AUTM on the Air

For university startups, working with the federal government can open the door to valuable opportunities, but getting from an initial research award to an actual customer is rarely straightforward. A technology might have enormous potential, yet still struggle to find its place within an agency's priorities, budget, or purchasing process. There are also unfamiliar requirements to navigate, relationships to establish, and decisions to make long before a product is ready for market. Understanding how federal agencies operate and what they need from potential partners can help startups avoid some of the obstacles that slow commercialization.

My guest, Brandon Klein, is the founder of Collaboration.Ai, a company that works with entrepreneurs, researchers, and government organizations to improve the way new technologies are discovered and developed. Brandon spent 20 years working in the corporate world before becoming involved in federal innovation programs in 2017. His experience includes supporting the Air Force's AFWERX innovation challenges, where he saw firsthand what can happen when researchers, small businesses, and government representatives get in the same room. In one early workshop, a conversation between participants uncovered a solution that helped move a project forward by six months.

Brandon and I discuss what university startups should know before pursuing federal opportunities, including the SBIR and STTR programs, intellectual property considerations, and the challenge of finding someone within an agency who can actually help move a technology toward a purchase. We also talk about preparing for the next stage of commercialization and how AI can help founders make sense of complicated government requirements. Interestingly, for someone whose business is built around technology, Brandon keeps coming back to something decidedly human: the value of showing up, asking good questions, and getting to know the people you're hoping to work with.

In This Episode:

[02:16] Brandon Klein shares his introduction to federal innovation and the importance of bringing researchers, businesses, and government representatives together.

[03:35] Understanding the difference between a promising technology and a solution that meets federal agency needs.

[05:46] Using AI to navigate federal funding opportunities, understand government terminology, and prepare stronger proposals.

[07:02] Building trust between universities and startups while clarifying intellectual property rights and responsibilities.

[09:12] Taking advantage of free state and federal resources to navigate SBIR and STTR programs.

[10:53] Communicating research discoveries to government customers and determining whether interest can lead to a purchase.

[14:25] Making valuable federal connections through networking events and meaningful conversations.

[16:04] Preparing for Phase III commercialization by anticipating technical, security, and contracting requirements.

[18:47] Managing the uncertainty of federal contracting and avoiding dependence on a single opportunity.

[20:18] How Collaboration.Ai helps connect innovators, small businesses, and government agencies.

[23:42] Keeping people at the center of innovation as artificial intelligence takes on a larger role.

[25:56] Rethinking traditional conferences to encourage more productive collaboration and personal connections.

[27:23] Brandon's practical advice for technology transfer professionals: Have three meaningful conversations in the next 30 days.

Resources: 

AUTM

Brandon Klein

Brandon Klein - LinkedIn

Collaboration.Ai

AFWERX

SpaceWERX

SBIR

STTR

University technology transfer has changed in a pretty fundamental way. Established companies are often looking for technologies that are further along than they once were, which means universities increasingly have to do more of the early work themselves. That can mean validating the technology, figuring out the market, recruiting leadership, finding funding, and sometimes building a startup simply to get the invention far enough along for industry to take notice.

My guest is Michael Dixon, Ph.D., President and CEO of UNeMed Corporation, which serves the University of Nebraska Medical Center and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Mike began his career at UNMC as a scientist working in molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry before moving into technology transfer in 2003. Today, he leads UNeMed’s commercialization efforts and has spent more than two decades watching the field shift from a model built largely around licensing to established companies toward one that increasingly includes startup formation and venture development.

We talk about what it really means to de-risk a university technology, how UNeMed decides which inventions are suited for startups, and why good intellectual property alone is not enough to build a company. Mike also discusses the challenge of finding the right leadership, building an ecosystem without trying to own every piece of it, and structuring licenses in ways that give young companies room to grow. We also look at how technology transfer offices can measure success when commercialization may take years, companies may pivot along the way, and the ultimate goal is not simply forming startups, but getting university research into products that people can actually use.

In This Episode:

[02:05] Michael Dixon shares how university technology transfer has shifted from licensing primarily to established companies toward a greater reliance on startups.

[03:30] Why companies increasingly want technologies that are further along and how that puts more development responsibility on universities.

[05:57] We discuss what de-risking really means and why universities are increasingly acting like early stage venture investors.

[10:29] How UNeMed decides whether a technology is suited for a startup, needs more research, fits a traditional license, or should not move forward yet.

[13:45] Mike talks about the importance of strong technology, a realistic development plan, the right talent, and enough resources to execute.

[15:30] We discuss the challenge of finding startup leadership and why faculty inventors are not always the right people to serve as CEO.

[18:59] How UNeMed supports more innovation and entrepreneurship with a smaller staff and decides where to focus its time and resources.

[21:26] Building a commercialization ecosystem by connecting startups with investors, mentors, accelerators, and other outside partners.

[24:00] Why universities do not need to build every program themselves and how partnerships can help a technology transfer office do more with less.

[26:36] Mike discusses startup friendly licensing and why preserving a young company’s early cash can sometimes create more value for everyone.

[29:00] How UNeMed balances financial stewardship, local economic development, and the larger goal of moving university research into useful products.

[31:21] We talk about measuring success when startups pivot, commercialization takes years, and the eventual product may look very different from the original invention.

[33:35] Which metrics can show whether a technology transfer program is making progress before a product finally reaches the market.

[36:24] Looking ahead at the growing role of venture development and the partnerships universities may need to help technologies cross the commercialization gap.

[36:57] What universities will need to demonstrate if they want more resources devoted to startup and commercialization programs.

[38:30] Mike’s rapid fire advice on startup licensing, building venture capabilities, and becoming more comfortable with calculated risk.

[40:00] Why the strongest university startup opportunities bring together good technology, the right talent, and enough resources to develop the idea.

Resources: 

AUTM

Michael Dixon, PhD - UNeMed

Michael Dixon - LinkedIn

An Industry Shift Pushed Universities To Do More Entrepreneurship. Tech Transfer Is Learning To Adapt

UNeTech Institute

VisionSync

Taxpayers help pay for university research, but figuring out what they get back isn't as simple as adding up licensing revenue. Sometimes the payoff is a new product. Other times it's a better-paying job, a growing local industry, or a technology people rely on without knowing it started in a university lab. Those benefits can be substantial, even when they're difficult to capture in the usual reports.

Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, and Stuart Wilkinson, CEO of Knowledge Exchange UK, return to talk about the second Global Perspectives on Knowledge Exchange roundtable, which brought together voices from the U.S., UK, and Chile. Despite the differences between their research systems, many of the same concerns kept coming up. Steve and Stuart look at why jobs and workforce development deserve more attention and what universities can do to show the broader value of their work.

They also explore an interesting side of research commercialization: a startup can fail and still leave behind people with skills that lead to something successful. From a Florida workforce program to the challenge of keeping promising discoveries moving forward, the conversation offers examples that make these issues easier to understand. Steve and Stuart also consider how universities can better communicate their successes and why the full value of publicly funded research often goes far beyond what the numbers show.

In This Episode:

[02:25] Steve Susalka discusses what the latest Global Roundtable revealed about the return on publicly funded research, including the importance of job creation and workforce development across the U.S., UK, and Chile.

[04:14] Stuart Wilkinson explains why universities need to look beyond patents and licensing revenue to demonstrate how research contributes to economic growth, public well-being, and lasting social impact.

[06:37] The financial success of technology transfer offices has created expectations around revenue generation that can sometimes overshadow their broader purpose.

[08:46] How university leadership can take a more comprehensive view of technology transfer success, including job creation, faculty recruitment, and the benefits research brings to society.

[10:18] A Central Florida workforce program demonstrates how university research can help people move from minimum-wage employment into better-paying jobs in the semiconductor industry.

[12:00] Collecting employment data from licensees and startup companies could help universities better document the economic benefits of their commercialization activities.

[14:21] Measuring the broader impact of research remains challenging, particularly when the most meaningful outcomes are difficult to quantify using traditional performance metrics.

[16:37] Personal stories and qualitative evidence can help communicate research impact, while regional differences make comparisons between universities and innovation ecosystems more complicated.

[18:05] The UK's Knowledge Exchange Framework offers a way to compare institutions with similar characteristics while recognizing their different contributions to local and national economies.

[20:04] Familiar innovations such as Allegra, LED technology, and the Honeycrisp apple offer relatable examples of how university research benefits people in everyday life.

[22:18] AUTM's Better World Project highlights hundreds of research success stories, demonstrating that valuable innovations can emerge from institutions of all sizes and backgrounds.

[24:00] Communicating the benefits of research requires different approaches depending on whether the audience includes policymakers, university leaders, industry partners, or the general public.

[25:19] Stuart examines why an unsuccessful startup can still produce lasting value by giving researchers, entrepreneurs, and employees skills they carry into future opportunities.

[27:48] Looking at failure through the lens of workforce development reveals how even projects that never reach the market can strengthen the broader innovation ecosystem.

[30:29] Community colleges and other educational institutions play an important role in preparing workers for industries emerging from university research and commercialization.

[33:05] Strong research alone isn't enough to bring discoveries to market, and gaps in funding, expertise, and development resources can limit the return on public investment.

[35:49] Stuart introduces his six P's of research commercialization, explaining why ideas, funding, programs, places, people, and policies must work together to support innovation.

[38:43] Keeping the benefits of publicly funded research within national borders becomes complicated when successful technologies depend on international investment, partnerships, and markets.

[41:34] International acquisitions and overseas commercialization can still generate meaningful benefits for the country where an invention originated, even when some economic activity moves elsewhere.

[44:12] Technology transfer offices need to make communicating their successes a priority, since those stories can help universities gain recognition and support for future innovation.

[46:38] Bringing communications professionals into technology transfer teams can improve how research achievements are shared, while digital platforms make it easier to reach wider audiences.

[48:41] Examples involving online safety, Chile's salmon industry, and smartphone technology illustrate how publicly funded research delivers benefits that extend far beyond licensing income.

[51:10] A preview of the next Global Roundtable introduces the role of established industries in helping university discoveries reach the market.

[51:57] The conversation closes with a reminder that the value of publicly funded research is ultimately reflected in the opportunities it creates and the improvements it brings to people's lives.

Resources: 

AUTM

Global Roundtable Discussions

Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM

Steve Susalka - LinkedIn

Knowledge Exchange UK

Stuart Wilkinson - LinkedIn

What really happens on the other side of a patent application? Attorneys and inventors spend plenty of time thinking about claims, prior art, and Office Actions, but the examiner reviewing the application is working through the same invention from a very different perspective. Understanding how examiners approach that process can change not only the way applicants respond to rejections, but the way they think about prosecution from the beginning.

My guest is Maille “Molly” Lyons, a scientist, researcher, educator, and former USPTO patent examiner who spent 14 years examining biotechnology applications. Today, through SeaLyons LLC, she works with inventors and patent professionals to help them better understand the U.S. patent examination process. She is also the author of There Are NO Bad Patent Examiners: The Unofficial Guide to Working with the “Good” Ones, which takes a practical and often humorous look at what happens from the examiner’s side of the desk.

We talk about how examiners are trained, what they look at when a new application reaches their docket, and why claim language is so often where misunderstandings begin. Molly also explains why rejection is a normal part of prosecution, how examiner interviews can help move a case forward, and why telling an examiner they are wrong is rarely the best place to start. We also discuss what she learned after leaving the USPTO, the value of treating prosecution as a collaborative process, and what technology transfer offices can do to help researchers navigate patents before a public disclosure creates problems.

In This Episode:

[02:05] Maille “Molly” Lyons shares how her background in scientific research and teaching led unexpectedly to a career as a USPTO patent examiner.

[03:19] We talk about learning patent law from scratch and the intensive training new examiners receive through the Patent Academy.

[05:50] Molly discusses how examiner training has changed, why she loved patent examination, and the importance of strong writing skills.

[10:16] The story behind There Are NO Bad Patent Examiners and Molly’s scale from “good” to “super fantastic.”

[12:49] Who the book is for and why applicants should understand that a rejection is a normal and often useful part of prosecution.

[16:30] We discuss moving away from an “us versus them” mindset and treating patent prosecution as a collaborative process.

[19:41] When a disagreement may need to move beyond the examiner through pre appeal, appeal, or another level of review.

[21:38] Molly uses the idea of a fence around an invention to explain claim scope and the examiner’s responsibility to both the inventor and the public.

[24:57] What an examiner looks at first when a new application reaches the docket and why the claims come before the specification.

[28:48] We talk about where misunderstandings most often begin and how examiner workloads and production requirements affect the process.

[32:55] Why following a familiar application structure can make an examiner’s job easier and reduce unnecessary objections and rejections.

[35:16] Molly discusses “octopus” claims, drafting choices that make examinations more complicated, and the importance of word choice when responding to an examiner.

[38:10] How to respond when an Office Action appears to be wrong without turning the disagreement into a personal argument.

[41:26] We discuss leading with the strongest arguments, addressing everything the examiner has raised, and preserving issues that may matter later on appeal.

[45:16] Why examiner interviews can move prosecution forward and help uncover the real source of a disagreement.

[48:43] When involving a supervisory patent examiner can help and why escalating too quickly can make a difficult situation worse.

[52:01] Molly shares what technology transfer offices can do to build stronger relationships with university researchers before public disclosures occur.

[55:43] Molly’s rapid fire advice for patent practitioners and why the best examiner applicant relationships work as a collaborative dialogue.

Resources: 

AUTM

Mary Maille (Molly) Lyons - LinkedIn

SeaLyons LLC

PatWorld - Mary Maille (Molly) Lyons

Meet the IP Professional:Maille Lyons – Seeing Patents from the Other Side

There are NO bad Patent Examiners: The unofficial guide to working with the "good" ones

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