Minutes Meeting of a Meeting of the Research and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York January 25, 2012 The Research and Economic Development Committee of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York held a meeting on January 25, 2012. Committee Members present: Trustee Marshall Lichtman (Standing in for the Chair, Linda Sanford) Trustee Kaitlyn Beachner Trustee Joseph Belluck Trustee Cary Staller Trustee Ronald Ehrenberg Other Trustees present: Trustee Gerri Warren-Merrick Trustee John Murad Other present: Dr. David Lavallee, Provost Dr. Nancy L. Zimpher, Chancellor Ms. Kaitlin Gambrill Mr. Brian Hutzley RF: Mr. Jeffrey Boyce Ms. Angela Wright Ms. Kim Rosenfield Via Video: Ms. Heather Hage Mr. Garry Sanders Ms. Bonny Boice The Research and Economic Development Committee was called to order by Dr. Lichtman at 8:32 a.m. on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at the State University of New York, College of Optometry. Dr. Lichtman asked for approval of the minutes from the November 22, 2011 meeting. The motion was made by Dr. Ehrenberg and seconded by Mr. Staller. The minutes were unanimously approved. As noted by Dr. Lichtman, the meeting was largely one of information and discussion. With no action items to be discussed, Dr. Lichtman introduced the first topic on the agenda - Patents & Inventions Policy Board, which was to be described by Ms. Hage. The policies were provided in the Board of Trustees materials. Ms. Hage started the discussion of the first topic on the agenda by highlighting the major points of the policy, describing the importance of appointing a board, discussing the Board’s structure and governance model, and summarizing the next steps. I. Policy major points 1. The circumstances under which SUNY asserts an ownership interest in inventions made either by its faculty or in its facilities. 2. The division of royalty income that might be generated from licensing activity, and how that income is allocated between the inventor and the institution (40% of the gross proceeds are given to the inventor while 60% is retained by the institution). 3. The exceptions for inventions that a faculty member might make on his or her own time. 4. Procedures in the case that there is a dispute between the institution and inventor over ownership 5. The review of the policy and the creation of implementation guidelines. II. The importance of appointing a Patents & Inventions Policy Board for SUNY 1. The Board could ensure that the policy is meeting the strategic needs of the University. 2. The Board could establish guidelines and procedures for implementation of the policy in unusual circumstances. 3. The Board could determine with more clarity the extent of the University’s interest in inventions developed by its faculty and/or in its facilities. III. The Board’s structure and how it fits into our governance model 1. In section H of the policy, the SUNY Chancellor is empowered to use the Board to continually review the policy. IV. Changes that would be implemented 1. Regulatory amendments would be required in order to change the policy; this would be an effort not only on the part of the Board of Trustees, but also working through the State Administrative Procedures Act with help from Counsel to get any amendments passed. 2. The current intent is for the General Counsel’s office at the Research Foundation to support the SUNY Patents and Inventions Policy Board. The Research Foundation President would be the Chair of the committee. 3. Ms. Hage stated that as they work to facilitate SUNY’s vision for building the entrepreneurial century and creating cultural change, they focus more on entrepreneurial activity. V. Next steps 1. Charter drafted for consideration by Chancellor Zimpher and others. 2. * RF and SUNY leaders are working closely to identify individuals to serve as board members; the selected members will be representative across the enterprise of different campuses and different constituencies 3. Targeted first meeting date: April 2nd . 4. Quarterly reporting to RF Board of Directors and annual reporting to SUNY Board of Trustees. It was noted that this recommendation came as a result of various discussions during the Joint Task Force meetings. During this discussion, there was a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Sanders proceeded by presenting the topic on Research & Commercialization metrics. He noted that the presentation is a prelude for the following topic, which Dr. Lavallee presented - R&D catalyst program overview. Mr. Sanders noted there is a challenge when relying on the federal government for R&D funding. His presentation detailed the trend of these funds and the various federal agencies, and described what the STAR Metrics are. The goal of the STAR Metrics, as Mr. Sanders described, was for all federal awards to indicate the numbers of jobs that have been created. This is an effort that has been initiated with all of SUNY campuses, especially Stony Brook. He also indicated they have expanded the metrics to all of their grant awards. The Board pointed out some of their concerns regarding what was included or not included within these metrics. The RF’s next goal in using Star Metrics is to expand it beyond federal awards into industry awards and foundation, or to any source of funding, in order to be accountable for the measures around economic development including job creation. During the presentation, Ms. Hage commented on the IP commercialization. Ms. Hage preceded the discussion by detailing the chart on the presentation regarding the number of license and option agreements entered into by RF. She noted that the metrics used to illustrate the IP Commercialization Metrics was a good metric to demonstrate how they were doing in Technology Transfer. It was noted that in March they might have integration with some systems in order to get a handle on Students employment information. Dr. Lavallee introduced the next topic- R&D catalyst program overview. Mr. Sanders commenced the discussion by giving a synopsis of the SUNY Innovators Program. Dr. Lavallee later noted that funding for this program has not been secured. Mr. Sanders proceeded with a discussion on SUNY REACH, which objective was to increase the footprint that SUNY has with the National Institute of Health and pharmaceutical manufacturers overall. The investment that SUNY and RF provided was of $8 million over the past two years; additional funding of $9.5 million is pending with the State. The result of this program was the creation of the SUNY Eye Institute. Dr. Lavallee mentioned that once these funds were awarded, they become eligible exclusively for future license clinical based research. Mr. Boyce continued the presentation by describing the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). He noted that this program was a source of federal funding to enable small businesses to partner with universities to do research that the federal agency has interest in. They are proposing to matching funds are put against SUNY recipients of SBIR awards to double the grants in order to make them that much more attractive. So far, winning SBIR grants in New York State has not been lucrative, thus, their goal is to create a significant fund of $5 million dollars which will enable researchers to continue their study. Discussion about the implementation of this is underway. Dr. Lavallee proceeded by categorizing and describing the programs funded either through the university-wide programs or by both the university-wide and Research programs. These are Strategic Partnership for Industry Resurgence (SPIR), Empire Innovation Program, and the Collaborative Fund. Mr. Boyce returned to the topic of Star Metrics, and mentioned that Phase I of Star Metrics is focused on job creation and retention that emanate from federally sponsored research, and Phase II was to try to implement similar metrics in more areas of funding as a result of the conference in September. The Research Foundation and SUNY are partnering to participate in phase II, which will focus on the broader outcomes from University research and merge together the inputs. Comments were expressed regarding how the metrics could be more useful. The discussion of Annual Planning Calendar for Committee was left to be discussed by Trustee Sanford and Dr. Lavallee. There being no further business, upon motion duly made by Trustee Ehrenberg, seconded by Trustee Staller, and passed unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:49 a.m. 18 Research and Economic Development -2- January 25, 2012 Minutes Research & Economic