Shattering the Glass Ceiling in Innovation and Patents With Dr. Marianne Privett And Dr. Aardra Kachroo

For decades, rural areas have faced a steady decline—losing economic opportunities, grappling with the "brain drain" as creatives and young people migrate to urban centers, and watching local industries falter. But what if university Tech Transfer offices (TTOs) could reverse this trend and be the spark for rural revitalization? Today’s episode explores this potential with Dr. Richard Cahoon, an expert in the field who has over 30 years of experience in invention, intellectual property (IP) management, technology commercialization, and entrepreneurship.Dr. Richard Cahoon, an Adjunct Professor in Global Development and former Director of Cornell’s Tech Transfer office, has worked extensively with universities, government agencies, and companies across more than 25 countries. In addition to advising on R&D partnerships, IP management, and venture creation, Richard is a seasoned innovator who holds several U.S. patents. His vision? To align TTOs with Cooperative Extension offices and bring technology and entrepreneurship into rural communities to foster local talent, create sustainable businesses, and ultimately reshape these areas’ futures. Join us for this insightful conversation as Richard shares his strategies, lessons learned, and the transformative potential of connecting university resources with rural America.In This Episode:[02:04] Rural America has faced economic decline for decades, and traditionally, university tech transfer offices have focused more on urban or research-intensive areas.[03:02] When Dr. Cahoon joined Cornell's Tech transfer office in 1990, he brought with him experience as an inventor and an entrepreneur. He was very involved in creating opportunities and recruiting entrepreneurs. He created the Venture Vision Summary which was like a tech brief.[04:48] He wanted to take a proactive role in creating entrepreneurial activity in rural towns.[06:10] Dr. Cahoon shares information about his first tech and entrepreneur pilot program in Auburn, New York. [09:30] There was robust entrepreneurship at Cornell which helped with the pilot program that Dr. Cahoon was developing. [10:19] How Tech Transfer professionals can help foster local talent retention through similar models.[11:11] Thinking about the creative economy and creative people. Tech Transfer professionals are the bridge to enable the creative economy to flourish.[12:56] He left the Tech Transfer office in 2009 just as it was beginning to thrive.[13:41] We learn about a startup that came out of the Geneva campus at Cornell. It was about biological control of agricultural pests and disease.[17:49] Dr. Cahoon made a connection with the owner of a car dealership while he was at Cornell. They ended up establishing a venture fund.[18:51] Challenges when extending Tech Transfer models to a rural context.[21:48] The importance of cooperative extension programs. [24:09] Parallels between rural America's current situation and other countries or regions when fostering local innovation.[25:55] How fortunate we are in the United States. Other countries have so much bureaucracy it's absolutely stifling.[26:28] Key steps for growing this particular model at Cornell and other universities.  It would be interesting to get a room full of Tech Transfer office directors and cooperative extension directors.[28:13] It might be possible to start by getting Tech Transfer people together at AUTM. [28:53] The AUTM 50th Anniversary meeting is coming up in March in Washington DC.[29:11] Movements with impact often start with a small group.[30:29] Dr. Cahoon shares the story about a small town that was once thriving because of technology and patents. This one is about the Channel Master TV antenna. [32:05] This success can be reproduced with new technology.[32:34] Practical advice for getting started and gaining traction in your local community. Reach out and look for technologies that might belong in a rural community. Do marketing with that in mind.[35:08] How the TTO/Cooperative Extension could evolve. It has the potential to be one of the pillars of the mission of Tech Transfer. Resources: Dr. Richard Cahoon LinkedInDr. Richard CahoonDr. Richard Cahoon

In recent years, CRISPR technology has emerged as a game-changer in the world of gene editing, unlocking remarkable possibilities across various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and environmental science.But what is CRISPR? CRISPR stands for "Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats" and is based on an ancient function of prokaryotes—single-celled organisms such as bacteria and archaea. These organisms use a specialized CRISPR-associated molecule, Cas, to cut and destroy the DNA of invading viruses called bacteriophages. The CRISPR-Cas system has been engineered to work in eukaryotes, like animals and plants. Its ability to make precise, targeted cuts in DNA sequences allows scientists to insert, delete, and modify DNA across a wide variety of cells. Among the various Cas proteins identified, the best known is CRISPR-Cas9, which has become a transformative tool in genome editing.Given the potential value of this technology, the CRISPR patent landscape is vast. Some estimates suggest there are more than 12,000 families of patents related to CRISPR technology. Unsurprisingly, disputes have arisen over the ownership of these patents. Most famously, two groups have claimed rights to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 for eukaryotic gene editing: the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier (CVC) on one side, and the Harvard-MIT Broad Institute on the other. This dispute has led to several complex and lengthy battles in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the Chinese Patent Office, and in various courts, where proceedings are still ongoing.Here to help us understand the latest developments in these ongoing disputes is Dr. Kevin Noonan. Kevin is an experienced patent lawyer, molecular biologist, and renowned thought leader in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent law. He is a partner at the intellectual property law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, where he co-chairs the firm's Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Practice Group. He is also the co-founder and regular contributor to Patent Docs, a website featuring news and commentary on patent law. In addition, he is a co-editor and contributing author of the book Claim Construction and the Federal Circuit, and a contributing author of Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law, now in its second edition.In This Episode:[03:42] Dr. Noonan talks about how the Broad Institute and CVC became key players in the CRISPR patent landscape. Broad had very aggressively filed patents. CVC took a more laid back approach. Since the Broad patents were already filed they caused interference when the CVC patents came up.[05:41] Broad had the earlier filing date.[06:35] Dr. Noonan explains interferences. [11:21] Eventually, the patents and applications may need to be decided in court.[12:03] A summary of the main claims and inventions in the first interference. One had a more narrow claim to CRISPR.[13:22] PTAP dismissed the first interference finding no interference.[15:57] Interference number one was a victory to Broad.[16:14] California wasn't happy with the first decision, so they filed a second interference.[17:40] We learn about the rationale behind PTAB holding for Broad.[21:55] The PTAB determined in the first interference that this was complicated and if it didn't work, they didn't really have conception.[24:42] This is really an anomaly in interference law to have the second to conceive in the absence of these diligence issues, to have the second to conceive get the priority.[25:14] Because it's so complicated, it's taking the Federal Circuit a long time to decide.[26:22] Dr. Noonan shares how Broad should approach the case.[27:32] There are four more CRISPR interferences involving Broad and CVC. Two involve Sigma Aldrich and the other two involve ToolGen.[31:21] Dr. Noonan talks about what this means for the future of CRISPR research and applications and what tech transfer offices should be most aware of.[34:42] Lessons that innovators, researchers, and tech transfer offices can draw from all of these interferences moving forward.[39:35] The status of the Broad Institute and CVC's CRISPR-Cas9 patents in Europe.[45:08] We discuss Sigma and ToolGen's patents in Europe. [47:15] The status of the Broad Institute’s and CVC’s CRISPR-Cas9 patents in Japan and China.[48:28] Final thoughts for Tech Transfer offices. It's a moving target, and as time goes by, there's more types of genetic interferences.[49:45] The University of Missouri has gotten the first CRISPR pig patent in Europe. There's a proposed ban in Europe on selling CRISPR genetically modified plants. Resources: Dr. Kevin NoonanDr. Kevin Noonan LinkedInPatent Docs

What if the next technology or scientific breakthrough is hidden in ancient tribal knowledge? Today, we'll look at Indigenous knowledge and intellectual property, and how Tech Transfer Offices deal with the specific issues of protecting and honoring these cultural assets.  We're delighted to welcome Graham Strong, Otago Innovation's commercialization manager with over 25 years of business expertise. Graham is an expert in both intellectual property and Indigenous rights, with a PhD in Botany and a Master of Laws focusing on the monetization of Māori medicinal knowledge.  As Otago Innovation's expert in natural product commercialization and Indigenous intellectual property, Graham is perfectly positioned to help us navigate this complex landscape.  We'll look at the underlying contrasts between Indigenous and non-Indigenous intellectual property systems, the problems of protecting Indigenous IP during technology transfer, and the importance of respectful interaction with Indigenous people.  We also look at how universities may form meaningful, long-term relationships that go beyond transactional agreements, ensuring that Indigenous perspectives are heard and their expertise is appropriately recognized and preserved during the innovation process.  In This Episode:[01:44] Graham has a lot of expertise in both intellectual property and indigenous rights.[02:02] Graham shares that traditional knowledge and indigenous IP are two different things.[04:02] We talk about how universities can engage indigenous communities in a culturally respectful and meaningful way.[05:01] Conversations can start when everyone realizes it's okay to be uncomfortable. Graham also talks about reputational damage.[06:06] Key challenges when protecting indigenous IP in the context of text transfer.[07:19] We talk about things like handling consent and ownership when traditional knowledge is embedded in new technology.[08:14] It's difficult to protect background IP which is in the public domain. Graham talks about prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms. These are some of the ingredients that can be in place to handle consent of ownership.[10:05] Drafting these types of agreements is still a work in progress for Graham's institution.[11:32] The role that indigenous communities play in the decision-making about how they're knowledge is used.[13:14] It's a balance between financial and non-financial when putting these partnerships together.[15:45] We learn about the distinctions of which group you should engage in when looking for permission to use indigenous IP.[18:33] Talking about cultural respect in tech transfer.[20:33] We discuss whether universities are able to navigate these complexities while maintaining their core focus on research and innovation.[23:02] Treating indigenous partners like any other partner and having a negotiation and seeing where it lands.[24:38] Dealing with issues early on before money is involved.[27:32] Graham shares a situation where involvement of indigenous communities has slowed down the commercialization of a technology.[30:02] There have been times when there's been limited flexibility in developing commercialized technology with indigenous communities.[32:03] We learn about how best practices in indigenous IP protection from other countries apply to universities in various legal, cultural, or economic contexts.Resources: Graham Strong - Otago InnovationGraham Strong LinkedIn

The bourbon industry is a major economic driver for the Kentucky region, with 95% of the world's bourbon supply made and aged in the Bluegrass State. There’s more behind those barrels than aging whisky. I’m joined by Dr. Greg Tucker , a licensing manager and commercialization specialist III at the University of Louisville. His extensive experience includes negotiating business terms for license agreements, managing university technologies, and establishing partnerships between innovators and companies. He holds a doctorate in chemistry from Arizona State University and has multiple U.S. patents in renewable energy.We talk about the rich history of bourbon, exploring its origins dating back to George Washington and the evolution of its production process. We discuss how intellectual property plays a crucial role in the bourbon industry, from trademarks protecting iconic brands to patents safeguarding innovative distillation methods.Greg also shares insights into notable IP cases, including the Jack Daniel's dog toy dispute and Maker's Mark's signature red wax seal. We also explore groundbreaking innovations emerging from the University of Louisville, with a spotlight on Bioproducts LLC. This company is revolutionizing the industry by transforming distillery waste into valuable products like animal feed, healthy sugar alternatives, and even materials for 3D printing.Whether you're a bourbon enthusiast or just curious about how innovation impacts industry, this episode is for you. Grab your glass, sit back, and let’s toast to the history and future of bourbon.In This Episode:[02:17] Greg is the licensing manager at University of Louisville Research Foundation and the diversity and inclusion pillar lead for HIPAA, our Kentucky Intellectual Property Association here locally in Louisville.[04:12] Bourbon is a 9 billion dollar industry in Kentucky.[05:12] Greg shares the history of bourbon with us.[07:29] What makes bourbon a bourbon is that the mash is at least 51% corn. It also has to be distilled and aged in an oak barrel.[11:09] During prohibition people could still buy medicinal bourbon.[11:40] September is also bourbon heritage month.[12:13] You can still find George Washington's still at Mount Vernon.[13:39] Tennessee whiskey is bourbon with an additional process.[15:29] Greg talks more about what makes a bourbon a bourbon.[16:31] The role that IP plays when it comes to bourbon. It touches every aspect from names and trademarks to copyrights and design patents.[19:34] There are also a lot of bourbon trade secrets.[21:13] Greg talks about Jack Daniels vs. VIP Products, where a Jack Daniels bottle replica was used as a dog toy. Maker's Mark also had a case involving the red signature wax that drips from the top of the bottle.[25:23] Bioproducts transform organic waste from distilleries into value-added products.[27:20] Stillage is the organic grainy waste leftover from the fermentation process. Some interesting uses have been for it from animal feed to sweeteners. [30:07] There is also a company working on developing Biocoal. [32:35] Greg talks about working with farmers and collaborations using biomass.[34:31] The Estate Whiskey Alliance is trying to make the industry more efficient.[36:05] Greg talks about using carbon credits and becoming more efficient.[38:07] Challenges from scaling up with Bioproducts[44:19] We learn about a quantitative method that can be used to identify the type of bourbon or whiskey due to its unique grain pattern.[46:26] For Greg, bourbon tasting is not only work, it's a hobby too.[47:46] Greg talks about his favorite bourbon and whiskey along with an IP story. [53:44] This episode winds down with talking about favorite bourbons and sharing a virtual drink. [55:57] Greg walks us through a traditional Kentucky bourbon tasting.Resources: T. Gregory Tucker, Ph.D. LinkedInTelpriore Greg Tucker FacebookBioproducts, LLC

AI is transforming the tech transfer industry, but how can we stay ahead of this rapidly evolving technology and fully leverage its capabilities? In this episode, we explore how AI is becoming an essential tool, helping accelerate licensing deals, identify the right industry partners, and market innovations more effectively.To dive deeper into these advancements, we offer a sneak peek into our upcoming 4-week virtual course, The Future of Tech Transfer: Leveraging AI to Find & Secure Licensing Deals. This course is designed to equip you with practical AI skills that can revolutionize your approach to tech transfer.It covers topics ranging from finding ideal industry partners to crafting personalized marketing strategies, all while emphasizing AI tools that boost efficiency and productivity in tech transfer offices. We also address the importance of adopting AI now to avoid falling behind in this fast-moving field.Joining us are the course’s expert instructors: Peter Bittner, founder and CEO of The Upgrade, who has helped organizations like NASA and Apple close the AI skills gap, and Dr. D’vorah Graeser, founder and CEO of RocketSmart.io, a platform using AI to connect universities with top corporate partners.In This Episode:[02:14] This course is intended to look at AI from the perspective of a tech transfer professional. It's about using AI tools to make the process faster and more productive.[03:37] AI tools can help innovations find the right commercial home and the right partner to commercialize the innovation and bring it to market.[04:42] These tools will help tech transfer professionals find the right contact and make the right case.[05:24] D’vorah talks about challenges for tech transfer offices finding corporate partners.[06:42] Peter talks about the wide range of tools that they'll be covering in the course.[10:32] D’vorah talks about how AI tools can help with invention summaries by defining the essence of the summary in regular language or from a business perspective.[12:20] One way to craft a stronger pitch is to find the buyer side persona. Who is the buyer? How to identify the correct buyer persona?[14:17] The pre-recorded modules of the live course will give everyone a foundation. The live part of the course will show how the tool can be used within specific contexts.[15:13] There will be a pre-recorded module before every live module that corresponds to the content.[16:40] Peter talks about how AI will allow all storytellers to do more with less.[18:06] They're going to have office hours titled, Ask Us Anything About AI.[20:04] D’vorah also encourages everybody to join the AI Special Interest Group. She also has a book coming out. They want to scale down AI for specific fields.[22:51] D’vorah and Peter talk about the specifics of the modules and how busy people can fit the class into their schedules.[24:34] Peter shares an AI success story and how AI enables a small team to be scrappier and more productive.[27:21] How AI is going to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years and the possibilities of reducing friction.[29:02] We talk about why tech transfer professionals should get involved in AI right now. Resources: The Future of Tech Transfer: 4-Week Virtual Training Course: October 15 – November 7Peter Bittner - The UpgradePeter Bittner LinkedInDr. D’vorah Graeser - Rocket SmartDr. D’vorah Graeser LinkedIn

Recent research has highlighted that patents from majority-female inventor teams receive significantly fewer citations—up to 22% less—than those from majority-male teams. Citations play a key role in measuring the impact and value of patents, making this gap significant not only for the inventors themselves but also for the broader innovation landscape. Why are female inventors' patents cited less frequently, and how does this imbalance affect their future development and the total capacity for innovation?Our guest today is Gauri Subramani, an assistant professor in Lehigh University's Department of Management. Gauri's research focuses on gender and resource disparity in innovation, using data-driven methods to identify gaps and investigate potential remedies. Prior to joining academia, Gauri worked as a consultant and political appointee in the Office of Economic Policy at the United States Department of Treasury under the Obama administration. Her research spans the United States patent system and digital platforms, where she investigates the impact of representation on innovation and entrepreneurship.One of the major topics we explore is the persisting gender discrepancy in patent citations, even after controlling for a variety of variables. We investigate whether this disparity is predominantly caused by applicant-added citations rather than examiner-added citations. Our discussion delves into the tendency of majority-male teams to regularly cite patents from other majority-male teams, as well as how patents from majority-female teams are less likely to be further developed. We also look at how women's patent undercitation affects businesses that rely significantly on cumulative innovation, such healthcare and technology. Finally, our study contributes significantly to the continuing discussion about diversity, inclusion, and innovation in the field of patenting and intellectual property.In This Episode:[03:08] Patent citations are an established way by which researchers really measure the impact and quality of an invention. Gauri wanted to explore the gap in citations between female and male inventors. [04:04] Female inventor teams received up to 22% fewer citations than male counterparts. Why does this citation gap exist?[05:21] After implementing multiple controls in the study there's a 4% gap that they can't answer for.[05:48] They've discovered that female inventors' patents are less likely to be cited and appear to be less likely to be further developed by subsequent inventions.[06:59] This could mean that female inventor patents are less likely to be cited because they're less likely to be built upon. It's also possible that female patents could be perceived as less impactful.[08:57] Citations are primarily added to patents by applicants or examiners.[10:17] The gender gap seems to be driven entirely by applicant-added citations.[11:22] Gender in-group preference appears to be a factor in patent citations.[14:19] Technology areas with more female inventors grow more slowly. Female inventors' patents are also more distinct.[15:26] We discuss how gender affects access to social networks that facilitate knowledge diffusion in the patent system.[17:13] This gap could translate into other gaps and make less incentive for females to develop their inventions.[19:08] Being less likely to build on inventions by female inventors exasperates several underlying problems especially in the healthcare and technology fields.[20:39] There can be a desire to cite as little as possible on patent citations.[22:23] Applicants and tech transfer offices should proactively think about the processes by which they search for and add citations. [24:32] The Council for Inclusive Innovation is a signal of the USPTO's commitment to increasing diversity in patenting.Resources: Gauri SubramaniGauri Subramani Lehigh UniversityGauri Subramani LinkedInUntapped Potential: Investigating Gender Disparities in Patent CitationsCouncil for Inclusive Innovation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing industries across the board, from healthcare to finance, bringing with it new challenges for inventors, universities, and the IP community. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued new guidance on subject matter eligibility for AI inventions, providing much-needed clarity on how AI-related innovations can be patented. This update is vital for those working at the intersection of technology and intellectual property, especially in tech transfer offices and research institutions.My guest today is someone deeply involved in shaping these policies: Derrick Brent, the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As Deputy Director of the USPTO, Derrick serves as the principal advisor to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Kathi Vidal. In his role, Derrick works to advance intellectual property policies that foster innovation, support startups, and enhance entrepreneurship nationwide.We discuss AI subject matter eligibility guidance and its impact on the future of AI patenting. Derrick shares that the goal of this guidance is to promote clarity and consistency for both USPTO staff and external stakeholders in analyzing AI and critical emerging technologies. The USPTO aims to streamline the patenting process for AI-related inventions through clarity and consistency to patent subject matter eligibility. We also cover where stakeholders can submit comments and feedback on these guidelines. Additionally, we explore the tools and resources available to help everyone become AI fluent to navigate this rapidly evolving landscape. In This Episode:[02:39] Derrick gives us a brief overview of the key updates in the USPTO's AI subject matter eligibility guidance. [03:02] AI presents one of the greatest technological innovation opportunities in a generation. It's transformative and an amazing Innovation opportunity.[03:32] Order 14110 or the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI. Was used as a guiding principle.[04:06] The guidance on the intersection of AI and IP, which could include patent eligibility issues related to innovation in AI and Critical Emerging Technologies was issued on July 17th of 2024. We are now in the middle of the comment period.[04:12] There are three main parts to the guidance. The first part is to assist USPTO personnel and stakeholders in evaluating subjectmatter eligibility for AI inventions. [04:38] The second part of it is to provide a new set of examples to assist in applying guidance. The third part is to address feedback from stakeholders and also to discuss the law and policy landscape.[06:40] Derrick shares information about the previous guidance that led up to this new guidance.[12:19] The comment period is going on now, so submit your feedback regulations.gov.[13:22] They are going to stay current with developments through engagement with stakeholders and interagency conversations and collaborations.[15:41] Derrick shares important tools like Site Experience Education Program (SEE) and the Patent Examiner Technology Training Program (PETTP). The USPTO also has an AI portal.[17:53] How the guidance addresses distinguishing between abstract ideas and practical applications.[18:36] There is a two prong analysis. If the first prong is met then you move to the second prong.[22:53]  Use the tools with AI related patent applications. Be diligent and describe your invention as clearly as possible[26:39] If you're interested in commenting, go to regulations.gov. The deadline for commenting should be in the portal.[27:41] In spite of the type of IP, there is a consistency for the rules and guidelines of evaluation.[29:49] Challenges include new and unprecedented inventions.[30:56] Derick talks about government collaboration.[33:14] AI is going to be a transformative problem solving tool.Resources: Derrick BrentDerrick Brent LinkedInJourney to the USPTO — Derrick Brent, USPTO Deputy DirectorRegulations.govSite Experience Education ProgramUSPTO Artificial Intelligence

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a public-private partnership with centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. This episode dives into MEP and the MEP National Network—an initiative that has been a pillar of U.S. manufacturing, offering comprehensive solutions to manufacturers across the country and fueling growth and innovation in the sector.Joining us for this discussion are two distinguished experts. First, we have Nagesh Rao, the acting director of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at NIST. With over 25 years of experience across the public, private, and non-profit sectors, Nagesh brings a wealth of knowledge to the table. He previously served as Chief Information Officer for the Bureau of Industry and Security at the U.S. Department of Commerce, co-developed federal initiatives like i6 Green and Patents for Humanity, and led crucial technology efforts during the COVID-19 response.David McFeeters-Krone is a commercialization and business development executive with over 25 years of experience at MIT, NASA-RTTC, Intel, and his own firm. He currently manages a Manufacturing Extension Partnership (OMEP) grant, engaging small manufacturers with the ManufacturingUSA institutes. David has reviewed numerous commercialization plans, founded two companies, and serves as an adjunct professor at Portland State University. He has established strategic R&D partnerships with organizations like the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and NIST, and was awarded the Federal Lab Consortium’s Outstanding Service Award in 2008.In this episode, we’ll explore the MEP National Network’s role in supporting U.S. manufacturers, discuss innovative approaches to growth and competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, and gain valuable insights from Nagesh and David.In This Episode:[02:57] Nagesh shares how his background has led to innovation in the manufacturing sector.[03:41] Nagesh started my career in technology transfer and commercialization back in 2002 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  [04:29] Coming to the MEP program in 2023 was a full circle journey of his career. He worked in engineering, public policy, the US patent and trademark office, then worked in industry and the national security space.[05:07] He now ensures evidence-based policy decision making at the federal level to support small and medium-sized manufacturers.[07:10] For our country to be competitive from a national security perspective we need a robust manufacturing scene.[08:20] Challenges include keeping up with software demands and having a talented technical workforce.[10:39] The role of MEP in helping small and medium-sized manufacturers navigate these challenges. MEP has a 30-year history of being a trusted advisor. They meet these manufacturers wherever they are.[11:46] Collaboration ensures new technologies make it from the lab to the production floor.[13:29] MEP is perfectly positioned to help companies overcome hurdles especially with connections. The role of the MEP Advanced Technology Team.[15:11] How the MEP supports tech transfer in the manufacturing sector and the role for tech transfer Professionals in this ecosystem. MEP National Network is a network of networks within a greater network of innovation ecosystems across the United States.[16:10] Think of an MEP center as a hub of excellence for a company that is in the business of manufacturing.[20:08] Navigating the complex balance between academia and industry for a mutually beneficial relationship. Communication, culture, and contact.[22:54] David shares examples of successful partnerships that led to significant advancements in manufacturing technology. One of the examples he uses is 3D printed plastic parts to service forms for metal press part making.[26:02] Measuring the success of the MEP manufacturer initiatives. [27:04] Common pitfalls manufacturers encounter when trying to bring about new technology. Lack of time and not realizing the value of partnerships are common.[34:00] The government has done a tremendous amount of lift for many companies. Large companies know how to use the federal government.[39:59] Predictions for where the MEP is going to go in the next 5 years.[41:16] How making investments to move forward will help in the long run.[46:49]  Advice for getting involved in an MEP Network and supporting local manufacturers includes beginning with connecting with your local center and going to the MEP website on NIST.gov. Resources: NIST MEPMEP National NetworkNagesh RaoDavid McFeeters-KroneDavid McFeeters-Krone LinkedIn

In a world where groundbreaking discoveries often struggle to leave the laboratory, we explore how to transform scientific insights into real-world solutions. We’re focusing on bridging the gap between academic research and community impact.My guest today is Dr. Kendra Stenzel, the Director of Innovation Talent at the University of Kentucky's Office of Technology Commercialization. With her unique blend of scientific expertise and business acumen, Dr. Stenzel is at the forefront of training the next generation of entrepreneurs and commercialization professionals.Armed with a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and an MBA with a focus on entrepreneurship, she serves as a vital bridge between researchers and the Tech Transfer office. Her mission? To help researchers reimagine their work through a commercialization lens, encouraging them to "fail fast and pivot" – a mantra that's reshaping how academic innovations reach the market.She's also a facilitator, helping innovators develop business models, secure funding, and navigate the complex path from lab to market. Her experience with the Kentucky Network for Innovation and Commercialization (KYNETIC) has given her invaluable insights into nurturing early-stage innovations.Today, we explore Dr. Stenzel's perspectives on how researchers can frame their outcomes to maximize community impact, the challenges of commercializing academic research, and her vision for the future of innovation in academia. Let's dive into this conversation about turning scientific breakthroughs into tangible benefits for society. In This Episode:[01:58] One of the main challenges with translating academic research into community impact is education.[02:37] Common misconceptions and challenges include some innovators not understanding that their innovations aren't market ready or community ready and getting innovators to understand the word commercialization.[04:20] The goal is beyond making money, it's having an impact on the community. Getting innovators to accept this reality has a lot to do with being intentional with the relationship.[06:00] Balancing the academic focus on research and the need for commercialization includes relating with the researcher and investing in the relationship. Meeting the researchers in the lab and having the conversation about the science and defining the research and outlining the path forward.[07:10] Barriers that prevent research from making it out of the university include lack of time, having all of the necessary qualifications, and having the knowledge and support.[09:35] From the start they focus on things like the regulatory pathway, prototyping, and the facilities they have to use. Launch Blue has an innovation training program and programs that keep innovators engaged.[10:46] Kendra talks about crucial elements of a successful education program for researchers.[12:09] thinking outside the box and communicating that everyone can be an innovator. [12:53] Money to put towards proof-of-concept development is crucial. The education and framework brought to the innovator is also very important.[14:56] Collaboration and cultivating partnerships that align with university goals and needs of the broader community.[16:44] Measuring the long term impacts of intellectual property assets. Defining success goes back to understanding stakeholders. They do have quantitative metrics to protect intellectual property assets. Kendra likes to look at the qualitative metrics and the innovator and the team.[19:16] The MBA that Kendra is getting has really taught her to think in terms of strategy.[20:43] Advice includes meeting innovators where they are and keeping relationships first.Resources: Kendra Stenzel Director, Innovation Talent Development UKKendra Stenzel University of KentuckyKendra Stenzel LinkedIn

Did you know that despite being behind many groundbreaking inventions and patents, women are less likely to turn their ideas into commercial products? It's a trend that's holding us back, and we're here to explore why. To discuss the experiences and insights of leading women scientists, researchers, and inventors. We have two prolific and leading women with us today.Dr. Marianne Privett, is a Partner and patent attorney with extensive knowledge in chemistry and materials science. Marianne manages patent portfolios for a diverse range of clients, including multinationals and universities, with a focus on clean tech. She's a strong advocate for women inventors and entrepreneurs and actively participates in networks like Women in Health Tech and the Global Women Inventors & Innovators Network.Dr. Aardra Kachroo, a Professor at the University of Kentucky specializing in plant pathology. Her research delves into the intricate signaling mechanisms in plants, particularly how they adapt and respond to various pathogens. Aardra has received numerous awards for her work and is deeply involved in outreach, including workshops for youth and presentations to farmers. In This Episode:[02:18] Marianne shares her journey in science and innovation. She discovered that patents were a good way to marry business with science.[03:26] Aardra always loved science, and she's a researcher. She didn't want to work with animals so she chose plant research.  She has two patents and a company based on one of those.[05:12] Challenges that women inventors face navigating the IP landscape. Research shows that women aren't engaging as much with the patent process.[06:59] There are fewer girls and young women studying STEM subjects.[08:13] We need to have uncomfortable conversations about why women aren't showing up as inventors.[08:32] Aardra shares her patent experience. Her company was patented by her husband. She refers to studies where women want everything to be 100% where a man is more confident and will go ahead before the project reaches that point.[09:38] Women being unwilling to commercialize their innovation because of perfectionism.[10:21] Women also seem to face more barriers than a man in the same position.[12:05] The low percentage of women that get VC funding is scary. Role models also have something to do with this. We need to normalize women entrepreneurs.[14:04] Aardra talks about outreach contributing to the commercialization of research. She shares a story about how what she was doing in the lab was able to make it into society.[16:35] It's easier for a student to understand what you're studying if you show them that it's applicable in the real world.[18:44] Marianne talks about networking groups such as Women in Health Tech and the Global Women Inventors & Innovators Network.[21:44] She also shares global innovation advice for women to protect their inventions.[25:10] Opportunities on the horizon for women inventors. The CHIPS and Science Act creates a more streamlined pathway to innovation and commercialization. There's also a lot of focus on supporting women and minorities.[26:59] Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) has funding programs for every step of the way.[28:19] The UK also has similar programs just on a smaller scale.[29:35] How tech transfer professionals can better support women.Resources: Dr. Marianne PrivettDr. Marianne Privett LinkedInDr. Aardra KachrooDr. Aardra Kachroo LinkedIn