of technical knowledge, the growing speed of international knowledge flows, and the challenges of bringing deep-tech discoveries from basic science to practical use. From agriculture and digital technology to absorptive capacity, leapfrogging, and public policy, the discussion offers a broader view of what it takes for innovation not only to travel, but to take hold and create lasting value. In This Episode: [04:20] We discuss why technology diffusion became the focus of the 2026 report and why widespread adoption matters. [08:02] The conversation breaks down the differences between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers. [11:16] Incorporated technologies can improve productivity even when users do not understand the science behind them. [13:31] Knowledge spillovers show how proximity, professional relationships, and informal exchanges help ideas spread. [16:49] The type of technology, available infrastructure, cost, regulation, and local adaptation all influence adoption. [21:06] A comparison between older inventions and digital tools reveals how dramatically the pace of technology adoption has accelerated. [24:15] Adoption lags and intensity of use help explain why first use does not always lead to widespread economic impact. [27:40] Intellectual property supports innovation incentives while also encouraging access to knowledge and technology. [31:00] Advances in patent databases and AI translation demonstrate how technology is accelerating access to information. [33:32] Patent repositories help innovators identify solutions, potential partners, and new pathways to technology access. [36:14] We examine how intellectual property policy can support diffusion without weakening incentives to innovate. [40:47] Different economies need intellectual property systems and innovation strategies suited to their capabilities. [43:40] Patent citations provide a way to trace technological knowledge as it moves across borders. [47:37] Strong innovation ecosystems tend to contribute more knowledge while also capturing more value from it. [49:30] Deep-tech discoveries often require a much longer journey from scientific research to practical application. [52:23] Key lessons for technology transfer offices include the need to balance speed, competition, patience, and long-term support. [56:16] Technology transfer offices can strengthen absorptive capacity by connecting university knowledge with industry needs. [58:02] Smart specialization aligns institutional strengths with industry opportunities, public policy, and available financing. [01:00:54] Leapfrogging can create opportunities when newer technologies bypass missing or outdated infrastructure. [01:04:28] We weigh the risks of ambitious technological jumps against the value of building from existing capabilities. [01:06:50] Repurposing technology can uncover new markets and practical uses beyond its original purpose. [01:07:45] Deliberate policy action can help firms and regions absorb technology and turn it into broader economic impact. [01:10:39] The discussion considers the promise of faster global adoption alongside concerns about concentrated innovation capacity. [01:13:18] Policymakers face the challenge of spreading the benefits of innovation more evenly across countries and regions. [01:14:10] The episode closes with resources for exploring the report, its interactive data, and future WIPO research.  Resources:  AUTM WIPO World Intellectual Property Report 2026 WIPO Intellectual Property Resources Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento - LinkedIn Julio D. Raffo - LinkedIn

University IP strategy can look straightforward from the outside. Protect the invention, manage the policy, move the technology toward the market. But anyone working inside a tech transfer office knows the process is rarely that simple. Faculty inventors, licensing teams, university leaders, outside counsel, and industry partners may all be working toward the same broad goal, but they often come into the conversation with very different expectations. That is where communication becomes more than a soft skill. It becomes part of the strategy itself. My guest is Stephen Hall, intellectual property team lead at Bricker Graydon Wyatt in Louisville, Kentucky. Stephen brings a rare blend of experience to this discussion. He began his career as an R&D chemist, spent 12 years handling medical malpractice and civil defense litigation, and later transitioned into patent, trade secret, and contract law. Today, he works with universities, companies, and independent innovators across fields including biotechnology, therapeutics, solar energy, catalysts, chemical sampling, healthcare, software, and more. He also advises universities on IP policy and best practices, serves as an adjunct MBA professor at the University of Louisville, and is a certified coach trained through the International Coaching Federation. That background gives Stephen a practical way of looking at the human side of technology transfer. We talk about what litigation taught him about telling a clear story, why faculty disclosures can create mismatched expectations from the very beginning, and how coaching skills have shaped the way he listens, asks questions, and helps clients see the larger picture. He also shares thoughtful guidance on making IP policies easier to understand, approaching AI-related inventorship questions with care, and building more meaningful engagement across the university innovation ecosystem. In This Episode: [05:32] Stephen Hall reflects on the patience involved in moving from medical malpractice litigation into patent law and how some career paths only make sense in hindsight. [06:42] His litigation background taught him the importance of giving every story a clear beginning, middle, and end, especially when presenting complex information to an audience. [08:31] Working with universities, corporations, startups, and independent inventors has shown Stephen how important it is to understand each stakeholder’s accountability and perspective. [10:20] One of the biggest communication gaps in university IP strategy comes from mismatched expectations between faculty inventors and tech transfer professionals. [11:30] Kentucky Commercialization Ventures offers an example of how universities can approach IP policy as an ongoing process rather than a one-time document rollout. [13:26] Tech transfer offices have to make IP policy make sense, especially when faculty awareness and engagement around policy expectations may be limited. [14:30] Stephen explains why effective IP communication starts with understanding the audience’s knowledge, experience, and level of interest. [16:00] Innovation stories become more compelling when they connect the technical idea to a personal experience, an unmet need, or something hiding in plain sight. [17:33] The conversation turns to university IP policies and why they can be sensitive because they touch academic freedom, faculty incentives, institutional values, and revenue expectations. [19:54] Stephen shares his framework that people are wired for structure, crave clarity, and need action to bring the process together. [21:00] Case examples such as Felana v. Kent State and Stanford v. Roche show how IP policy and assignment issues can create real consequences for universities. [22:15] Storytelling can reduce friction around IP policy by reframing it as a practical tool that helps people move forward, rather than simply a list of rules. [23:25] Stephen explains how the “expert’s paradox” led him toward coaching, especially as he thought about helping highly trained innovators communicate more clearly. [24:54] Coaching principles help Stephen facilitate better conversations by encouraging clients and stakeholders to generate their own insights. [26:00] The generation effect explains why people are more likely to act on ideas they come up with themselves rather than ideas simply handed to them. [26:55] Active listening means paying attention not only to what people say, but also to what is left unsaid. [28:12] Stakeholder alignment often starts by recognizing where people already agree before spending focused time on the areas where they differ. [30:00] Stephen shares an example of slowing down, asking more questions, and completing the picture before giving legal advice. [33:39] In his MBA teaching, Stephen helps future business leaders understand the difference between patentability before a patent is granted and infringement after a patent exists. [35:51] Teaching has sharpened Stephen’s ability to explain patent law by connecting unfamiliar concepts to ideas his students already understand. [36:45] Artificial intelligence presents both challenges and opportunities for university TTOs, especially as machine learning continues to influence research and invention. [39:17] Stephen cautions that inventors and institutions should be careful with anything AI generates, particularly when records could become relevant in future litigation. [40:53] AI-related discovery could add significant cost and complexity to litigation, even when the underlying inventorship or patentability arguments are still unsettled. [41:49] A simple way to improve meetings is to ask what one thing would make the conversation successful for the other person. [43:47] Stephen’s closing advice is that involvement leads to engagement, especially when faculty are invited into the IP process in meaningful ways. [45:37] Bringing faculty into policy conversations, presentations, or patent-related storytelling can create stronger engagement and professional development opportunities. [46:30] Reinforcing that strong IP strategy depends not only on patents and policies, but on aligning people around a shared vision. Resources:  AUTM Stephen C. Hall - Bricker Graydon, Wyatt Stephen Hall - LinkedIn Bricker Graydon Wyatt International Coaching Federation Kentucky Commercialization Ventures