Technology transfer
Technology transfer is an evolving practice even in countries with established systems, and particularly in the field of biotechnology. The biotechnology technology transfer ecosystem from university laboratories to public use is unique in that it requires constant interaction between academia, funding organizations and industry as well as NGOs, governments and communities for whom the technology is meant, supported by diligent protection of IP and proper policies that support technology transfer. It is the consistent funding support provided by the public and private sector and funding organizations for biotechnology research that gives rise to foundational technologies which are leveraged to develop the innovative biotechnology products consumed today. However, while funding is essential, it is not sufficient. For biotechnology technology transfer to meet its ultimate goal of broadly disseminating the fruits of research through commercialization, proper government policies must be in place, in particular, policies that spur risk taking and require proper stewardship of IP resources. In addition, cost-benefit analysis demonstrating all benefits – not just improved health but benefits in various sectors – of intervention versus costs might help persuade governments to prioritize certain products and secure funding. Just as with licensing agreements in other technologies, biotechnology technology transfer requires consideration of overall institutional and governmental policies, the expectations of various stakeholders and the demands of the day.
Complexity and risk
The risky nature of any biotechnology enterprise, often involving decades of R&D and billions of dollars of investment, needs certain basic elements to flourish – strong and predictable protection of the intellectual assets that serve as the basis for this industry, a streamlined, science-based regulatory apparatus and an integrated system of funding from various sources with a technology transfer system that appreciates the complexities of the technology.
An additional layer of complexity is that biotechnology patent assets are rarely transferred in isolation. Licensees often contract with the lead researcher on the licensed technology to retain their experience and knowledge of the technology. As a result, biotechnology licenses may cover a variety of elements needed to practice the invention and further develop the discovery, including know-how and biological materials. Experience has shown that the path to commercialization with private entities often requires exclusive licenses, but the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that this “business as usual” model cannot always provide the tools needed to combat a disease. Meeting the challenges of the pandemic required all stakeholders to be creative. For TTOs this may mean flexibility in licensing by providing royalty-free, nonexclusive licenses for a limited time. For governments it may mean providing additional resources, implementing supportive policies and easing barriers in cross-border collaborations. Cost-benefit analysis could help demonstrate to governments that their funding is not simply an expenditure, but also an investment not only in health but in other sectors as well. And for companies it may mean seeking out nontraditional partners and participating in patent pools or licensing partnerships to ensure affordability and availability in resource-limited settings.
Capital intensiveness
It should be also kept in mind that both R&D and commercialization efforts in biotechnology are very capital intense and have a longer gestation period than other domains. The variety of template agreements, suggested clauses and pooling mechanisms included in the WIPO Contract Database