Training the Next Generation of Innovation Leaders with Kendra Hargis-Stenzel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting discoveries out of the lab is only part of the commercialization journey. At some point, a promising idea reaches the stage where investment decisions can determine whether the science moves forward, stalls out, or becomes something that can truly reach patients. That moment is especially important in rare diseases, where the path to market can be long, complex, and difficult for traditional capital to support.My guest today is Tim Brent, Venture Principal with Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Tim brings experience across patient advocacy, specialty pharmaceutical operations, and venture investment, along with a personal family connection to rare disease communities. In his role, he sources and evaluates investment opportunities, supports diligence and transactions, and helps manage relationships with biotech companies after investment.We also discuss the practical side of the work, including how Tim finds opportunities, what makes a founder conversation stand out, and where promising science can start to lose momentum. He shares what patient input adds to diligence, why clear milestones and a strong mechanism of action matter, and how venture philanthropy can sometimes help early-stage programs keep moving when traditional capital is not quite ready to step in.In This Episode:[02:06] Tim Brent shares how his nonprofit career led him into the bleeding disorders space and mission-driven life science investing.[03:05] How his long connection to the bleeding disorders community and his daughters’ diagnoses add personal intensity to the work.[05:20] How Pathway to Cures works with university spinouts, licensed technologies, scientific advisors, legal counsel, cap tables, and investment documents during diligence.[08:17] Why patient perspective is central to Pathway to Cures and how the history of the bleeding disorders community shapes the way new therapies are evaluated.[10:02] Risks traditional investors may overlook, including treatment burden, side effects, patient preferences, and whether a new therapy is compelling enough to replace existing options.[11:52] How patient engagement shows up in diligence through the National Research Blueprint, lived experience experts, and the newer Bleeding Disorders Research Collaborative.[13:33] The importance of engaging patients and community members early, rather than waiting until a company is close to clinical trials.[14:24] What makes university tech transfer offices easier to work with, especially when researchers are genuinely excited about the discovery and open to scientific discussion.[15:55] What can slow deals down, from scheduling the first meeting to unclear founder pitches, slow NDAs, missing data room reports, IP questions, and unclear mechanisms of action.[18:11] What the relationship looks like after Pathway to Cures invests in a startup, including milestone check-ins, consultant referrals, and support without becoming a distraction.[19:46] Why very early-stage companies often need more post-investment support than later-stage companies.[20:22] Post-deal challenges that can come up unexpectedly, including slow decision-making, sudden management changes, and questions about cash burn.[21:09] Where promising programs can lose momentum, fall behind on timelines, or run out of capital before reaching the next funding round.[22:10] How venture philanthropy can help bridge the “valley of death” by taking on more risk, supporting rare disease markets, and helping companies de-risk early science.[25:00] Advice for tech transfer offices that want to make early-stage opportunities more attractive to mission-focused investors.[27:15] The future role of patient registries, patient-reported outcomes, access for underserved communities, affordability questions, and stronger partnerships.[28:36] A personal way to think about science, investment, and patient impact by asking what you would want if someone in your own family had a chronic disease or condition.Resources: AUTMPathway to CuresTim Brent - Pathway to CuresTim Brent - LinkedInBridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey

Industry partnerships can look very different depending on which side of the table you’re sitting on. For technology transfer professionals, the work often centers on preparing the opportunity, supporting the inventor, protecting the IP, and finding the right commercial partner. For companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, the question is slightly different: does this technology solve a real problem, fit an existing product area, improve on something already in the market, or open the door to a new capability?My guest today is Hsiaoli Chen, Senior Manager of Corporate Innovation Partnerships at Thermo Fisher Scientific. Hsiaoli brings nearly 20 years of experience in business development, technology scouting, and licensing across the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. and Europe. She started her career as a biomedical researcher, and that scientific foundation still shapes how she evaluates new opportunities, talks with inventors, and looks at the evidence behind an emerging technology.In this conversation, Hsiaoli shares how Thermo Fisher works with universities, startups, researchers, and tech transfer offices to identify promising technologies and build productive partnerships. We talk about what catches her attention in a technology offering, why benchmarking against an existing product can make a disclosure easier to evaluate, and how validation data helps industry partners understand what still needs to happen before a technology can move forward.We also get into the practical side of licensing, including timelines, royalty expectations, contract templates, and the flexibility needed to get deals done. Hsiaoli also shares her perspective on global differences in university partnerships, the technology trends she’s watching in AI, automation, proteomics, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy, and the simple things TTOs can do to stand out as strong, prepared, and collaborative industry partners.In This Episode:[02:03] Hsiaoli Chen shares how her path from academic biomedical research to a startup in Munich opened the door to business development, licensing, and technology commercialization.[03:31] Her research background still shapes how she evaluates new technologies, especially when looking at the science, experiments, and validation behind an invention.[05:12] Thermo Fisher’s university partnerships often begin through researchers who already use the company’s products or through introductions from tech transfer offices.[07:06] Benchmarking a university technology against an existing Thermo Fisher product can help the right internal team quickly understand where the opportunity fits.[08:42] Early-stage academic technologies may still be worth evaluating when inventors can clearly identify what additional validation or development work is needed.[10:02] Licensing conversations with Thermo Fisher often look different from biopharma deals because many technologies may reach the market within 12 to 24 months.[11:28] Royalty expectations, contribution from multiple technologies, and royalty management mechanisms can all affect whether a university deal makes commercial sense.[12:36] Flexibility around contract templates can help reduce friction and move licensing conversations forward more efficiently.[14:03] Global partnership structures vary, with U.S. tech transfer offices often taking the lead while some European inventors may have more direct influence over commercialization.[15:48] AI, automation, and predictive models for peptides, proteins, and antibodies are becoming increasingly important in chemistry and biology screening.[16:52] Proteomics, single-cell analysis, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy manufacturing workflows are among the university research trends Thermo Fisher is watching closely.[18:39] Thermo Fisher uses a robust internal funnel to evaluate technologies coming from universities, startups, biotechs, and even other companies.[19:34] Product managers, R&D colleagues, IP counsel, business teams, and legal partners may all become part of the evaluation process as an opportunity advances.[21:07] A strong tech transfer partner often provides complete information up front, including benchmarking, publications, and public patent details when available.[22:21] Some promising technologies do not move forward because exclusivity is unavailable, consortium terms are limiting, or the deal structure does not fit the business needs.[23:38] A technology that looks strong on paper may still fail to advance if it does not perform well under Thermo Fisher’s internal technical evaluation conditions.[24:36] Hsiaoli’s advice for tech transfer professionals is to prepare clear, concise technology offerings, stay flexible on negotiation terms, and keep building relationships through conferences and direct engagement.Resources: AUTMHsiaoli Chen - LinkedInThermo Fisher Scientific

Technology transfer is often described through patents, licenses, startups, and commercialization strategy, but rarely through the lens of a board game. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we talk with Guru Venkatesan, a business development manager at Fred Hutch and the creator of Royalty Stacks, a tech-transfer-inspired game built around patents, licenses, and leverage. The game gives players a chance to take ideas, decide how broadly to protect them, and choose whether to bring them to market through startups, exclusive licenses, or non-exclusive partnerships, all while navigating knock-offs, hostile takeovers, shifting market conditions, and the occasional boost from a rich uncle’s seed fund.Guru’s own path into technology commercialization has been anything but linear. He grew up in a small town in India with an early interest in visual arts, but after a classic family plot twist, he studied engineering instead. He earned his bachelor’s degree in India, moved to Tennessee for a PhD in Biomedical Engineering, and later founded Tech Carnivol, a Coachella-style festival for science and engineering during graduate school. His introduction to technology commercialization came at the University of Minnesota, where he worked under Leza Besemann and quickly fell in love with the field.The conversation explores how Royalty Stacks turns the everyday decisions of tech transfer into something people can actually sit down and play. Guru shares how he designed the game to balance strategy, humor, and education, why accessibility mattered as much as authenticity, and how concepts like patent enforcement, licensing pathways, portfolio building, collaboration, and market risk show up around the table. He also reflects on AI’s growing role in tech transfer, the challenge of explaining the profession to people outside the field, and what he hopes players will better understand about the long, risky, and often creative journey from idea to product.In This Episode:[03:00] Guru Venkatesan shares how his early interest in visual arts, a missed medical school cutoff, and encouragement to pursue engineering eventually led him to biomedical engineering.[06:13] The idea for Royalty Stacks came during a late-night moment when Guru realized tech transfer naturally behaves like a strategy game built around patents, licensing, risk, timing, and market forces.[09:43] Student-led technology festivals in India inspired Guru to create Tech Carnivol, a U.S. event with competitions, hackathons, robotics, and other hands-on science and engineering activities.[12:18] The challenge of explaining specialized fields to broader audiences leads into how Royalty Stacks makes patents, licensing, and commercialization easier to understand.[15:02] Guru walks through the basic gameplay of Royalty Stacks, including idea cards, patent filing, development, launch cards, play money, and power cards.[18:57] Patent regions, licensing territories, and revenue payouts are simplified for gameplay while still pointing toward real tech transfer concepts.[21:50] Launch Knock-Off and Enforce Patent introduce competition, copycats, and patent enforcement, with rock-paper-scissors adding a quick and lighthearted way to settle disputes.[25:25] Hostile Takeover and Collaborate create both adversarial and cooperative paths, giving players a chance to attack, protect, partner, or take strategic risks.[29:23] Corporate Roulette brings advanced gameplay into the mix through market events, windfalls, risks, moats, and humorous cards that can help players or disrupt opponents.[31:25] New players often begin to understand that patents matter, but also that protection alone is not enough without enforcement and commercialization strategy.[34:12] The game’s two winning conditions create more strategic tension by allowing players to win through cash or through a diversified portfolio and a late-game acquisition.[36:25] Guru sees Royalty Stacks as a tool for the AUTM community, whether for family play, office team building, faculty engagement, or startup incubator education.[39:20] Guru reflects on the irony of being a tech transfer professional commercializing a product about tech transfer, while relying more on copyright, branding, and a possible trademark than patents.[42:33] AI could reshape licensing and portfolio management roles by reducing time spent on document review and creating more space for marketing, relationship management, and overlooked technologies.[44:40] Royalty Stacks is launching on Kickstarter, with the campaign planned for June 16 through July 17 and expected delivery to backers in January 2027.[45:18] Guru hopes players walk away with a better appreciation for the work, risk, and execution required to move an idea from concept to product.Resources: AUTMGuru Venkatesan - LinkedInFred HutchRoyalty Stacks Creator IntroRoyalty Stacks Kickstarter

University-industry partnerships often sound straightforward from the outside. A promising discovery is made, a company sees potential, and a collaboration begins. But anyone who has worked inside these agreements knows the reality is far more complex. Research goals, publication timelines, IP rights, background technology, data sources, and internal review processes all have to be understood before a partnership can move forward in a productive way.My guest today is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Global Head of External Research Collaboration at Novartis. In this role, he works at the intersection of academic research and corporate R&D, helping shape the structures that allow early-stage research collaborations to succeed. With deep experience in technology transfer, licensing, IP management, alliance governance, research agreements, and term sheet negotiations, Dr. Sharma brings a practical view of what it takes to build partnerships that protect innovation while still allowing science to move.We talk about how Novartis approaches external research collaboration, where alignment and friction often show up between universities and industry, and why relationships matter just as much as contracts. Dr. Sharma also shares his perspective on background IP, publication review, AI, and data-source diligence, and the importance of keeping the tech transfer office and PI aligned from the earliest stages of a collaboration.In This Episode:[01:32] Dr. Yogesh Sharma defines external research collaboration at Novartis as work focused on early-stage research rather than clinical trials, with an emphasis on understanding disease biology and identifying new therapeutic possibilities.[04:30] Dr. Sharma explains how his background in academic technology transfer helps him understand pressure points on both sides of the table, especially when universities and corporate partners approach collaboration with different needs.[06:00] The conversation turns to friction around the use of research results, including why Novartis may need flexibility for research programs or regulatory filings while universities need to preserve academic research and publication rights.[09:11] Dr. Sharma describes the recurring issue of non-exclusive royalty-free licensing and explains why Novartis does not ask for broad rights in every agreement, but may need them when important clinical drugs or pipeline compounds are involved.[10:27] Strong collaborations depend on more than contract language, with Dr. Sharma emphasizing the importance of trust and communication between the PI and company scientists when research changes direction or results do not go as planned.[12:39] Dr. Sharma discusses the practical realities of review cycles, publication timelines, and internal approvals at a large company, including the importance of giving industry partners enough time for IP attorney review.[14:30] Background IP becomes a major focus as Dr. Sharma explains how Novartis may take an option and help cover ongoing patent costs when existing university IP is important to a proposed collaboration.[17:19] The discussion shifts to AI, platform science, and data ecosystems, with Dr. Sharma noting that AI is already shaping drug discovery, chemistry, target identification, data analysis, and research collaborations.[19:10] AI collaborations require careful diligence around data sources, existing tools, open-source licenses, and whether any restrictions could limit what Novartis can do with collaboration outputs.[21:35] Dr. Sharma offers advice to tech transfer professionals, stressing the need for early alignment with the PI around the research plan, diligence, data sources, deliverables, and what each side is bringing into the collaboration.[23:45] After a deal is signed, Dr. Sharma explains that larger collaborations require continued engagement, project management, kickoff meetings, and a reliable point of contact beyond the PI’s lab.[25:27] The episode closes with a look at how larger collaborations may involve structured alliance management, while smaller projects are often handled directly by scientists unless a problem arises.Resources: AUTMNovartisDr. Yogesh Sharma - LinkedInNovartis Biomedical Research / Novartis ResearchHelmholtz Munich Launches Collaboration on AI-Driven Kidney Disease Research