TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER VIA INVENTION REVIEW: A PROGRESS REPORT

James A. Leahy and Joseph P. Lane RERC on Technology Evaluation and Transfer Center for Assistive Technology, University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

In the past twenty-four months, the RERC on Technology Evaluation and Transfer received 1,600 contacts from inventors. Those contacts yielded 145 submissions, 90 product evaluations, and about twenty-seven devices deemed appropriate for commercialization. This paper reviews the program and assesses the contributions of a supply push model to the field of assistive technology.

BACKGROUND

The RERC-TET is one of sixteen centers funded by the NIDRR to advance the state of assistive technology research. This center is charged with soliciting inventions, refining promising prototypes and helping them become commercial products.[1] The assumption underlying this charge is that many useful products are already invented, but they are not available to consumers because they lack resources to move the invention to the marketplace. This assumption reflects a supply-push model --solutions exist and we simply need to push them out to meet and resolve problems.[2] Are there useful devices out there? Can public innovations meet consumer needs as well or better than focused research and development?

OBJECTIVE

To identify useful new assistive devices invented by researchers, companies and the general public, and provide the technical, marketing and consumer support needed to move them to marketplace.

APPROACH

How does the RERC-TET solicit promising assistive devices? The RERC-TET first implemented a program for device prospecting -- a public information effort to promote the RERC's existence and mission. Device prospecting involves dissemination activities such as professional conference presentations to academic, professional practice and private-sector research and development audiences: presentations and information distribution at trade shows; mailings to manufacturers, distributors, and value added retailers; service providers through professional organizations, and agency and consumer networks nation-wide.

The RERC-TET is continuing an active campaign to solicit prototype assistive devices. Following a suggestion by our National Advisory Board, we obtained the national listing of patent attorneys, and mailed first to a national sample, then to targeted geographic areas. We also obtained information on the SBIR grantees for the agencies most directly involved in assistive technology (USDE, HHS, NSF) and mailed inventor brochures with an introductory letter to SBIR winners.

The Independent Living Center translated the consumer recruitment brochure into Spanish and then to other languages for dissemination locally, and through our state and national network of testing centers. To reach individuals from minority backgrounds, we mailed invention solicitation brochures to all the traditionally Hispanic and historically Black colleges and universities in the nation. The U.S. Department of Education furnished these lists at our request.

We are expanding our supply-side solicitation for inventions. Most companies in this field receive a continuing stream of unsolicited devices. We are offering to receive and screen those unsolicited inventions. This relieves companies from having to respond to inventor contacts, and they will have the first right of refusal over any devices that we determine might actually be of interest to that company. Further, most companies have devices in-house which have promise but are not being developed because the company lacks sufficient resources to pursue them. We are offering to develop such devices through joint arrangements, if consumers view those devices as worthwhile, with the company's assurance that they will market what we develop.

How does the RERC-TET intake and review devices submitted by inventors?

Upon our initial contact with an inventor, we mail the inventor our eight page Device Intake Package. The inventor is instructed to complete the package and return it to us along with photographs or a videotape of the subject invention. We then undertake our initial evaluation composed of the following:

* Documentation/Paperwork Review - Is the DIP completed properly and signed? Did we receive enough graphic and visual information to perform an initial evaluation? Does the device fit the legal definition of an assistive device?

* DOSABLE/ Literature Search for Similar/Competing Product- DOSABLE, literature and catalog searches are commenced for competing/existing products in the marketplace.

* Additional Information- Is there an obvious ownership problem? Does the device infringe on an existing patent as detailed in DIP submission? What specifically is the inventor seeking from us? R&D, Business Plan, Clinical Trials? If the device is rejected, correspondence to inventor is generated with the reason for rejection given.

* Initial Device Concept Review- An internal expert affiliated with the Center for Assistive Technology is asked to spend approximately one hour reviewing the submission. They are asked to fill out a device evaluation form and give a brief written synopsis of their views on the device. If the findings of the Internal Expert are positive, the device then goes on to the Standing Committee for a more in depth review. If the findings are negative, a rejection letter is sent to the inventor detailing the reasons for the rejection and returning all submitted materials.

* Standing Review Committee- A representative from the Technical, Consumer, and Marketing teams identifies the problem/need the device addresses and the potential users/market for the device. Each person spends about three hours reviewing the submission, speaking with experts in the field, and generating a written report with his/her recommendation. The members then meet, exchange reports and discuss the merits of the device. The committee then makes a recommendation for or against commercializing the device.

* Coordination Team Review- The Coordination Team (directors of the three organizations operating the RERC-TET, the project coordinator and the director of commercialization) review the Standing Committee's recommendations. The team decides whether to offer an Agent Agreement to the inventor, reject the device as inappropriate, or to table the device pending the resolution of a specific issue. The decision and copies of all prior reports are sent to the inventor. If the findings are negative, a rejection letter is sent to the detailing the reasons for the rejection and returning all submitted materials. If the findings are positive, the device is passed on to our Director of Commercialization. He enters into negotiations with the inventor to allow Aztech to become the inventor's agent to seek a commercialization partner for the device.

RESULTS

How successful has the program been?

The invention solicitation effort (with over 21,000 brochures distributed) described earlier has yielded outstanding results. In the original proposal, our forecast for the first two years was about 500 contacts, about fifty submissions, twenty devices passing our review, and between ten and twenty moving to the marketplace. In the two years since the program's inception we have received over 1600 telephone, mail or electronic inquiries. Out of those we have determined about 475 callers actually have had prototype assistive devices and we have sent out 447 Device Intake Packages. To date, of those 447 packages sent out, 145 have been returned by inventors as submissions.

The majority of these device submissions are rejected in our initial screening process. Rejection reasons vary from existence of a competing product unbeknownst to the inventor, to technical unfeasibility, to existence of other technology that performs the same function, to not being an assistive device, to the almost non-existence of a market for a potential product. However, 27 of the 145 (19%) device submissions have passed our evaluations. Some of these devices represent an innovative new application of technology to meet an unmet functional need. Other devices are designed to meet needs already met -- but poorly met -- by products in the marketplace. In some cases, we find the prototype device offers functional value to a selected sub-group of the target population. Inventors of devices recommended for commercialization receive an offer from the RERC-TET to function as their licensing agent.

Nineteen of the 27 inventors who were offered an agreement by the RERC-TET accepted. Of those 19 products, three have been licensed to outside companies. Ten devices are currently being reviewed by companies which have shown an interest in licensing the devices. Four inventors took our device evaluations and referral information, and elected to commercialize their devices without a formal contract with the RERC-TET. The other devices have had their agreements terminated due to technical problems, companies offering licensing agreements not meeting the high expectations of the inventors, and no interest being shown by outside companies.

DISCUSSION

There is a basis for the assumption underlying the supply-push model. There are indeed useful devices languishing as prototypes, and with the appropriate supports, they can become commercial products. Based on our yield of about twenty viable devices from 1,500 contacts and one hundred evaluations, a supply-side model requires tremendous effort to sustain a flow of devices. The number and quality of device submissions may increase as the RERC-TET becomes better known and develops credibility through successes. We are continuing our work to that end.

What else can be done to improve the quality of assistive devices available in the marketplace? A demand pull model represents another approach. This model assumes that new devices are best developed by starting with the problem, not with a solution. Demand-pull identifies consumer needs and designs those needs into new or improved products. The RERC-TET's consumer-driven evaluation does implement a demand-pull process, once a product enters our process.[3]

To increase the influence of consumer demand-pull on the device commercialization process, the RERC-TET has implemented several new activities. For example, we are working with the network of State Tech Act programs and with our existing network of Centers for Independent Living, to develop a "ten most wanted" list of needed assistive devices. We have already defined consumer criteria for the dozen device categories needing improvement, so we can quickly apply those criteria to the devices identified through this process.[4] These devices then represent new devices available for commercialization, which have been defined by device users. This demand-pull process verifies consumer interest and market viability, key factors for successful commercialization. We will report the demand-pull results in the literature.

REFERENCES

[1] Lane, J. (1994). "RERC on Technology Evaluation and Transfer: Program Access and Value Added." In M. Binion (Ed.). Proceedings of the RESNA '94 Annual Conference. Virginia: RESNA Press. 225-227.

[2] U.S. Congress (1982). "Technology and Handicapped People." Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment. 164-169.

[3] Jain, A.K., D. Usiak & J. Lane (1996). "Customer Orientation: Key to Delivering Useful Assistive Devices." In M. Binion (Ed.). Proceedings of the RESNA '96 Annual Conference. Virginia: RESNA Press. (this publication).

[4] Lane, J., D. Usiak & J. Moffat (1996). "Customer Orientation: Key to Delivering Useful Assistive Devices." In M. Binion (Ed.). Proceedings of the RESNA '96 Annual Conference. Virginia: RESNA Press. (this publication).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work is supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education.

James A. Leahy, Project Coordinator RERC on Technology Evaluation and Transfer Center for Assistive Technology University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14214