Untapped Potential: Investigating Gender Disparities in Patent Citations with Gauri Subramani

If you've ever wondered what's actually going on inside a company's head when a university comes knocking with a new technology, today's episode is for you. We're getting into the real mechanics of university-industry partnerships and what makes them work, what slows them down, and where the biggest opportunities are being left on the table.My guest today has lived this from just about every angle imaginable. He started his career in Ecuador, where he built the country's first university tech transfer office essentially from scratch. He then co-founded an ed-tech startup that turned profitable in its first year, led digital innovation licensing at Duke University, and now sits on the industry side at Samsung Research America, where he manages university collaboration programs and serves as a bridge between academic research and one of the world's largest tech companies.In this conversation, we get into what Samsung actually looks for when a university brings an opportunity forward, how they think about technology at different stages of readiness, and why the human factor in these relationships matters more than most people realize. We also talk about how fast-moving fields like AI are changing the rules of the game for tech transfer professionals, and he shares some really practical advice on how to position technologies so companies lean in rather than walk away.In This Episode:[03:12] David Chang shares how curiosity and a belief in innovation as an engine for economic development shaped his global career in tech transfer.[03:58] His path spans building Ecuador’s first tech transfer office, founding a startup, working at Duke, and now leading university partnerships at Samsung.[04:41] Early work in Ecuador showed how innovation ecosystems develop slowly through trust and incremental collaboration.[05:36] In emerging markets, university partnerships often begin with student projects before growing into research and commercialization efforts.[06:44] David explains how seeing both the university and corporate sides of tech transfer reshaped his perspective.[08:09] Relationships between tech transfer offices and industry partners often drive successful collaborations more than databases or programs.[09:47] Industry timelines can be tight, and lengthy contract edits can create friction in university–industry partnerships.[11:13] At Samsung’s LeapU program, three factors help advance a university technology: differentiation, clear milestones, and strategic fit.[12:08] Demonstrations that spark an internal “aha moment” can help companies rally support for a new technology.[13:27] Samsung evaluates proposals through a balance of technology push and market demand.[14:16] The company organizes partnerships by technology readiness through the START, LeapU, and LeapS programs.[14:58] START accepts early research ideas, while LeapU and LeapS rely on trusted relationships and invitations.[15:43] Strong university partners often begin with deep expertise in a specific research area.[16:29] Tech transfer offices add value by mentoring researchers on IP strategy and identifying entrepreneurial investigators.[17:52] Emerging technologies like AI and robotics are pushing companies toward new collaboration models.[18:41] Development speed matters in AI, where innovations can become obsolete within a short time.[19:36] Platform technologies with modular components are often easier for companies to adopt than standalone inventions.[21:18] Cultural factors such as flexibility and ongoing dialogue often distinguish the best university partners.[22:44] Researchers interested in collaborating with Samsung should highlight their research background and concrete collaboration ideas.[24:03] Combining technical depth with a strong business case can help tech transfer professionals position inventions more effectively.[25:32] Industry conferences like AUTM provide valuable opportunities to build long-term collaboration networks.[26:18] Reflecting on his career, David notes how working on both sides of tech transfer deepened his understanding of how innovation moves to market.Resources: AUTMSamsung Research AmericaSTARTLEAP-ULEAP-S

One of the biggest challenges in tech transfer isn't generating innovation — it's helping promising technologies move from early success into sustained, real-world use. That pattern shows up across industries, but today we're going to explore it through one fast-moving example: AI in healthcare. My guest is Adam Brickman, a healthcare innovation leader and part of the team behind Vega Health, a company focused on helping organizations identify, implement, and scale validated AI solutions. Adam brings a practitioner's perspective to a problem that's becoming harder to ignore. Technologies that show real promise, sometimes even strong clinical results, can still end up stuck at their site of origin, never reaching the patients and health systems that need them most. Vega Health was built to change that by creating a new commercialization pathway that connects proven AI models from leading academic medical centers and health systems with the community hospitals that make up the vast majority of healthcare in this country.We discuss why AI that works at one institution doesn't automatically translate somewhere new, and what it actually takes to bridge that gap. We talk about workflow discovery, the importance of testing models against local patient data before full deployment, and why user experience and staff buy-in are just as critical as the technology itself. Adam also shares what Vega Health looks for when evaluating whether an AI solution is ready to scale and has some pointed thoughts for tech transfer offices on licensing strategy in an increasingly crowded market.In This Episode:[02:29] Adam describes why many AI innovations remain trapped at their site of origin, even after demonstrating strong clinical or operational results. [03:10] The conversation breaks down four traditional commercialization paths and introduces Vega Health’s role as a fifth, scale-focused alternative. [04:05] A common assumption is challenged: the belief that only large academic medical centers can access or afford high-quality AI solutions. [04:48] Adam explains why success in one health system rarely translates directly, emphasizing that implementation context and workflow differences are critical. [05:32] Vega Health’s approach is outlined, including retrospective data testing to determine which models perform best in a specific patient population. [06:40] The typical AI purchasing process is critiqued, highlighting the risks of committing to full deployment before validating real-world performance. [07:31] The shift from “technology that works” to “technology that is used daily” is framed as a human and organizational challenge, not just a technical one. [08:12] Adam stresses that technology must adapt to clinicians and staff workflows rather than expecting already-burdened users to change behavior. [09:05] Validation is defined through live clinical deployment combined with peer-reviewed evidence, reducing the risks of first-time real-world testing. [10:18] Transparency gaps in AI documentation are addressed, with Vega Health advocating standardized reporting on training data, origins, and performance. [12:02] Adam reflects on the disconnect between innovation teams solving local problems and vendors pursuing only the most prestigious institutions. [13:15] The imbalance in vendor strategy is highlighted, noting that most AI companies target a small percentage of elite hospitals while community systems remain underserved. [14:10] Non-technical barriers take center stage, including alert fatigue, workflow friction, and the outsized importance of thoughtful UI and UX design.[18:18] A story of initial resistance illustrates how skepticism can soften when end users feel heard through collaborative workflow discovery. [20:31] Evaluation expands beyond model accuracy to include adoption metrics, clinical outcomes, administrative impact, and measurable return on investment. [22:23] Adam offers strategic guidance to tech transfer offices: determine whether an innovation stands alone as a company or functions better as a feature. [24:40] The risks of mandatory exclusivity are discussed, especially in a rapidly crowding AI market likely to experience consolidation. [26:05] The episode closes with a reflection on why scaling innovation is difficult, resource-intensive, and still deeply worth pursuing.Resources: AUTMAdam Brickman - LinkedInVega Health

Policy conversations can feel distant until they land squarely on the desks of technology transfer professionals. Coming to you from the AUTM Annual Meeting in Seattle, we’re taking a closer look at what’s unfolding in Washington, D.C., and why it matters for research commercialization, patents, startups, and university innovation.My guest is someone many of you already know, Mike Waring. Mike has spent more than four decades immersed in Washington policy, beginning in broadcast journalism, then on Capitol Hill, and later as a lobbyist for a major trade association. For twenty years, he led the University of Michigan’s Washington office, working at the intersection of research, technology transfer, and intellectual property policy. He is a former AUTM Assistant Vice President for Advocacy, past chair of AUTM’s Public Policy Advisory Committee, and now AUTM’s Advocacy and Alliances Coordinator, helping guide engagement with Congress and federal agencies on the issues shaping our community.We explore the current mood toward universities and innovation, the bipartisan appetite for research and competitiveness, and the realities behind proposed policy shifts. We discuss the floated “innovation dividend” concept targeting university royalty income, developments at the USPTO, including Section 101 and PTAB practices, the status of PARA and PREVAIL legislation, and the ripple effects of SBIR/STTR authorization delays on university startups. Mike also shares practical guidance for tech transfer offices on working effectively with campus government relations teams, leveraging regional impact stories, and keeping policymakers connected to the real-world outcomes of university innovation.In This Episode:[1:38] Mike Waring describes the Washington mood, noting that tech transfer is often folded into broader debates about universities rather than treated as a standalone issue.[2:06] Even amid generalized skepticism toward higher education, members of Congress tend to maintain strong loyalty to institutions in their own states.[2:47] “All politics is local” becomes the strategic anchor, emphasizing regional and district-level framing when communicating innovation impact.[3:21] Innovation remains a bipartisan priority, with policymakers broadly aligned around jobs, new technologies, and competitiveness.[3:52] Congress moves toward near-full funding for NSF and NIH despite earlier proposals for deep cuts, reinforcing support for the research pipeline.[4:44] Sustained research investment is framed as essential for U.S. competitiveness with China and other global innovators.[5:25] The floated “innovation dividend” proposal raises concern, particularly the idea of capturing roughly half of university royalty income.[6:03] Pushback from the Bayh-Dole Coalition and other stakeholders highlights misunderstandings about how the government already benefits from research.[6:37] The absence of formal policy language is viewed as a cautiously hopeful sign that the royalty proposal may lose momentum.[7:35] Smaller tech transfer offices are identified as especially vulnerable to royalty revenue disruptions.[8:34] Data, transparency, and institution-specific context are positioned as critical tools in campus leadership discussions.[9:07] A constructive meeting with USPTO leadership signals renewed engagement with the higher-education community.[10:20] Section 101 and PTAB practices emerge as focal points for patent system improvements.[10:33] USPTO outreach shifts from regional buildings to more direct university-based engagement across the country.[12:39] PARA and PREVAIL legislation are reintroduced, targeting subject matter eligibility and PTAB reform.[13:08] Patent eligibility challenges are linked to difficulties in protecting diagnostics and therapeutics.[14:34] Committee dynamics and limited legislative runway underscore the difficulty of advancing complex patent reforms.[15:37] Even moving bills through the Senate is framed as laying groundwork for future Congresses.[16:44] SBIR/STTR authorization lapses disrupt new awards, creating uncertainty for startups and early-stage technologies.[17:09] Senate disagreements focus on limits for repeat grant recipients and geographic equity concerns.[18:04] Prolonged delays raise fears that agencies could redirect funds away from SBIR programs.[18:53] Tech transfer offices are encouraged to share real startup impact stories with senators to increase urgency.[19:55] Final appropriations outcomes exceed expectations, easing earlier fears of drastic science funding cuts.[20:26] NSF’s relatively small cut is described as a meaningful victory in a constrained budget environment.[21:10] The rejection of a 15% indirect cost cap is welcomed as a significant win for research institutions.[22:08] Tech transfer professionals are reminded they are not lobbyists but key partners to campus government relations teams.[22:56] Providing data, success stories, and regional economic impact becomes central to effective advocacy.[23:33] Chambers of commerce and economic development groups are highlighted as valuable third-party allies.[24:18] Inviting local members of Congress to innovation events helps humanize tech transfer outcomes.[25:11] Starting Hill meetings with “What do you know about tech transfer?” helps establish shared understanding.[26:19] Simple visuals explaining the innovation cycle are recommended to clarify commercialization processes.[27:09] Other Transaction Authority agreements and revenue-sharing clauses emerge as areas to monitor closely.[27:27] A proposed patent tax is dismissed as impractical and ultimately abandoned.[28:04] Key issues for 2026 include SBIR reauthorization, IP legislation, and upcoming appropriations.[29:08] Washington’s unpredictability is acknowledged, paired with the reminder to “never waste a good crisis.”[29:42] Policy threats are seen as catalysts that elevate tech transfer visibility within university leadership.[30:11] Knowledge transfer from faculty to students is reaffirmed as a core, often overlooked dimension of tech transfer.Resources: AUTMMike Waring - LinkedInProtecting Tech Transfer And University Innovation Funding With Mike WaringAUTM AdvocacyBayh-Dole CoalitionUSPTOUSPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)SBIR.govNational Science Foundation (NSF)National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Breakthrough therapies do not begin with commercialization, yet without it, many breakthroughs never reach patients. That tension sits at the center of this conversation with Michelle Durborow, Vice President of Research Operations at the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, where she oversees grant administration and program operations for Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP).Michelle explains how a patient-driven mission influences the foundation’s research funding strategy, particularly when it comes to early, high-risk science. From the outset, her team evaluates not only scientific merit, but also what each project makes possible, the decisions it informs, the risks it reduces, and how it contributes to the long-term therapeutic pipeline.The episode also takes a look at intellectual property. Michelle shares why MJFF views IP not as a barrier, but as a practical mechanism that enables investment, partnership, and ultimately patient access. By removing itself from IP ownership, the foundation reduces friction while still supporting responsible protection, alignment of incentives, and meaningful data-sharing practices.Michelle brings an operational perspective that resonates strongly with the tech transfer community. She speaks about bottlenecks, collaboration dynamics, and the importance of engaging earlier, before agreements become urgent and negotiations become strained. This strategic conversation offers lessons that extend well beyond Parkinson’s research.In This Episode:[01:50] Michelle outlines the Michael J. Fox Foundation’s mission to eliminate Parkinson’s disease while improving treatments for patients today.[02:16] Technology transfer is the pathway that moves discoveries from ideas into scalable therapies and diagnostics.[03:05] We discuss how patient impact directly connects to commercialization and translational strategy.[04:10] Why MJFF evaluates translation potential at the very start of proposal review.[04:55] Early-stage projects are assessed based on what decisions they inform and which risks they retire.[06:12] Intellectual property is positioned not as a barrier, but as a bridge enabling investment and development.[07:05] How patents provide confidence for partners navigating long, expensive R&D pathways.[08:02] MJFF’s choice not to claim IP ownership is highlighted as a friction-reducing strategy.[09:10] Michelle emphasizes that misaligned incentives not patents are what typically stall progress.[11:16] Bottlenecks such as prolonged MTAs and data-use negotiations are identified as major slowdowns.[12:11] She notes that unclear access terms and fragmented ownership frequently delay research momentum.[12:33] The importance of bringing experts into agreement structuring is underscored.[13:07] Michelle describes initiatives like the LURC2 Investigative Therapeutics Exchange and the LITE consortium.[14:02] Early engagement with technology transfer offices is presented as essential for smoother partnerships.[16:19] Collaboration lessons emerge: align goals early and define roles clearly across stakeholders.[17:10] She advocates running science and deal mechanics in parallel rather than sequentially.[18:02] Straightforward, repeatable agreement frameworks are credited with reducing negotiation friction.[20:15] Trust is described as something built through transparency about incentives and risks.[22:05] Michelle shares Michael J. Fox’s guiding principle: “purity of motives.”[25:51] She reflects on her career shift from lab science to research operations and systems design.[27:05] Michelle highlights MJFF resources, including guides, webinars, and the Buddy Network.[28:37] Looking ahead, she expresses optimism about precision medicine and biomarker-driven care.[29:55] Her closing message is to move faster together and keep patients at the center.Resources: AUTMThe Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s ResearchMichelle Durborow - LinkedInAligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP)Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI)Targets to Therapies ProgramParkinson's Buddy NetworkParkinson’s IQ + You Events

Real-world impact doesn’t happen by accident. It takes intention, structure, and a willingness to rethink how research moves beyond the university. That’s the inflection point the University of Rhode Island Research Foundation has reached as it rebrands to URI Innovations. This shift signals more than a name change. It reflects a broader evolution into a campus-wide hub for technology translation, entrepreneurship, and strategic partnership.My guests today are Peter Rumsey and Allison Markova of URI Innovations. Peter serves as AVP of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. A former military officer with more than 30 years of private-sector business development experience, he has been instrumental in launching the Rise Up initiative supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. He was recently honored as a Career Achiever by Providence Business News for his work advancing innovation and economic development in Rhode Island and beyond.Peter also serves as a part-time instructor in innovation and entrepreneurship at URI, is Chair Emeritus at Leadership Rhode Island, and currently chairs the Rhode Island State Innovation Hub, or RI Hub. Allison Markova is Director of Technology Transfer and Innovation Partnerships at URI Innovations, bringing deep experience from her previous role as Director of Technology Transfer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.On today’s show, we explore what’s driving the rebrand, how initiatives like Rise Up are reshaping entrepreneurship training on campus and across state lines, and how URI is building momentum through its inaugural tech showcase. It’s a look at how early engagement, integrated IP strategy, and a strong regional ecosystem can turn research strength into sustained real-world impact.In This Episode:[03:15] The rebrand from URI Research Foundation to URI Innovations is explained, clarifying the shift from a confusing legacy name to a forward-facing identity centered on innovation and entrepreneurship.[04:24] Peter outlines why now was the right moment for change, pointing to URI’s R1 status, research growth, and the need to scale translation capacity.[05:48] A move beyond a patents-first mindset is emphasized, focusing instead on pairing intellectual property with commercialization to create true innovation.[07:09] Allison describes the brand promise of transforming discovery into impact through clearer pathways for faculty, students, and industry partners.[08:31] Early engagement becomes a central theme as URI Innovations reframes itself from a process office to a strategic partner in exploration and execution.[09:47] The three pillars of IP stewardship, venture development, and strategic partnerships are presented as integrated functions rather than silos.[11:06] Strategic partnerships range from sponsored research to startups embedding within new innovation centers and incubators.[12:26] Ocean and blue technology leadership takes center stage, with examples including Regent Craft and collaborations with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.[16:26] Rise Up is introduced as a tri-state, Navy-supported initiative focused on dual-use technologies and workforce development.[18:47] The Defense Department’s dual-use philosophy is explained as startups must succeed commercially rather than rely solely on defense funding.[21:09] Undergraduate students tackle real defense and industry challenges using Steve Blank’s business model canvas and Bill Aulet’s disciplined entrepreneurship framework.[22:57] The Patents to Products program provides gap funding and mentorship to translate university IP into market-ready ventures.[24:42] Faculty Innovation Fellows integrate entrepreneurship tools directly into diverse curricula, from engineering to the arts.[26:26] The Ideation Studio invites students, faculty, and community members into a 10-week sprint from idea to MVP and live pitch.[28:59] Impact metrics go beyond disclosures and startups, tracking cultural change through increased early engagement.[30:33] Growth in pitch night participation from a handful of teams to double-digit ventures signals a shift in campus culture.[32:48] SWEPT, an AI-driven street-sweeping optimization platform, illustrates how student innovation can scale globally.[34:10] Juice Robotics demonstrates how affordable ocean sensing technologies can disrupt traditionally high-cost field operations.[36:11] The inaugural Tech Showcase positions URI alongside regional leaders and launches Rhode Island Startup Week.[38:31] A public goal to create funded startups each year reflects a bold, action-oriented approach to building momentum.[41:03] Allison shares why she joined URI Innovations, citing institutional commitment and cultural readiness for growth.[42:34] Tech transfer is reframed as an impact platform rather than a patents office, emphasizing storytelling and amplification.[43:50] Commercialization is positioned as complementary to scholarship, expanding researchers’ avenues for impact without compromising academic missions.[46:32] Looking ahead, Peter outlines the vision for a “Rhody Innovation Hub” built as both a physical space and an entrepreneurial ethos.[49:48] Closing advice includes just start, take shots on the goal, and don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress.Resources: AUTMThe University of Rhode IslandPete Rumsey - URIPete Rumsey - LinkedInAllison Markova - URIAllison Markova - LinkedInURI RISE-UPRIHubOffice of Naval Research

Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and Invention offers a practical policy and practice framework designed for use across institutions and jurisdictions. In this episode, we talk about how the handbook came together, including the decision to use the BookSprints methodology, a structured five-day collaborative process used to develop a complete policy and practice guide.I’m joined by four remarkable individuals who played central roles in the creation of the handbook. James Filpi, JD, from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program, envisioned the project and championed its development at CLDP, an organization focused on strengthening legal and regulatory frameworks that support commerce worldwide. Joy Goswami, MBA, Director of Licensing and Commercialization Initiatives at the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and a member of AUTM’s leadership, brings experience from one of the nation’s largest research funding organizations and the broader technology transfer community. Michael Samardzija, PhD, JD, partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, brought a practitioner’s perspective from years of legal and IP work in the technology transfer space. Alysa Khouri, who facilitated the BookSprints process, kept the group moving and helped structure the work over the five days.I also want to acknowledge the broader group who participated in the BookSprint, including Edward Blocker of the Intellectual Property Owners Association; Davit Ghazaryan and Naira Campbell-Kyureghyan from the American University of Armenia; Priya Prasad of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program; Richard S. Cahoon of Cornell University; and myself, Lisa Mueller, from Casimir Jones. The handbook was developed at Caboose Farm near Camp David, Maryland, in August 2025, where the group was sequestered for five intensive days. Let’s dive into the conversation.In This Episode:[00:33] We just finished Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and will be sharing the collaborative process we used. [04:20] James Filpi explains the original vision for the handbook, including CLDP’s focus on giving policymakers and technology transfer managers a practical framework for building innovation ecosystems in emerging markets.[06:18] Alysa Khouri explains the BookSprints methodology, including its five-day structure and how the process moves from shared framing to writing and intensive cross-editing.[10:45] The advantages of overnight editing, illustration support, and working across time zones are discussed as part of the BookSprints model.[15:33] Michael Samardzija reflects on the intensity of the five-day sprint and how early uncertainty gave way to structure once roles, chapters, and editing rhythms were established.[17:46] Joy Goswami describes how different institutional and professional perspectives were aligned into a single, coherent handbook.[20:35] The decision to work in seclusion at Caboose Farm near Camp David is discussed, including how the setting supported focus and collaboration.[25:20] The day-to-day rhythm of the sprint is described, from early mornings and shared meals to writing, revising, and late-night editing.[31:56] The organization and scope of the handbook are outlined, including its progression from IP fundamentals to ecosystem development and emerging trends.[34:15] How policymakers, universities, tech transfer offices, startups, and investors can use the handbook is explored.[37:39] The decision to release the handbook under a Creative Commons license is discussed, along with why open access was critical to its use in training, policy development, and global adaptation.[43:23] Reflections on what made this BookSprint distinctive emphasize collaboration, shared purpose, and practical outcomes.[47:13] Participants reflect on what surprised them most about the process, including how quickly a coherent, high-quality handbook came together.[54:07] Next steps are outlined, including workshops, training programs, legislative drafting support, and international rollout plans.Resources: AUTMJames D. Filpi - CLDPJames D. Filpi - LinkedInJoy Goswami - The State University of New York Research FoundationJoy Goswami - LinkedInMichael Samardzija, Ph.D. - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael Samardzija - LinkedInAlysa Khouri - LinkedInTechnology Transfer GuidebookCommercial Law Development Program CLDPBookSprintsCreative CommonsCaboose Farm

Last week, we kicked off a special two-part series with three of the five women joining the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026. Today, we’re completing that conversation with Laura Schoppe, Chief Commercialization Officer at TechPipeline, and Patricia Stepp, Assistant Vice President for Technology Transfer at Rice University.For listeners who may not yet be familiar with Laura and Patricia, here’s a brief look at their backgrounds. Laura Schoppe is the Chief Commercialization Officer at TechPipeline, and the founder of Fuentek, which she built into one of the world’s leading technology transfer consulting firms. Over the course of her career, Laura has helped universities, government agencies, nonprofits, and Fortune 500 companies proactively and strategically manage intellectual property, drawing on deep expertise in open innovation and IP portfolio management.Patricia Stepp is the Assistant Vice President for Technology Transfer at Rice University, where she leads the strategic planning and day-to-day operations of the Office of Technology Transfer. With a background in biomedical engineering, she brings a thoughtful, hands-on perspective shaped by her earlier work at Arizona State University’s Skysong Innovations, where she launched a diversity initiative focused on expanding commercialization opportunities.In This Episode:[03:05] Patricia reflects on her background in biomedical engineering and what continues to motivate her about moving discoveries from the lab into real-world impact.[04:45] The appeal of tech transfer is framed as constant learning, curiosity, and helping researchers see their work make a difference beyond campus.[06:10] Laura explains what motivated her to found Fuentek, reflecting on her early work in government and university environments and the gaps she saw in how technologies were being commercialized.[08:15] Building a fully virtual tech transfer consulting firm long before remote work was common proves to be a forward-looking decision.[10:30] Internal and external perspectives on tech transfer are compared, highlighting why diverse vantage points strengthen strategy and governance.[12:05] Board diversity is discussed as extending beyond identity to include professional background, institutional scale, and ecosystem role.[14:10] Returning to board service is driven by timing, experience, and the freedom to speak more candidly about systemic pressures.[15:45] AUTM’s role as a welcoming, formative professional community is cited as a major reason for stepping into board leadership.[17:30] Budget constraints, shifting federal funding, and rising caseloads are identified as ongoing realities for tech transfer offices.[18:55] The need to operate more strategically, including being more selective about what to patent, is emphasized as resources tighten.[20:05] Artificial intelligence is discussed as a useful support tool for routine tasks, but not yet a replacement for expert judgment.[21:40] Caution is urged against rushing AI adoption, with a reminder that many tools remain uneven or immature.[23:10] The importance of proactively educating policymakers about how AI is actually used in tech transfer is highlighted.[24:50] Looking ahead five years, the focus shifts toward becoming more proactive, efficient, and licensing-driven rather than reactive.[26:20] Strengthening industry and venture capital relationships is seen as essential to improving commercialization outcomes.[28:10] AUTM’s collaborative culture is highlighted as a defining strength that lifts the entire community.[29:55] Expanding participation in committees and board service is framed as key to AUTM’s long-term resilience.[31:15] Everyday technologies influenced by university tech transfer are cited as a reminder of the field’s broad, often unseen impact.[33:10] Advice for those entering the field emphasizes gaining industry experience and leaning into networking and shared learning.[35:05] Recharging outside of work ranges from creative hobbies to food, music, and film, underscoring the human side of the profession.Resources: AUTMLaura Schoppe - LinkedInTechPipelineFuentekPatricia Stepp - Rice UniversityPatricia Stepp - LinkedIn

Over the next two weeks, we’re doing something a little different, with a special two-part conversation featuring five extraordinary women who will be joining the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026. To give us the space to really dig in, we split these conversations across two episodes, so we could spend more time on the perspectives, experiences, and leadership each of these new board members brings to the tech transfer community.In this episode, we’re joined by Felicia Metz from the University of Maryland Ventures, Maithili Shroff from the University of New Hampshire, and Katie Butcher from Northwestern University. Next week, the conversation continues with Patricia Stepp of Rice University and Laura Schoppe, founder of TechPipeline, bringing in additional viewpoints from both inside and outside the university setting.Katie Butcher brings an MBA from Notre Dame and a Master of Science in Law from Northwestern into her role, giving her a strong mix of business and legal experience that shapes how licensing and commercialization work at Northwestern. Felicia Metz is an Associate Director at University of Maryland Ventures, where her work spans patent prosecution, building and managing IP portfolios, and licensing strategy. Maithili Shroff is a Licensing Manager at the University of New Hampshire, an R1 institution, where she draws on her PhD training to support innovation and intellectual property commercialization, with a perspective shaped by working across a wide range of research areas. Together, these three leaders reflect the breadth of backgrounds, expertise, and lived experience shaping the future of tech transfer, and they offer a thoughtful look at why this moment matters for the profession and for AUTM’s leadership going forward.In This Episode:[00] This is a special two-part series introducing five women who will join the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026.[03:26] Katie shares her path to tech transfer. She has an MBA and has worked in the legal field. She spent her first 20 years in the entertainment industry. [04:33] Her background was strong, but she also had a lot of learning on the job in science, technology, and learning. It's been an exciting adventure being in this field. [05:58] Felicia entered tech transfer as a student and unexpectedly built a long-term career in the field.[08:10] She explains how the profession has evolved toward specialization and complementary skill sets across offices.[09:41] Maithili describes how her PhD led her to question what happens to research after publication.[11:22] She shares how the AUTM fellowship and the collaborative culture of the community shaped her career path.[13:18] The panel discusses why tech transfer welcomes professionals from many backgrounds, not just STEM or law.[15:23] Curiosity, flexibility, and comfort with ambiguity are emphasized as essential traits for success.[16:49] Why running for the AUTM Board felt timely and meaningful.[18:42] The importance of representing non-STEM and operational roles in tech transfer leadership.[20:14] Advocacy, higher-education pressures, and why board service feels urgent right now.[21:20] We discuss funding uncertainty, policy shifts, and broader challenges facing tech transfer.[24:02] Budget constraints, staffing pressures, and the reality of doing more with fewer resources are explored.[26:09] The importance of telling the tech transfer story and demonstrating real-world impact comes into focus.[29:10] Data and metrics are discussed as tools for visibility, accountability, and storytelling.[32:18] Artificial intelligence enters the conversation as both a disruptive force and a potential support tool.[35:10] The panel considers how AI could improve efficiency without replacing human judgment.[38:00] The guests share their hopes for where tech transfer and AUTM could be in five years.[39:50] Felicia shares a personal story that underscores why tech transfer work truly matters.[43:47] Reflections on partnership, service, and shared success.Resources: AUTMKatie Butcher - Northwestern UniversityKatie Butcher - LinkedInFelicia Metz - University of MarylandFelicia Metz - LinkedInMaithili Shroff - University of New HampshireMaithili Shroff - LinkedInAUTM Better World ProjectPatents, Peer Review, and Policy: What Congress Needs to Understand Now with Kate ZernikeLessons From the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit with Steve Susalka

We’re diving into the blue economy with a fascinating conversation about ocean innovation and entrepreneurship. The discussion focuses on the practical reality of building ocean-focused companies, including the scientific complexity, regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and long development timelines that make this sector very different from more familiar startup environments.Our guest is Tamara Kahn Zissman, Director of Founder Success at Seaworthy Collective, a Miami-based nonprofit accelerator supporting BlueTech startups focused on ocean impact. Before working with founders, Tamara spent more than a decade at sea using advanced geophysical sensors in demanding environments. Her work took her from the Arctic to the waters off Borneo, giving her a firsthand view of how ocean systems, climate pressures, and human activity intersect.Tamara holds a Bachelor of Science in Geological Sciences from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master of Advanced Studies in Climate Science and Policy from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. At Seaworthy Collective, she designs and leads programs built around human-centered design, helping “Sea Change Makers” grow ocean data technologies into viable, planet-positive businesses. We also discuss the Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator launching in February 2026, with applications open through January 28, 2026.In This Episode:[00:04] The blue economy and why ocean innovation is becoming a critical focus within research commercialization.[02:44] Tamara Kahn Zissman explains what blue tech means and how the definition of the blue economy has shifted toward sustainability and regeneration.[04:15] She describes the ocean as one of the planet’s most important climate regulators and explains why data gaps remain such a major challenge.[06:21] We explore the founding vision behind Seaworthy Collective and how the organization evolved to better support ocean entrepreneurs.[07:18] Tamara discusses Seaworthy’s emphasis on human-centered design and why supporting founders as people is essential for long-term success.[10:20] Unique barriers ocean startups face, including capital intensity, long validation cycles, and regulatory complexity.[12:30] How collaboration across accelerators can create stronger commercialization pathways than competition alone.[13:36] What Seaworthy looks for in applicants and why alignment between founders and program support matters.[14:42] Tamara outlines the structure of the Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator and the level of commitment expected from participants.[16:28] The benefits of mixed cohorts that include both aspiring founders and early-stage startups.[18:45] How community support within cohorts accelerates learning and confidence for first-time founders.[21:30] We talk about the role of ocean data technologies and why they are central to the future of the blue economy.[24:10] How Seaworthy helps founders translate strong science into viable business models without losing impact.[27:05] Non-dilutive funding and why it plays a critical role in ocean innovation.[30:15] How the Continuum network connects ocean enterprise accelerators across the country.[33:20] We discuss how researchers and tech transfer professionals can better engage with ocean-focused startups.[36:56] Details on Seaworthy’s Ocean Enterprise Studio and Incubator launching in February 2026 with a January 28, 2026 application deadline.[38:21] What gives her hope about the future of ocean innovation and growing awareness of the blue economy.[39:52] A call for researchers and entrepreneurs to turn ocean research into real-world solutions.Resources: AUTMSeaworthy CollectiveSeaworthy Ocean Enterprise Studio & IncubatorNOAA Ocean Enterprise NetworkScripps Institution of OceanographyTamara Kahn Zissman - LinkedIn

In November 2025, Bangkok, Thailand became the epicenter of a global conversation about the future of innovation. Leaders from around the world gathered for the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit, creating a rare space for open discussion about what is working, what is strained, and what needs to evolve in the tech transfer profession.With participants representing 27 countries, the summit surfaced a striking reality. Whether operating within long-established innovation ecosystems or building tech transfer capacity from the ground up, institutions are wrestling with many of the same core issues. Conversations repeatedly returned to questions of impact, sustainability, and talent, as well as a growing disconnect between how innovation actually unfolds and how it is often funded or evaluated. Short timelines and rigid expectations simply do not match the slow, uneven, and sometimes unpredictable path from research to real-world application.At the same time, it was clear that there is no single right model. Every region approaches technology transfer through the lens of its own culture, institutions, and policy environment. Some emphasize startups, others focus on licensing or industry partnerships, and ownership structures vary widely. What connects these approaches is a shared understanding that technology transfer is no longer a straight line from disclosure to deal. It has become an ecosystem role that requires flexibility, patience, and long-term thinking.To help unpack what these global conversations mean for the future of the profession, we’re joined by Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, who chaired the summit and had a front-row seat to these discussions. Drawing on perspectives from across continents and systems, Steve offers a grounded view of where technology transfer stands today, where it’s headed, and what it will take to strengthen the profession, support the people doing the work, and expand its real-world impact.In This Episode:[05:32] Steve Susalka shares why the WIPO-AUTM Summit prioritized global dialogue over prescribing best practices.[07:12] Similar concerns surface regardless of whether countries have mature or emerging tech transfer systems.[09:01] Common challenges emerge across 27 countries, even among vastly different innovation ecosystems.[11:04] Why misunderstanding the role of tech transfer creates unrealistic expectations at the institutional level.[13:18] Short-term funding cycles collide with the long timelines required for meaningful innovation.[15:02] The tension between public mission and commercial pressure facing many university offices.[17:44] A comparison of global ownership models and how they influence faculty, startups, and industry engagement.[19:26] How early industry engagement can reduce friction later in the commercialization process.[22:09] Startup formation as a critical bridge across the “valley of death” for early-stage technologies.[24:41] Why some of the most impactful technologies require patience, risk tolerance, and exclusive pathways.[27:36] The profession’s shift away from linear tech transfer models toward ecosystem-based approaches.[29:58] The growing importance of culture-building and education alongside traditional licensing work.[32:15] Why attempting to replicate Silicon Valley or MIT often fails without comparable infrastructure and culture.[34:22] Tech transfer professionals as translators between academia, industry, and government.[36:58] The human toll of tech transfer work, including burnout, turnover, and career sustainability concerns.[39:11] What sustainability really means for tech transfer offices beyond annual budgets.[41:27] How promotion and tenure systems can either reinforce or undermine innovation efforts on campus.[44:08] Why global collaboration can help regions avoid repeating the same hard-earned lessons.[46:03] What surprised Steve most in conversations with leaders from emerging innovation ecosystems.[48:37] Why measuring success purely through revenue misses the broader value of innovation activity.[50:41] AUTM’s role in advocating for the profession and making its impact more visible.[55:12] Aligning funding expectations with realistic innovation timelines as a path to greater impact.[59:08] Steve’s closing call to action for institutions, policymakers, and tech transfer professionals worldwide.Resources: AUTMFostering Global Innovation: AUTM's Role in Shaping International Tech Transfer ConversationsWIPOStephen Susalka - LinkedIn