The Review

The

Review

SIR ALAN LANGLANDS:Spending cuts, impactagenda, blue skiesresearch, TICs and more.

SUCCESS MEASURES:Recognising the successstories from award winnersto spin-outs.

A NEW WORLD:Does knowledge transferneed re-invention?

RESEARCH COMMERCIALISATIONIS CHANGING. ARE YOU READY?

Contents

A word from the Chair 2

The Impact Awards ’10 3

Guest article, Sir Alan 6Langlands

Technology transfer 8culture

Measures of success 10

Easy access IP 13

A (brave) new world 14

Comment from the 16sidelines

Annual Report 19

PraxisUnico thanks all contributors to The Reviewwho have been willing to share their insights.

PublisherPraxisUnico

Designwww.cantellday.co.uk

EditorialContent editor: Lee Willmott, CommunicationsOfficer, PraxisUnico, T +44 (0) 1223 659952

Freelance editorial provided by Leila Sattary(www.leilasattary.com)

All materials in The Review, including but notlimited to text, data, designs, logos, illustrations,still images, are protected by copyright, designrights, database rights, trademarks and otherintellectual property and proprietary rights.

The materials in The Review are either ownedby PraxisUnico or have been permitted by theowners to be included in the publication.PraxisUnico has made all reasonable efforts toensure that the reproduction of all content inthis publication is done with the full consent of copyright owners.

PraxisUnicoHauser Forum3 Charles Babbage RoadCambridge, CB3 OGT

T +44 (0) 1223 659950F +44 (0) 1223 358366E [email protected]

©2011 PraxisUnico. All rights reserved.

PraxisUnico is a trading name of Praxis Courses LtdRegistered office: Praxis Courses Ltd, St John’s InnovationCentre, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS.

Credits and thanks

PraxisUnico encourages innovation

and acts as a voice for the research

commercialisation profession, facilitating

the interaction between the public sector

research base, business and government.

PraxisUnico provides a forum for best practice

exchange, underpinned by first-class training

and development programmes.

As the UK’s leading organisation for

commercialisation professionals, we work

collaboratively with a range of international

stakeholders and organisations to:

share best practice in innovation

management and training

facilitate the transfer of knowledge across

borders and boundaries.

For more information visit:

www.praxisunico.org.uk

PraxisUnico is an educational not-for-profit organisation set up to supportinnovation and commercialisation of public sector and charity researchfor social and economic impact.

2600 commercialisation

professionals are PraxisUnico

members – representing more

than 113 universities and public

sector research establishments;

and 51 firms of lawyers, patent

agents, venture capitalists and

other professionals

PraxisUnico has trained more than

2200 commercialisation professionals

in the UK (reaching 88% of UK

universities) and overseas

The UK’s most experienced

commercialisation directors work

on a voluntary basis to develop

PraxisUnico training and conference

programmes, working with 200

expert volunteers speakers to

deliver a relevant and topical

annual schedule

Welcome to The Review. The articles and featureswithin this publication are just a small but importanttestament to the impact achieved by the knowledgeand technology transfer community, for the widerbenefit of society and the economy.

A word from the Chair

HEFCE’s indicative HEIF (Higher EducationInnovation Fund) allocations 2011-2015 will have allayed the fears of somePraxisUnico members in England but will haveundoubtedly caused others to re-evaluatetheir position. Quite rightly budgets are beingscrutinised by those driving the institutionalmission and beyond, but this scrutiny shouldnot impede imaginative use of funding whereit stimulates innovation.

It is imperative that, as well as providing astrong focus on realising commercial valuefrom intellectual property, the knowledge andtechnology transfer sector is able to exhibitvalue to society and the environment in areaswhere the tangible outcomes to universitiesor researchers are either unlikely, some way

off or difficult to quantify. The Review showcasesexamples, airs issues and voices opinion – andwe hope The Review provokes thought anddebate – in a period of transition and changeacross the knowledge transfer sector.

Dr Phil ClarePraxisUnico Chairman and AssociateDirector, Research Services, University of Oxford

The Impact Awards ‘10 – one year on

The Impact Awards is PraxisUnico’s award programme to recognise and celebratethe success of knowledge transfer. We caught up with the 2010 award winners tofind out how they, and their projects, are developing.

Winner of Business Impact –Achieved

Queen Mary Innovation Ltd, Queen Mary, University of London for ApaTech

ApaTech spun out of Queen Mary, Universityof London in 2001 following research toengineer the optimum structure and chemistryfor safe, effective bone graft material. ApaTechhad operations in the UK, US and Germanyand was a world leader in bone grafttechnologies, selling its products in 30 countriesacross the world. In 2009, they generated global

sales of $60 million. ApaTech received muchrecognition and many accolades including beingranked number two in the Sunday Times TechTrack 100 Fastest Growing Private MedicalTechnology Companies 2009.

Where are they now?In 2010, ApaTech was bought by BaxterInternational for a total consideration of up to$330 million including a $240 million upfrontcash payment. The sale of the company wasone of the largest ever cash transactions for a UK technology spin-out. The acquisitionfollowed a number of successful venture capital investment rounds which underpinnednew manufacturing capacity and enabled thedevelopment of the company’s leading products.

Winner of Business Impact –Aspiring

Imperial Innovations, ImperialCollege London for Circassia

Circassia, an Imperial Innovations portfoliocompany, was developing treatments forcommon allergies including cats, house dustmites and ragweed. They had raised £32.6million to develop their novel allergytherapeutics and were achieving positiveresults in Phase II clinical trials.

Where are they now?Circassia has now raised an additional £60 million in fundraising – one of the biggestfundraising efforts for a privately held Europeanbiotech company for more than 15 years. Inone short year, it has made major progresswith a number of clinical trials. Most recently,the conclusions of Phase II clinical trials on cat,house dust mite and ragweed therapeutics allshowed positive results. The new funding isgoing towards the final Phase III clinical trials fortheir cat and ragweed allergy therapeutics, andcompletion of the Phase II studies with theirhouse dust mite and grass allergy products.

Expanding up and outCircassia is continuing to work on targets fromearly stage clinical studies all the way throughto Phase III. It has also expanded into the fieldof autoimmunity, with newly acquired topicalskin treatment for psoriasis, PAP-1.

The Review The Review

2 3

Winner of EnvironmentalImpact

University of Stirling for BumblebeeConservation Trust

The Bumblebee Conservation Trust, whichgrew out of the University of Stirling, is amembership-based environmental charity. It aims to translate knowledge into informedaction to prevent further extinctions ofbumblebees. The trust had played a pivotalrole in increasing public awareness of theimportance of bees in our ecosystem andfood production.

Where are they now?The trust has now expanded to 7,500members and has been involved with thecreation of 1,250 hectares of bee habitats in

targeted locations across the UK to protectthe most threatened bee species.

A-buzz about countingWhile some bumblebee species aredisappearing, there is no solid evidence toshow that common bees are declining. For thefirst time in history, bees are now beingcounted regularly to establish populationtrends, thanks to the Bumblebee ConservationTrust. Last year Beewalks was launched – aprogramme encouraging members of thepublic to count bees on a regular walkingroute throughout the year. While the numberof bees spotted over the space of a year isbound to vary by season, after a few years theBumblebee Conservation Trust will havecreated the first data set on bee populationdynamics in the UK. This information will bepowerful and location specific, and it hopeswill transform our understanding of why beesseem to be disappearing across the world.

Winner of Public Policy andService Impact

Robert Gordon University forCounterweight

The Counterweight programme is anintervention programme for obesitymanagement, which spun out of RobertGordon University in Aberdeen in 2009. The group had translated academic researchinto a programme of obesity managementtools, which had brought clinical benefits andcost savings to the NHS by reducingprescribing costs.

Where are they now?In 2011 the Counterweight programme hascontinued to grow and expand. Counterweighthas been delivered via the NHS to over11,000 people across the UK – a two-foldincrease on 2010. Patients achieve consistentweight loss and as the evidence grows theprogramme is being introduced across the UK.

Sustained knowledge transferWhile the main Counterweight programmecarries on expanding, the academic work of Counterweight is also developing to inform new obesity tools for the NHS. The NHS is piloting new initiatives includingthe Counterweight Families Programme,which provides a structured and innovativewhole family approach to weightmanagement. Also for the morbidly obese(BMI over 40), a Counterweight low-calorieliquid diet is currently in the first stages oftesting on a small group of NHS patients.


4 5

From health impact to commercialisationIn May, Counterweight became a commercialcompany. While the academic stream willremain an important part of Counterweightthrough the relationship with Robert GordonUniversity, the new company will be retailingtheir proven weight management tools.Developing the company to work in acommercial weight loss setting will bechallenging, but Counterweight believes thatthe public will be attracted to fully testedproducts which are used by the NHS. The Counterweight Company has alreadyattained contracts with pharmacy chains to selldirect to the public and forge agreements withprivate healthcare and national occupationalhealth groups.

Joint winner of the Newcomerof the Year

Dr George Rice

Dr Rice’s knowledge transfer initiativesresulted in step-change improvements incommercialisation of individual technologiesand general engagement with the Universityof Nottingham. By working closely with theengineering and physical sciences researchbase, Dr Rice pulled together a wide range of state-of-the-art inventions and innovationsas exhibits for the University of NottinghamTechnology Demonstrator.

Where are they now?Over the last year the TechnologyDemonstrator has grown from an experimentalproject into a professional showroom tocommunicate the impact of the University of Nottingham’s technologies. The TechnologyDemonstrator has been rebuilt to retail quality,and professionally designed into an innovation‘headquarters’. Satellite exhibits have beenconstructed in the academic departments,which have continued to embed an innovationculture at Nottingham and help communicateresearch activities across the University. TheTechnology Demonstrator is now a must-seefor all visitors to the University of Nottinghamand over the last year has hosted over 300visits from companies.

Expanding beyond the sciencesInnovation is not just about science – Dr Riceis now working with the Arts and SocialSciences Departments to incorporate design and communication in the TechnologyDemonstrator. In 2011 the IntellectualProperty Office awarded the University of Nottingham and the Design Council theirtop grant of £100,000 to develop a nationalprogramme to help universities use design to commercialise technology. Nottingham’sTechnology Demonstrator also secured adisplay at the 2010 Shanghai Expo whereover one million people visited their exhibiton sustainable technologies.

Joint winner of the Newcomerof the Year

Dr Vera Hazelwood

In her role as Programme Manager for theIndustrial Mathematics Internship Programme,Dr Hazelwood had grown the programmefrom six to 35 internship projects, with a totalinvestment of over £300,000. All of theprojects were aimed at extending the

innovation impacts of mathematics, butexploiting issues where existing capabilitytranslates into business impact.

Where are they now?In the last year, the programme hasdeveloped to be part of the KnowledgeTransfer Partnership brand. The number ofinternships has doubled and there has been a large increase in demand from universitiesand businesses to be part of the programme.Funding from EPSRC and TSB has beenallocated specifically to the newly rebrandedIndustrial Mathematics KTN for internshipprojects and is being sustained despite thereduction of the overall UK KTP portfolio.Coming under the KTP umbrella has alsostimulated a large interest from the SMEsector. Mathematics internships facilitated by the Industrial Mathematics KTN haveexpanded into new industrial sectors includingenergy sustainability, financial services and ICT.

Sustainable industrial relationshipsAs the programme of internships hasexpanded, the Industrial Mathematics KTN has developed strategic relationships withcompanies. Airbus, for example, has funded eight projects for different groups in itscompany to apply mathematics expertise toengineering problems. Projects include workon everything from air stability to fuelinjection and the internships are presentthroughout the whole design cycle. Airbusfinds the internships very beneficial to theircompany and keeps coming back from more.

6 7


The Review: Is it difficult to broker thedifferent interests of cost-cutting ministers and aspirational vice-chancellors?

Sir Alan Langlands: It is not as difficult as it sounds. The HEFCE role is to negotiatewith the Government of the day whilereflecting the aspirations of universities. Of course there are tensions – are we anadvocate for Government or for theuniversity sector? HEFCE trades heavily onevidence rather than ideology – we try to dowhat’s right in the circumstances and weadvise Government without fear or favour.You can have very frank conversations withministers, out of the public eye and these canhave a strong influence. It is a role I haveplayed before with the Department of Health.

The Review:With the Governmentagenda becoming more impact focused, willthere be an effect on blue-skies research?

AL: No. I think there is an absolutedetermination to maintain the strength and thedynamism of the research base throughselective funding with a clear focus onexcellence. Universities have a great deal ofautonomy to determine their own researchstrategies and flexibility in the use of QR funding.

We are in a strong position in the UK – highlyregarded around the world in terms of researchreputation and citations, and with vibrant PhDand post-doc communities. In the life sciences,the work we do with charities and industry isstrong and we will keep reflecting theimportance of these relationships in ourresource allocation systems.

The Review: Do ministers have the opinionthat the UK is good at research and not sogood at realising the impact of research?

AL: I think that perception exists. You can’tdeal with this simply by saying that we aredoing well relative to others – that justsounds complacent. Knowledge exchange isnow an established mission in our universitiesthat adds value to research and teaching andpromotes economic growth. The work thatLord Sainsbury did with the higher educationsystem has been very effective. Even intougher financial times there has beenprotection for research and innovationfunding and the Government will want to seeevidence that this investment is contributingto recovery and growth. Maintaining the levelof innovation funding and seeking to focus iton performance rather than building capacityis a good way forward. The challenge going

Guest article, Sir Alan Langlands

into the next spending review will be toprovide really robust evidence on the impactof research and the achievements ofknowledge exchange.

The Review: How will the changes inundergraduate funding affect research andinnovation at universities?

AL:We need to keep it in perspective aspart of the wider story. For most research-intensive universities, undergraduate funding isjust one component. The growth in recenttimes has been in relation to postgraduatefunding, overseas students and researchincome. We must not allow the obsessionwith undergraduate fees to eclipse otheractivities. There is a risk that the introductionof higher fees and subsequent graduate debtmay have a bearing on the recruitment of themost able graduates into postgraduate taughtand postgraduate research programmes. Wemust have a clear plan on how to nurture thenext generation of research talent – we needto think hard about this and we need to doso quickly.

The Review: Do you see a differentdistribution of research activity in the UK inthe future?

AL: It is already very highly concentrated in2011–12, 34 per cent of HEFCE’s [recurrent]research grant is allocated to five universities,and the next 36 per cent is shared by fifteenmore. I don’t think that there will be a radicallydifferent pattern in the future. The best of theresearch-intensive universities have everychance of prospering in the new financialsystem. We are moving towards concentratingour funding on 3* and 4* research. Highperformers have already benefited from thiseven in an otherwise lean year (2011/12).

The Review: How do you think theTechnology and Innovation Centres (TICs)will affect the innovation landscape in the UK?

AL: There has been a long history of the UKlooking into the overseas models that haveinformed TICs. I think the TechnologyStrategy Board (TSB) is well placed to takethis forward now and it's good that they havelooked widely overseas and consideredappropriateness to the UK. The UK doeshave a different innovation system comparedto the continent, with much more researchand innovation activity embedded in our HEsystem, and with greater autonomy andentrepreneurialism in our universities. I thinkthe TICs can play a very beneficial part in ourinnovation landscape, providing focal pointsfor industry, as long as they are tailored to thisUK context.

The Review:What do you think is a greaterchallenge – the NHS or the university sector?

AL: The NHS absolutely. It is unrelenting – it affects the whole population and itoperates, quite literally, 24 hours a day, 365days a year. It is a much tougher job and avery different job. Unlike the NHS, universitiesare autonomous bodies. HEFCE can’t use atop-down approach as we are funders andregulators, not managers – that is one of thereasons why our universities are so successful.Combining these two worlds, I am delightedthat, courtesy of National Institute for MedicalResearch and other initiatives, the NHS hasfinally ended its casual relationship withscience and technology. The opportunity totranslate basic and clinical research into local,national and global therapeutic and healthcarebenefits, and to link information from a widerange of medical and non-medical sourcesusing electronic patient records to ensure

better treatments, improve patient safety andadvance medical research, are opportunitiesthat must not be squandered.

Sir Alan Langlands FRSE is the Chief Executive of the HigherEducation Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE) and chairs the Boards of UK Biobank and the Health Foundation.

Sir Alan Langlands FRSE is the Chief Executive of the Higher EducationFunding Council for England (HEFCE), responsible for promoting and fundinghigh-quality education and research in universities and colleges with highereducation programmes. The Review asked him his thoughts around spendingcuts and the impact agenda, how the cuts may affect the distribution ofuniversity research funding and blue skies research, Technology InnovationCentres, plus more.

8 9


Technology transfer culture across the UK

Imperial College Londonin service of the commercial world

Imperial College London has achieved areputation of performing world leadingresearch while also being a commerciallyfocused university. Imperial Innovations, theuniversity’s technology transfer office hasdeveloped into a leading internationaltechnology commercialisation company.Imperial College successfully sold part ofImperial Innovations in a private placing to anumber of financial institutions in 2005 and itnow trades on the London Stock Exchange asan independent company. This is a vastlydifferent model for university technologytransfer when technology transfer operationsare usually held close to their originatinguniversity. While there is a risk to theuniversity, it has allowed Imperial Innovationsto make swift advances with the ability tomake large cash investments in spin-outs atImperial College and beyond.

University of Oxfordin service of the academic mission

Most research-intensive universities findthemselves in a relatively stable position in thisfinancial climate but despite their large researchportfolios, they are not without their ownchallenges. Phil Clare from the University ofOxford finds that the perceptions of universitiesand the reality are very different and this can beone of the biggest barriers. ‘People will assumewe don’t do applied work, but this perceptiondoesn’t reflect the facts.’ Technology transfer isoften not very high up on university agendas.Of course, this does not mean it is nothappening – it would probably continuewhether there was a university strategy thatmentioned it or not. But what it does mean isthat the external view of some of the ancientuniversities is that they are not really externallyengaged. While there may be plenty ofinnovation across these institutions, scale andfragmentation can be problems at olderinstitutions. Innovation has grown up organically,rather than by design, and this often means thatpockets of activity are not necessarily very welllinked in to the rest of the institution. ‘AtOxford, the idea of a central idea to achieveanything is impossible,’ Phil says with a smile onhis face. It is clear that the academic missiondrives all decisions and directions.

The drivers of technology transfer at differentorganisations are deeply embedded in theirculture and origins. Perhaps this is somethingwe should embrace rather than look tochange, however it remains to be seen whichmodels will be successful into the future.

London Metropolitanin service of society

Sue O’Hare from London MetropolitanUniversity has a unique set of challenges. In auniversity where teaching comes first,Research and Enterprise is only one of fivestrategic aims. However in reality, there are anumber of enterprise activities across theuniversity as well as intellectual property.Moreso than many other universities, LondonMetropolitan is inextricably linked with itsimmediate surrounding area. Many of thestudents are local and innovation has grownup at London Metropolitan by supporting thecluster of creative industry businesses in EastLondon. In this vibrant community of SMEs,there is an opportunity for growth into theOlympic Park to be part of the government’splanned East London Tech City. London Metis well placed, with its digital media expertise,to support its students through enterprise andentrepreneurship training, placements,internships and start-up facilities into eitheremployment or self-employment in the TechCity cluster. The recent Digital Shoreditchfestival demonstrated the real appetite bothamong students and local businesses, but alsothe need radically to scale up support. This isthe challenge – to ensure that even though auniversity might be teaching focused, it takesadvantage of good innovation and technologywhere it is found.

The size and shape of the UK universitysector is a morphing and mysteriousthing. In the UK, we have a portfolio of institutions that are geographicallylinked to our cities, old and new, largeand small, research intensive andteaching focused, nearly all boasting aninnovation agenda. The challenges andopportunities are very different for each.

There are a number of drivers for a university to be enterprising – in service ofsociety, in service of the commercial world or in service of the academic mission.

10 11


There is much ill-informed comment in thepress about the sector, partly because clearfacts have been difficult to come by, but thishas resulted in a widely-held impression thatthe returns do not justify the difficulty ofcreating and supporting spinouts, or the timeand cost resources required.

There is no denying that the process isdifficult, or that in common with all categoriesof start-up companies, some spin-outs will fail.However, of more than 100 spin-outs thatmade successful exits by way of flotation ortrade sale in the years 2000 to 2010, the 40 for which figures are available to YCF had a combined value of over £3.5 billion.

The number of successful spin-out exits variesfrom year to year, much affected by thecurrent economic conditions. It averages alittle less than one in ten, which is a typicalexit rate for early stage technologycompanies, whether or not originating inuniversities. Survival rates for spin-outs arealso similar to those of other youngcompanies, with three quarters of spin-outsformed between 2000 and 2010 still active.

There have been some notable successes,most recently the US$1 billion sale of BioVex,a University College London (UCL) spin-out,to US giant Amgen. This is something of arecord, having been hailed as the biggest everexit for a venture-backed life sciences

company, but there have been other tradesales of several hundred thousand dollars – forexample, Queen Mary University of Londonspin-out ApaTech (winner of the 2010Business Impact – Achieved Impact Award),which has developed synthetic bone materials,was sold last year to US healthcare groupBaxter for $330m, and Imperial College spin-out Thiakis, which develops peptide hormones,was sold to Wyeth in 2008 for $150m.

Often the price of a trade sale is undisclosed,and several are rumoured to be substantial.The values of companies which achieve anIPO (flotation) on the other hand are fullydocumented. Few are as large as the biggertrade sales, the biggest recently having beenNanoco Technologies, a Manchester spin-outwhich develops applications for nanoparticles,which floated in December 2008 with a valueof £150m. Although exit by a stock marketflotation has been very difficult in the pastcouple of years, it has not disappearedentirely. Last year two spin-outs successfullycompleted this step – Southampton’s Ilika(developing new materials) at a valuation of£18.7m, and Nottingham’s Scancell(developing novel vaccines) at £6.1m.

These facts and figures are from the firstAnnual Report from Spin-outs UK(wwwspinoutsuk.co.uk), an online databasecompiled by Young Company Finance. Theproject is the first survey to investigate this

sector by taking a cumulative ‘bottom up’approach, compiling data company bycompany and updating it regularly. It is hopedthat the project will contribute to a betterinformed discussion of the role of universitiesin maximising the commercial impact of UKinnovation and invention.

www.spinoutsuk.co.ukContact: Jonathan Harris, [email protected]

Spinouts UK surveyMeasures of success

The formation of spin-out companies is only one route to the exploitation ofuniversity IP, but it is a very important component of commercialisation, and itssuccess stories are not well recognised. Jonathan Harris, Editor of Spinouts UKtalks to The Review about the findings from its first Annual Report .

Strategic impact of UK academicspin-out company formation

Academic spin-outs represent just one of themechanisms of knowledge transfer available touniversities but they are attracting increasedattention since they seem to symbolise the“high risk and high return” strategy in thecommercialisation of academic research. The income from the commercialisation of intellectual property continues an upwardtrend and literature data suggests that manyuniversities are gradually developing successfulIP portfolios. However, in most casesacademic spin-outs appear to have only areduced overall contribution in terms ofuniversity direct revenue generation, and theimportance of their long-term impact on theUK economy is still under debate.

Recommendations and policyimplications

Creating successful new ventures based onuniversity IP, growing them and then reapingthe rewards at university level is a high riskand long-term process that can requireconsiderable resources. Universities mightwant to consider revisiting their institutionalpolicies and clarifying their long-term

strategies with regard to IP-exploitation andin particular spin-out companies. Where spin-outs are seen as an important part of thisstrategy, clear, detailed and flexible policies aswell as robust implementation mechanismsmust be put in place without delay. Allocatingsufficient resources and realigning theinstitutional incentives become critical.

At both university and TTO level, managingthe ‘culture clash’ and the differences betweenacademics’ expectations and business reality isvery important: entrepreneurship courses andinternal networking events can be easilyarranged and are expected to alleviate theseproblems. Without any doubt, the localresources available and especially the qualityof the TTO personnel are paramount.

At USO level, deeply understandingbusiness reality and/or selecting (with TTOhelp) the right management team are vital,as is choosing the right business model. An accurate stakeholders’ analysis in thevery early stages appears critical.

This was extracted from the ExecutiveSummary of The impact of the formationstrategy on the success of UK academic spin-out companies, E Barbu, University of Portsmouth, April 2011, with permission.

12

The Review

Dr Douglas Robertson, PraxisUnico

Chair Elect and Director of

Research and Enterprise Services,

Newcastle University comments.

I leave you to judge

It is clear that spin-out companies are onlypart of the technology transfer portfolio;but in my view an important part. Spinningout a company is a real challenge,particularly in the present financialenvironment. However, between 2003 and 2010 PraxisUnico data produced forDepartment of Business Innovation andSkills shows spin-out companies going totrade sale and public offerings had acombined capital value of £4.8bn. Clearly

only a small part of that value will end upas a financial return to the universityconcerned, but the activity contributesemployment and economic value to UKplc. There are over 500 other spin-outsactive and more in development. Theperiod from formation of technologybusinesses to exit to trade sale or IPO islengthening, but there are some startlingsuccesses. For example Autonomy is nowa $7Bn FTSE100 company and CambridgeAntibody Technology and Biovex were$1Bn+ acquisitions indicating that the UK isstarting to emulate some of the success ofUS universities. Many investors are stayingwith their investments longer and achievingcompetitive returns. The portfolio of spin-outs across the sector is diverse and Iexpect a steady flow of realisations over

the next few years. Looking beyondinvestors the potential contribution tosociety before and after exit is cumulativeand in my view a key ingredient in changingthe shape of the UK economy. All of this isbeing achieved with a small part ofgovernment support for technologytransfer and from universities’ ownresources and in the absence of universityfocused venture funding.

Are spin-outs important for the future ofthe UK technology sector? Whilst someare not convinced, I am. I can only imaginewhat would happen if the venture fundingenvironment became more comfortablewith early stage investments or a newUniversity Challenge Fund emerged? I leave you to judge.

All new IP from Glasgow is quickly assessedand if a commercial route is not obvious thenit becomes part of the Easy Access IP scheme.However, it is not simply a free giveaway –companies interested in Glasgow’s IP mustshow how their plans will benefit theeconomy, agree the university can continueresearch in the area, acknowledge theuniversity as the IP source and the universitycan recover the IP if it is not used withinthree years.

In March 2011, the University of Glasgow,King’s College London and the University of Bristol won funding from the IntellectualProperty Office to pioneer easy access to IP.The idea will be embedded in the universitiesthat have come on board and they willinvestigate expanding the concept from IP toeasy access research, materials and tools.

Here follows an interview with Kevin Cullen,Director of Research and Enterprise,University of Glasgow

The Review: How did Easy Access IP come about?

KC: It started at a brainstorming event wherean academic suggested that we should bepublishing everything and giving away all our IP. This would be a radical move butthere is a lot of unused IP, where theuniversity is not in a position to develop,promote or commercialise it. So in the spiritof disseminating our knowledge, we havetaken the decision to put the IP into thehands of the people who can use it.

The Review: What has been the reactionfrom Glasgow academics?

KC: It has taken a long time to develop EasyAccess IP, and the change had to go throughfive universities committees! However, the

reaction has been almost uniformly positivefrom academics. Of the first twenty pieces of IPwe wished to make part of the Easy Access IPportfolio, one academic said no and the othernineteen thought it was a wonderful idea.

The Review: What success has EasyAccess IP at Glasgow had so far?

KC: The academic, Professor Miles Padgett,who originally suggested that we giveeverything away at the brainstorming event,has had a successful Easy Access IP dealaround some optical tweezers technology. A deal was done with an English SME andnow the company is sponsoring research atthe university. The IP might be free, but theneed for knowhow stimulates collaboration.

The Review: What has the reaction beenlike from the Technology Transfer sector?

KC: It has been a split camp. Some TTprofessionals think it is a great idea and apositive move for the sector. It enables us todo our job as universities better – to createand disseminate knowledge. However, somehave seen it as a betrayal of the TT profession– giving away the very thing our job revolvesaround. Of course, many deals are done inuniversities where IP is given away but wehave decided to make it part of our strategyand be proud of it

Easy access IP

The University of Glasgow is giving away its intellectual property for free in a move designed to maximise dissemination of knowledge and increasecommercial collaboration. Glasgow is the first university in the world to offersome of its IP for free.

13

The Review

Spin-outs

2003Wolfson Micro

2004ARK TherapeuticsOHMVecturaSummitSynairgenCeres PowerIDMosMicroemissive DisplaysAndorCambridge Display Technology

2005FusionIPProximagenProvexisStem Cell SciencesOxonicaReNeuronNeuroDiscoveryGETECH

SPI LasersCeloxicaToumaz

2006LipoxenSyntopixParOSRenovoOxford CatalystsAvactaImperial InnovationsValiRx

2007EpistemModern WaterTracsise-TherapeuticsOxford Advanced Surfaces Group

2008Scancell

2009Nanoco Group

2010IlikaTissue Regenix

2011Microsaic Systems

Acquisitions

Kudos PharmaNeuTechCambridge Antibody TechnologyDomantisSolexaArrow TherapeuticsDaniolabsPlasso TechnologyMTEMCambridge Display TechnologyMeridioCamFPDOMDSIWTransitive

ThiakisPhototherapeuticsBiotec LaboratoriesAPTInforsenseBioAnaLabOrthomemeticsReactivelabApatechMETIm-SenseExosect (Bee Health Division)Artemis Intelligent PowerBiovexLab901Chameleon Biosurfaces

Pending Acquisitions

Astex Therapeutics

University spin-out IPOs and trade sales since 2003Generating more than £4.8 billion and there are 600 more in the wings

Source: PraxisUnico (thanks to Dr Tony Raven). Further details are available on request.

14 15


This article features the views andopinions of Dr Jeff Skinner, ExecutiveDirector, Institute of Innovation andEntrepreneurship London BusinessSchool and PraxisUnico trainingcommittee member

Changing timesI’ve been in knowledge transfer (KT) foraround 20 years and it has been huge fun –years of enormous ambiguity, expansion andexperimentation. For those – like me – wholove making the connections and doing thedeals that bring technology to life these havebeen halcyon days – doing what they enjoy,appreciated by their universities and academicsand funded by successive (and for some,increasingly munificent) rounds of HEIF.

Flying below the radarIf you’re new to the profession then it’s easy tobelieve that it’s always been this way – in termsof importance, scale and the underlying driversof the KT role. But it hasn’t. I am one of those‘ageing pioneers’ who started when theprofession was tiny (just a dozen or so of us inthe UK), the role was ambiguous (we just wentfrom project to project trying to be useful) andwe were funded on a shoestring. In some waysthese were the best of times – flying belowevery radar, scavenging funding and enjoyinghuge autonomy and grateful amazementwhenever we pulled a major deal out of thehat. As we began to talk to and learn fromeach other (Unico started in 1994) all the

useful ‘knowledge transfer’ mechanismsbecame better defined – even to the pointwhere we became confident enough to startteaching them (Praxis was launched in 2002).

However, that was then and I wonderwhether it’s time to rethink the scope of ourprofession, the way we’re structured andwhat is important to our universities. Theurge to make fruitful connections and brokervaluable deals still burns bright within us – butI think that there are a number of powerfultrends out there that – had they been presentin the formative years of the profession -might have resulted in a very different (butjust as fun) ‘paradigm’ of knowledge transfer.Put another way, if we fail to see theimportance of the changing landscape orignore it, ‘traditional’ knowledge transfer risksbeing side-lined and becoming a relic andtaking us with it – becoming just anotherdusty university division.

Trend spottingWhat are these trends? Well, I think there arethree big trends that are already beginning tochange our landscape. Here they are and here'swhat I think they mean for people like us.

1. Get the negative one out of the way first.How well are we perceived to be deliveringon the three dimensions on which we’rejudged – financial return (still difficult in thelingering aftermath of the millenniumbubbles), socio-economic impact (however

that’s measured) and ‘academic service’(assuming they’ll speak up for you when itcounts)? My sense is that we are increasinglybeing called to account and measured againstinevitably imperfect surrogate measures andtargets. The cost of some of our centralisedunits has also become sizeable (no longerbelow the radar) and as academicdepartments see how their achievementsfeed the HEIF formula, they will begin tonibble away at the ‘centre’. The survival of centralised units ultimately depends on (i) profitability and (ii) political support. Arewe still a must-have flavour of the month?

2. REF – which, if embraced by academics, will cause them to take ownership andresponsibility for KT in the same way asthey have responsibility for their ownteaching and research. This means thatthere is vastly more of it done (good) andthat the quality will probably go down (fora while, anyway). It's a change that weshould embrace, drive and applaud. But ithas huge implications for the way our unitsare structured (far more distributed anddelegated) and our role (facilitating,educating and source of specialist, non-siloed, expertise). Hugely exciting; and scaryas well because academics will increasinglylead and decide where to ‘invest’ and‘commit’, even when they're wrong.

Those who do not embrace this changewill find themselves becoming unimportant(or worse, irritating), to the vast number of

A (brave) new worlddoes it affect us?

academics (so you'd better make moneyinstead), or relegated to being purelytransactional (boringly only safeguardingthe interests of the university).

Those who do embrace the change willhave a far better time of it; lots of room topioneer and experiment with newstructures, initiatives. Same purpose but awhole new ‘Big Hairy Audacious Goal’.

3.Whopping fees and the need todifferentiate our universities as wecompete for the best students. I think thatthis is very much on the mind of universitysenior management teams. OK, with mostuniversities opting to charge the maximumit’s not yet a real market – however,universities will be in competition for thebest and if the number of students dropsprice we may start to compete fornumbers too.

How can we help with a strategic prioritylike this? The first is help (real help, not justinformation) in getting our students terrificjobs with the significant salary uplift thatmakes the investment worthwhile. Why doI think we might have a role to play here?Students are hungry for internships andprojects with businesses to add to theirCVs and – if they choose well – to turninto permanent jobs. To facilitate this, the university needs terrific links tobusinesses (big and small) and to projects.Sounds familiar? Our domain? Haven’t wealways said that the most important KT mechanism is the supply of well-trained/educated students?

The second is student experience. There are lots of ways to generate this butstudents love entrepreneurship – courses,competitions, projects, opportunities, clubsand workshops. Even though a small

fraction engage, these few create fantasticstories and become such great disciplesand proselytisers. They also begin to do stuff themselves that, with a littlelubrication (money and encouragement)turns them into volunteers who generatethe most wonderful return. Universityleaders see this and realise how potent it is in terms of reputation and (thus)recruitment. Our domain?

Towards a (brave) new world My tuppence worth is this. We can interpretour purpose narrowly, stick with our existingagenda and become ever side-lined and outof tune with what is really important to ourinstitutions. We (some of us anyway) will stillbe needed – but perhaps as pure reactive‘transactors’, merely protecting the interestsof the university. Or we can interpret ourpurpose and role more creatively and regainthe initiative as pioneers and leaders inentirely new areas of strategic value wherewe’ll be appreciated, resourced and allowedto experiment and build. I think the windowof opportunity is still open for us all. But itwon't remain so forever. The worlds willbifurcate as others leap in.

I’m interested to know what others think.When I nervously tested out these ideas onthe PraxisUnico committees I found that mostagreed with me – at least that the existinglandscape was changing and that thetraditional mechanisms were becoming lessimportant to their institutions and becomingless stimulating places to be. What is theexperience of others out there? If not these,what are the trends that should shape ourfuture? Do we need to re-invent ourselves?

If you would like to comment on this article, please email us [email protected].

16 17


A critical role not well understoodGovernment spends over £1 billion on scienceand technology capabilities and research withinPSREs (excluding the NHS), of which over£0.75 billion1 is spent within the organisationsnoted above. PSREs are major UK employers;contribute to university innovation throughcollaborations, funding and as technology end-users; provide educational and training services;and provide valuable services to both theirgovernment owner and to industry both in theUK and abroad. PSREs are a significantcontributor to the innovation landscape in theUK, as noted by the case studies below. Theuniversity sector has adapted their orientationover the last decade towards socio-economicimpact, the PSRE community has not been asvisible in this respect. This raises questions. ArePSRE owners requesting such information? Hassenior management not embraced thecommercialisation agenda fully? Or is it poorengagement and communication by bothPraxisUnico and the PSREs? Whatever thereasons, there is a risk that opportunities for theUK may be overlooked.

A funding crisisDespite innovation being encouraged at thegovernmental policy level2, the equivalent ofHigher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) forPSREs, the Public Sector ResearchExploitation Fund, has now finished with no

indication that further funds will beforthcoming. There is a significant risk that themomentum that has been created within thePSREs will evaporate in the absence ofcontinued sustained investment.

It is generally accepted by those in the PSREcommunity that commercialisation activities inthe PSRE sector are at least a decade behindthe university sector. Although, some of thePSREs have made some significantachievements, and some impressive metricshave been delivered despite a much lowerlevel of funding, these have come principallythrough senior management evangelists’investment or the financial need for incomefrom services supplied to industry. Unlike theuniversity sector where there are strongstakeholders BIS and the Funding Councils,the PSRE community does not have thisluxury, leaving it to a few lone voices to extolthe innovation agenda.

Across the pondWhile the US Bayh-Dole Act3 of 1980 is wellknown regarding its impact upon the universitysector, in the USA, the equally seminalStevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act4

of the same year is often forgotten. This Actrequired all Federal Laboratories to activelyparticipate in and budget for technologytransfer activities. Its impact was as important as

Bayh-Dole since it effectively required, by law, a senior officer responsible for KT/TT activitiesto be appointed at every Federal Laboratory.The effect of Stevenson-Wydler and furtherlegislation5 upon the engagement of the FederalLaboratories with commercialisation wasdefinitive and Federal Laboratories are seen ascritical drivers of innovation in the USA.

The futureGovernment is encouraging UK innovationfrom universities, industry, business and theNHS; but the wider PSRE sector has notfeatured prominently in recent years – if at all. Perhaps it is time for a renewed focus on this area, in order to ensure that thecommercialisation potential of the PSREcommunity is fully realised?

Do you have an opinion? Share it with [email protected]

This article was written by Dr Taj Mattu,Foresight Science & Technology (UK) Ltd and Dr Rupert Osborn, IP Pragmatics, followinginterviews with a number of those responsible forknowledge transfer working within departmentaland non-departmental research intensiveorganisations. The article aims to highlight someof the issues facing the community in the sectoras noted by persons servicing these organisations.

1 Based on published PSRE accounts2 Baker Report (August 1999), http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/docs/1999/baker.html3 P.L. 96-517, Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 19804 P.L. 96-480, Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 19805 For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 which established the Federal Laboratory Consortium and hence provide the sector with a unified voice.

The Health Safety Laboratory (HSL) was originally established 100years ago this year, to investigate the issues of safety in coalmines.More recently as an agency of the Health and Safety Executive, thescope of activities is ever-widening, and undertaken for both publicand private sector customers across many industrial sectors.

Development of practical solutions, through R&D leading toinnovative tools and services, is at the heart of our mission. HSL alsounderstands the impact of poor management of health and safety inthe workplace. Therefore, with support from the Public SectorResearch Exploitation 3 Fund, in addition to internal investment, weundertook a market assessment and developed the Safety ClimateTool (SCT). SCT measures the perceptions of employees to H&Sissues, and can provide unique insight into the safety culture within anorganisation, and how it may be improved.

SCT is now a key component of HSL’s consultancy service toindustry, as well as being licensed as a stand-alone product. Forexample, the Clydach Refinery in Swansea is part of the globalmining company Vale Mining Group and employs 300 peopleproducing high-purity nickel products. Vale recognised that improvingsafety culture could positively impact their strategy of becoming thelargest and best mining company in the world. Since the first step intheir development of a sustainable programme of continuous H&Simprovement was an assessment of the prevailing H&S culture, SCTwas chosen as the solution of choice. Following implementation in2010, the Clydach Refinery established a new record low for work-related injuries (down 20%). More impressive was that for the firsttime in the refinery's 108-year history, none of the injuriesrepresented a lost-time injury.

The InterAct project is a unique collaboration between six leadingUK PSREs - Cefas, Dstl, Fera, HPA, HSL and AHVLA. Led by Fera,the project presents a successful model for commercialisinggovernment research across different business fields. It capturedthe synergies from combining the intellectual property (IP), know-how and services of the partners in key scientific areas. In anincreasingly challenging environment for government fundedresearch, InterAct has delivered:

• Enhanced intellectual assets through collaborative research andcombining IP

• Transfer of technologies and knowhow to UK and internationalcompanies for further exploitation

• Increased efficiency and effectiveness within government research

• Additional products and services offered by the partners

• Sharing best practice across the whole PSRE community

• Reduced reliance on government funding

• Specific projects with impacts ranging from diagnosis andprevention of human and animal disease, to environmentalprotection, improved disinfectants and reduction of slip accidents.

InterAct identified and developed well over 200 new opportunities,some supported by the project’s proof of commercial concept fund.This has generated significant new funding streams (estimated at>£2.5m to date) for the organisations, from: 16 licences; 1 spin-outcompany; 1 technology sale; 3 research collaborations; 16 enhancedservice offerings; 8 new products; and 1 distribution alliance.

The project was formally completed by April 2011, but therelationships that have been built continue and the InterActcollaboration lives on in the ongoing legacy of projects that arenow being progressed by the partners.

Overview supplied by IP Pragmatics Ltd, which provided projectmanagement, commercialisation opportunity identification andmarketing resources to the InterAct project.

CASE STUDY 01

The Health Safety Laboratory (HSL)

Public Sector Research Establishments (PSREs) are an eclectic group. They comprise the major departmental and non-

departmental research laboratories as well as museums, NHS facilities and those of the Research Funding Councils. This

article focuses on the major research laboratories such as Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Centre for Environment,

Fisheries & Aquaculture (Cefas), Defence Science & Technology Laboratory (Dstl), The Food and Environment Research

Agency (FERA), Health Protection Agency (HPA), Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) and Veterinary Laboratories Agency

(VLA). We plan to focus on the opinions of Research Council’s PSREs, those of the NHS and the remainder of the PSRE

continuum in the future – watch out for further information in the fortnightly PraxisUnico News Update.

CASE STUDY 02

The InterAct Partnership: A uniquePSRE collaboration

Comment from the sidelines is technology transfer in the public sector research establishmentsbeing overlooked ?

18

The Review

The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a significant scientificresearch component which, over the years, has created majortechnologies that impact across all sectors of industry as well asbeing of key defence and security importance. Liquid crystaldisplays and radar are two examples of the technology that havebeen invented by the MoD’s Defence Science & TechnologyLaboratory (Dstl). Ploughshare Innovations Ltd, Dstl’s technologycommercialisation company, continues the drive to translateleading research from Dstl into commercial applications and oneof the results is the spin-out company Subsea Asset LocationsTechnologies Ltd (SALT) (www.cesalt.co.uk).

SALT is licensed to commercialise sonar technology originallydeveloped in Dstl. The technology, first developed for defencepurposes, has now been incorporated into a series of products foruse in several commercial sectors, e.g. industrial marine applications,oil and gas and the fishing sector. The essential core of thetechnology is the ability of a passive device, the SonarBell™, toreflect an incoming sonar signal, from any direction, in such a way tosend back a signal which enables operators to locate the devicevery accurately. Thus ‘asset location’ as any form of asset, e.g. pipes,fishing nets etc., can be rapidly located. The ‘passive’ nature of thedevices means that they do not require any power source; a featurethat provides significant advantages over competitor technologies.

Ploughshare invested in early stage development of thecommercial products and initial product trials. In 2008 the spin-outcompany – SALT – was created, with private investment support,to further invest in the technology and take products to market.

SALT has offices on the South Coast of England, focusing ontechnology development and client demonstrations, with anotheroffice inland near Salisbury, which acts as the commercial centre of the business. The company has a range of products of differentsizes and frequencies as well as a number of market specificsolutions available. With customers and distributors across theglobe the company is certainly one to watch.

CASE STUDY 03

Subsea Asset Locations Technologies Ltd(SALT)

Annual Report2010-2011

19

PraxisUnico | Annual Report 2010-2011

It is an absolute privilege to be granted the chairmanship of what is the

UK’s leading organisation for commercialisation professionals.

PraxisUnico works hard on behalf of its members and the research

commercialisation profession to facilitate the interaction between the

public sector research base, business, investors and government.

Those working within (and with) the research commercialisation sector

recognise that the sector is changing – in many cases these changes will

be welcome and necessary. Working within higher education, few of us

will be strangers to evolution but it is essential that we manage and

embrace this rather than resist it. This year’s conference theme focuses

on changes within the research commercialisation landscape. Change is

occurring at an unprecedented rate and we are sure that the plenary

sessions, parallel workshops and networking opportunities will provide

both an update and plenty of food for thought.

Our relationships with our business colleagues are hugely critical.

PraxisUnico is forging closer links with business and we have

recently agreed a reciprocal membership with the UKSPA (UK

Science Park Association) to enable closer contact with science

park tenant companies.

During my tenure of chairmanship I will make every effort to build

on the strong foundations that have already been established

by the hard work of previous Chairs and the broader committees.

The reports that follow represent just some of the recent

committee activities.

All of our committee members are volunteers and their commitment

makes PraxisUnico what it is. I would like to take this opportunity to

thank all our committee members, speakers and sponsors.

If you have ideas for future activities and developments of PraxisUnico

or would wish to contribute more broadly, please either contact me

by email [email protected] or speak to any of the members of

the Board or related committees as listed later.

Dr Douglas Robertson, PraxisUnico incoming Chair

21

Dr Douglas Robertson

All of our committee members arevolunteers and their commitmentmakes PraxisUnico what it is.

“”

This PraxisUnico Annual Report is the first following the merger of

Praxis and Unico. It portrays an improved financial position, resulting in

turnover increased by some 30% on 2009, with administrative

expenses reducing slightly. The merger of Unico and UCPL (the

trading arm of Unico) with Praxis Courses Ltd is a significant factor in

this improved cash position.

Earlier this year I and Dr Douglas Robertson (PraxisUnico incoming Chair)

met with Baroness Wilcox, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for

Business Innovation and Skills, to outline the important and growing role

that universities have in innovation and growth in the UK. We expressed

support for continued government investment through HEIF and related

policies in the devolved administrations, but explained that the figures we

produce for spin-outs are rightly to be applauded, but are only the tip of a

much larger iceberg – this is a message that we will continue to reaffirm.

PraxisUnico is recognised internationally for its strong membership

association and its reputation for delivering high-quality and relevant

conferences and training courses. PraxisUnico’s horizons are expanding

as we look to help other international markets to strengthen research

commercialisation activities.

As I step down as Chairman of the Board this year, although I will

remain on the board for a further year as Immediate Past Chair, I am

delighted to welcome Dr Douglas Robertson, Director of Research

and Enterprise Services, Newcastle University, as incoming Chair.

PraxisUnico’s horizons are expandingas we look to help other internationalmarkets to strengthen researchcommercialisation activities.

“

”Chairman’s message


20

Dr Phil Clare

are running again in 2011 and the winners will be announced at The

Impact Awards ceremony at the PraxisUnico Conference Gala Dinner

in Glasgow on 9 June 2011.

On pages 3-5 we have revisited the 2010 award winners to follow up

on how the projects have evolved and how the careers of the

Newcomers of the Year are advancing.

Member Services

PraxisUnico has 164 institutional and organisational members, representing

the majority of the UK’s academic institutions. This comprises something in

the region of around 2,600 commercialisation professionals.

PraxisUnico members have use of PraxisUnico communication

platforms, such as the website, email lists and regular e-bulletins to

post job vacancies, news and to promote events.

The website

The PraxisUnico website is an important member service. Between the

launch of the new website on 25 March 2010 and the end of December,

there were 12,240 visitors to the site of which there were 43% new

visitors. In one day alone – 24 May – the website received nearly 1,000

visits when it carried the announcement by the Department of Business

Innovation and Skills, that spending on Research, Innovation, Business and

Enterprise would be protected.

Not only does the website carry key sector news and events but it

also carries news from members regarding their milestones, activities

and job opportunities. By the time of publication the next phase of the

website will be available soon which will allow members direct control

over web posting.

Keeping members informed

Members are also kept updated of key information relevant to the

commercialisation profession, either delivered as part of a fortnightly

email news service, or where there are significant time-critical

developments, immediate ‘direct-to-your-inbox’ news announcements.

Recently, we have improved our fortnightly news service with a new

more visual and measurable interface.

In development are also:

• A rerun of the Salary Survey in association with Kingston University,

London with the possibility of extending this to the research community.

• Legal Blog to stimulate debate coming out of case law that has had

an impact on the sector.

• HEBCIS data analysis.


23

28 Apr – 3 Apr

4 Apr – 10 Apr

11 Apr – 17 Apr

18 Apr – 24 Apr

25 Apr – 1 May

2 May – 8 May

9 May – 15 May

16 May – 22 May

23 May – 29 May

30 May – 5 June

6 June – 12 June

13 June – 19 June

20 June – 26 June

27 June – 3 July

4 July – 10 July

11 July – 17 July

18 July – 24 July

25 July – 31 July

1 Aug – 7 Aug

8 Aug – 14 Aug

15 Aug – 21 Aug

22 Aug – 28 Aug

29 Aug – 4 Sep

5 Sep – 11 Sep

12 Sep – 18 Sep

19 Sep – 25 Sep

26 Sep – 2 Oct

3 Oct – 9 Oct

10 Oct – 16 Oct

17 Oct – 23 Oct

24 Oct – 30 Oct

31 Oct – 6 Nov

7 Nov – 13 Nov

14 Nov – 20 Nov

21 Nov – 27 Nov

28 Nov – 4 Dec

5 Dec – 11 Dec

12 Dec – 18 Dec

19 Dec – 25 Dec

Google statistics website traffic

Activity reports

PraxisUnico has three dedicated committeesworking on the annual conference, trainingand member services. Here are short activityreports from each of the committees.

Training

In 2010 PraxisUnico ran a reduced number of courses in the UK,

expecting attendance levels to drop slightly, in view of the then

uncertainty around future funding and the expectation at that time

of a reduction in training budget allocation. In fact, actual training

course attendance levels were significantly higher than budgeted,

particularly for the three-day entry-level Fundamentals of Technology

Transfer Training, which ran twice at capacity in 2010, together with the

three-day New Venture Creation, Advanced Licensing Skills and

Research Contracts courses. The latter, which due to demand, will run

twice in 2011. A repeat of Copyright, Designs and Trade Marks was

very well attended in Feb 2010 and a new course, Pitching for Business,

(focusing on practical skills) was very well received by all attendees.

The volunteer training committee met monthly by teleconference and

twice face-to-face to review delegate feedback, incorporate suggested

programme improvements and plan future new programmes. The

assessment of feedback is an important part of our quality assurance

processes and also contributes ideas for future development.

The Healthcare Devices course is being reviewed at the time of going

to press to incorporate development, commercialisation and delivery

of these technologies. The committee is also considering three new

courses: Design for Technology Transfer, Impact and Advanced

Business Development*.

* Working titles subject to change.

Conference and networking

Attendance levels at the 2010 annual conference in Nottingham

reached a record high of 223. A mix of plenary and topical parallel

sessions again ensured delegates had a whole range of quality sessions

to choose from. New in 2010, the ‘What I wish my boss had told me’

session was extremely well attended, demonstrating the success of the

volunteer Conference Planning Committee in again delivering a

programme catering for the needs of a whole range of attendees, from

new entrants to directors of offices, plus government, industry and the

PSRE community which also ran a separate parallel session alongside

the main conference.

For 2011 conference planning, the volunteer committee has

comprised representatives from a range of member organisations,

including the corporate and the PSRE communities. This year ARMA

and PraxisUnico will hold their annual conferences back-to-back in the

same venue, bringing together more than 500 delegates who are

focused on disseminating knowledge and research expertise.

2011 will see the re-introduction of a series of Chairman’s Dinners

for KT Directors – attracting director level attendees and providing

an opportunity for informal and focused topical discussion with their

counterparts from across a range of UK HEI institutions, as well as

representatives from government and industry.

The Impact Awards

The Impact Awards is a successful awards programme which is organised

by PraxisUnico. The awards are designed to recognise and celebrate the

success of collaborative working and the process of transferring knowledge

and expertise beyond higher education, charities and public sector

research establishments for the wider benefit of society and the economy.

Since its inauguration The Impact Awards has received 233 entries

from across the research commercialisation sector. The Impact Awards


22

Financial summary

Profit & Loss Account

Year to 30th September 2010 2009

Turnover £476,508 £365,493

Cost of sales £242,337 £197,350

Gross profit £234,171 £168,143

Administrative expenses £273,402 £266,748

Other operating income £8,897 £1,935

Operating loss -£30,334 -£96,670

Other interest receivable £240 £5,422

Loss on ordinary activities before tax -£30,094 -£91,248

Turnover

Cost of sales

PraxisUnico maintains sufficient reserves to ensure its services both

to the technology and knowledge transfer sectors, and to the wider

community, are protected against adverse financial changes that may

occur. The bringing together of Praxis, UNICO and UCPL has enabled

PraxisUnico to consolidate its time and resources to provide a cohesive

program of activities and ensure value for members.

Balance sheet

Year to 30th September 2010 2009

Current assets

Debtors £71,270 £63,192

Cash at bank and in hand £680,347 £482,140

Current liabilities

Creditors £137,998 £76,260

Net assets/liabilities £613,619 £469,072

The University Companies Association (UNICO)Unico Commercial Projects Limited (UCPL)

During Q4 2009 Unico and UCPL (the trading organisation

of Unico) merged with Praxis Courses Ltd to form PraxisUnico.

The rationalisation of these complementary bodies has helped to

increase turnover by some 30% on 2009, with administrative expenses

reducing slightly. PraxisUnico is now better positioned to continue to

provide a forum for best practice exchange, underpinned by first-class

training and development programmes.


25

Course fees

Conference fees & Sponsorship

Delegate Accommodation

Membership subscription& joining fees

Impact awards

Venue Costs

Meeting & Conferenceexpenses

Course material & consumable costs

Impact Awards

Course travel &subsistence costs


24

International

In addition to the Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals (ATTP)

collaboration (which through AUTM* in the US, ASTP* on the

continent, PraxisUnico in the UK, ATMT* in Taiwan and KCA* in

Australia, connects more than 5,000 technology transfer practitioners

across 67 countries), PraxisUnico continues to reinforce the UK’s

position as one of the global leaders for research commercialisation.

The PraxisUnico office provides the administrative support for ATTP

and has played a key role in ensuring the successful launch and progress

of this important global initiative.

In 2010 PraxisUnico also joined the INORMS (International Network of

Research Management Societies) alliance, an international group of

research management membership associations and will participate in

the 2012 global conference in Denmark in 2012.

PraxisUnico’s international training programmes have already been run

in the Republic of Ireland, Australia, Sweden and South Africa – as well

as in continental Europe for several years in collaboration with ASTP.

In December 2010, PraxisUnico ran a hugely successful three-day

Fundamentals of Technology Transfer training course in India for

business incubator managers. This event was supported with funding

from BIS in the UK, the Department of Science & Technology in India

and sponsorship from BAE Systems. PraxisUnico volunteer trainers

were: David Secher, Alison Campbell, Lita Nelsen and Jeff Skinner.

There is currently interest from several overseas territories in sharing

PraxisUnico best practice in training programme set-up and delivery.

*AUTM – Association of University Technology Managers

ASTP – Association of European Science & Technology Transfer

Professionals

ATMT – Association of Technology Managers in Taiwan

KCA – Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia

Authorised by the SolicitorsRegulation Authority

In January 2011, PraxisUnico was authorised by theSolicitors Regulation Authority as a provider of continuingprofessional development (CPD) courses for solicitors.Courses with legal content are all now accredited as asource of CPD for solicitors and registered patent andtrade mark attorneys. The accreditation of our courses alsoprovides other technology transfer professionals with anadded confidence as to the quality of the training provided.

Training dates

PraxisUnico delivers knowledge-based training ontechnology/knowledge transfer and commercialisationissues by combining a thorough, professional educationmodel with international academic and business excellence.Here are dates for confirmed training courses in 2011:

• Commercialising Healthcare Technologies, 20-23 September 2011, Loughborough

• Fundamentals of Technology Transfer, 18-21 October 2011, Loughborough

• Research Contracts, 15-18 November 2011,Loughborough

We are constantly evaluating our courses and new coursesmay be added to the 2011 programme. Join our mailing listto be kept up-to-date with PraxisUnico news and eventswww.praxisunico.org.uk/mailing-list


27

Staff profiles

Meet the team at PraxisUnico...

Hazel Amsden Hazel has many years of senior administrativeexperience and, since joining Praxis Courses in 2006,has coordinated innumerable committee meetings, a particularly challenging role at PraxisUnico! Hazelalso takes full responsibility for the delivery of

training course events and plays a significant role in managingregistrations for our annual conference, as well as providing directsupport for the executive team in her role as Executive Assistant.

Maxine Ficarra Having previously worked mostly in internationalmarketing roles, Maxine joined Praxis Courses in 2003as Programme Manager, responsible for implementingthe vision of the volunteer Programme Committee to establish a series of training events in the UK

for TT practitioners. Eight years on and post merger with Unico, whichshe managed and implemented, Maxine now heads up a team of sevenin the PraxisUnico office. Her role as Executive Director is to drive theorganisation forward sustainably, liaising closely with the PraxisUnicoBoard for creative vision, ensuring that it continues to offer value both to members through training, conference and service deliverables and via the development of national and international collaborations with key stakeholders. Maxine also manages PraxisUnico’s fundraising andsponsorship activities.

Craig Kerr Craig joined PraxisUnico in January 2011 asOperations Manager, having previously accruedmany years of management experience in both thebanking and financial services industry. Craig isresponsible for PraxisUnico operations, including

management of the outsourced accounting function, financial reporting,IT, premises, health and safety and HR, as well as overseeing majorsupplier contracts.

Lisa Newman With several years of administrative experience gainedin local government offices, Lisa joined Praxis Coursesin 2004 to specialise in event management. During thelast seven years, Lisa has ensured the professionaldelivery of all of PraxisUnico’s training and conference

events and has been responsible for a whole range of other projectsincluding the set up of numerous administrative and financial processes

and systems and also the provision of support for volunteer committees.In her role as Events Manager, as well as overseeing the smoothoperation of all training and conference events in the UK, Lisa acts as keyliaison with the volunteer Training and Conference committees forprogramme development and speaker recruitment.

Melanie RichardsonMelanie joined PraxisUnico as Events Coordinator inJanuary 2008 and is responsible for project managingall aspects of training course delivery. Since January2011 Melanie has also assumed responsibility forcoordinating the back-office support for ATTP (the

Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals), a service whichPraxisUnico provides under contract to ATTP.

Nicky Warnock Nicky joined PraxisUnico in March 2011 as ProjectManager to drive the ongoing development work ofthe Member Services Committee and to supportthe increasing levels of interest in PraxisUnicotraining course delivery overseas. Nicky has

extensive customer-facing and office management experience gainedin a range of corporate and public sector environments.

Lee WillmottLee joined PraxisUnico in January 2009 to focus onimproving communications both with members andwith external stakeholders and has implemented anumber of new initiatives since then includingPraxisUnico’s highly regarded fortnightly news

update and annual Impact Awards. In the run up to and post mergerLee has also project managed brand and web development forPraxisUnico. Lee has a number of years of marketing communicationsand public relations experience, both in-house and agency side.


26

PraxisUnico governance and committee structure

Board

Dr Phil Clare, Associate Director – ResearchServices, University of Oxford (Chair)

Dr Douglas Robertson, Director of Research& Enterprise Services, Newcastle University(Chair Elect)

Dr Alison Campbell OBE, Director ofInnovation, Kings College London/ManagingDirector, King’s College London Business Ltd

Richard Brooks, Chief Executive, FD Solutions

Dr Sue O’Hare, Associate Director(Enterprise), London Metropolitan University

Stuart MacKenzie, Spin-Out CompanyDevelopment Manager, University of Strathclyde

Lita Nelsen MBE, Director of the TechnologyLicensing Office, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr David Secher, Cambridge KT andUniversity of Cambridge (Past Chair)

Dr Malcolm Skingle CBE, Director ofAcademic Liaison, GlaxoSmithKline (Non-Executive Director)

Conference Committee

Dr Sue O’Hare, Associate Director(Enterprise), London Metropolitan University(Chair)

John Francis, Director of Research & BusinessDevelopment, Oxford Brookes University(Deputy Chair)

Dr Alan Burbidge, Licensing Executive,University of Nottingham

Dr Ewan Chirnside, Director, KT Centre,University of St Andrews

Dr Diane Harbison, Head of BusinessDevelopment, Edinburgh Bioquarter,University of Edinburgh

Carina Healy, Partner, Dundas & Wilson

Dr Angela Kukula, Director of Enterprise,Institute of Cancer Research

Patricia Latter, Head of BusinessDevelopment, Royal Veterinary College

Dr Rupert Osborn, CEO & PrincipalConsultant, IP Pragmatics

PraxisUnico is governed by agroup of members who makeup PraxisUnico’s Board. Boardmembers are appointed forfour years. The term of Chairis two years.

Training Committee

Dr Alison Campbell OBE, Director ofInnovation, Kings College London/ManagingDirector, King’s College London Business Ltd(Chair)

Liz Flint, Assistant Director of Commercialisationand Consultancy Services, AberystwythUniversity (Deputy Chair)

Dr Penny Attridge, Investment Director,SPARK Venture Management

Dr David Brownlee, Innovation Adviser, HSC Innovations

Dr Kevin Cullen, Director of Research &Enterprise, University of Glasgow

Sean Fielding, Director of Research andKnowledge Transfer, University of Exeter

Maureen Kelly, Consultant Solicitor, Keystone Law

Dr David Secher, Cambridge KT andUniversity of Cambridge

Dr Jeff Skinner, Executive Director, Instituteof Innovation and Entrepreneurship, LondonBusiness School

Member Services Committee

Dr Douglas Robertson, Director of BusinessDevelopment & Regional Affairs, NewcastleUniversity (Chair)

Dr Phil Clare, Associate Director – Head of Contracts, Research Services, University of Oxford

Dr Kevin Cullen, Director of Research &Enterprise, University of Glasgow

Dr Taj Mattu, Foresight Science & Technology(UK) Ltd

Patricia Latter, Head of BusinessDevelopment, Royal Veterinary College

The Review

28

PraxisUnico’s horizons are expandingas we look to help other internationalmarkets to strengthen researchcommercialisation activities.

Hauser Forum3 Charles Babbage RoadCambridgeCB3 0GT

T 01223 659950 F 01223 358366 E [email protected]

The Review

Documents

praxisunico thanks

ownedby praxisunico

economic impact

impact awards

database rights

proprietary rights

brave new world

langlandstechnology