Bildnachweis: stock.adobe.com, bernardbodo, PROvendis.
25 years ago, the ‘modern age’ of university technology transfer in Germany was about to start. The legal foundation had been laid, and the relevant law was on its way to taking effect. – particularly in and regarding the life sciences.
In November 2001, the German Parliament amended the Employees’ Inventions Act, abolishing the ‘professors’ privilege’ – the provision whereby inventions made by university academics were considered as their private property. The law came into effect in February 2002. Notably, respective changes took place in many countries around that time. About 20 years after the Bayh-Dole Act had sparked US technology transfer, it was time to move on. The journey of the ‘modern age’ of technology transfer began.
Where we came from
Technology transfer from academia to industry had, of course, long existed in Germany. It had also occurred in a structured form before the turn of the millennium, e.g. by the Max Planck Society. At Fraunhofer, transfer has been the core mission from the outset. Particularly in engineering, there has always been the professor with strong industry ties. Moreover, major funding programmes had already been initiated to foster technology transfer from academia, e.g. a precursor to the ZIM programme, ‘exist’, and, in the life sciences, the BioRegio initiative. Furthermore, some universities already had transfer offices. This was the era of the first biotech boom in Germany, when various spin-offs emerged based on licences from academia. However, at that time, universities were often perceived as ivory towers; commercialisation had a poor reputation in broad academic circles, and whilst support was available, it tended to be sporadic and geographically limited. A vast source of (taxpayer-funded) knowledge, representing massive potential for innovation and competitiveness, lay at an also difficult time for Germany untapped and unused. It was time to act.
What happened along the way?
Wisely, not only was the law amended, but relevant structures were set up. Supported by the federal ‘Commercialisation Initiative’, 22 central agencies were established to serve universities in their regions. Follow-up funding schemes were Signo, then Wipano (ending in 2023) – funding that became increasingly patchy in terms of geographical coverage. State-funding supplementing or replacing it remained the exception (e.g. North Rhine-Westphalia). Only a few examples of the original concept of centralised service providers with a critical mass to support regional universities remain, e.g. BayPat, InnoWi, PROvendis or Tutech. Yet, such centralised structures (with a critical mass) are to be regarded as essential parts of Germany’s innovation infrastructure. Meanwhile, many structures have been put in place. University transfer offices have (generally) been expanded and transfer strategies drafted. Key developments include:
- set-up of proof-of-concept funding both on a federal level, in various states and, sometimes, on an institutional level;
- significant expansion of support for spin-offs through federal (e.g. GO-Bio), also state funding and a growing support ecosystem. This has been particularly important in the life sciences, where long times to market and the use of spin-offs to develop technologies before their adoption by larger companies are common;
- the debate over universities taking equity in spin-offs (with all its pros and cons) gaining momentum.
- fostering R&D collaboration between industry and academia through European, federal, and state-funding schemes.
Where are we now?
25 years of grassroots work by transfer offices and agencies have significantly raised scientists’ awareness of the need for, benefits of, and key aspects of technology transfer. As a result, the share of European patent applications originating from universities nearly doubled to more than 10% in 2019 (EPO, 2023). This rise in academic patent applications has been particularly pronounced in the life sciences. Although often hampered by less established structures, understaffing, often unclear, even contradicting objectives, tightening budgets and a somewhat confusing, ever-changing landscape of support structures/initiatives (emphasising the need to preserve/strengthen the network of centralised structures and their expertise/network – evolved over the years), the overall level of professionalism of transfer activities has improved significantly. This pertains to e.g. supporting sci- entists/spin-offs, negotiating licence agreements tailored to the situation, broadening services, and fostering collaborations.
Where would we be otherwise?
The biotech industry may have emerged in one way or the other regardless. Transfer would have occurred in any case. Whilst, without the change in law, support services at universities might have existed in some places (in a different form), it would very likely be with less support and narrower coverage. The increasingly complex ownerships structures associated with joint inventions (common in life sciences), would have been difficult to handle. As before, much would have been lost due to limited experience, awareness and incentives of many scientists. However, addressing the aforementioned problems would take us consid- erably further. What has been achieved? What is in it for us? What needs to be done? A lot!
About the author:
Dr Jürgen Walkenhorst is a Manager Patents & Licences at PROvendis, the central technology transfer office of the North Rhine-Westphalian universities.
