AUTM on the Air

• From Ideas to Impact: Kentucky’s Statewide Commercialization Approach with Kayla Meisner

  Not every university has the resources to build and maintain a Tech Transfer office, and for many smaller institutions, that has long meant sitting on the sidelines. In Kentucky, leaders decided to try something different. Instead of each campus building its own program from scratch, they pooled efforts into a single statewide network. That collaboration became Kentucky Commercialization Ventures, or KCV, a model that’s now showing what inclusive innovation can look like in practice.At the center of this work is Kayla Meisner, Executive Director of KCV, who has guided the initiative from an early concept into a growing program with national attention. Since its launch in 2020, KCV has more than tripled its funding, doubled its staff, and helped innovators at all levels find clear pathways into commercialization. By combining proof-of-concept funding with hands-on coaching and shared services, the team has turned early ideas into intellectual property, startups, and partnerships that feed back into Kentucky’s economy.In this episode, Kayla explains what it takes to build trust across institutions, how programs like the Innovation Fellowship and KCV Invent are preparing the next generation of talent, and why partnerships outside of academia are strengthening the state’s innovation ecosystem. She also reflects on what other regions can learn from Kentucky’s experience, from getting state economic leaders on board to setting up governance that keeps everyone invested in long-term success.In This Episode:[03:18] Kayla shares the origins of KCV and how it fits within the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation’s 40-year mission.[05:24] She explains how state dollars are invested into proof-of-concept funding and stipends to support innovators.[06:30] Kayla describes the challenges Kentucky faced as an EPSCoR and NIH IDeA state and why collective action was needed.[09:37] She outlines the gap analysis that showed most partner schools lacked IP policies and full-time tech transfer staff.[12:15] The discussion turns to how KCV scaled its services while running on less than $1 million a year in the early days.[15:30] Kayla highlights the importance of coaching and mentorship in turning early-stage disclosures into IP.[17:40] The story of Dr. Rachel Tinius at Western Kentucky University illustrates how small investments can lead to major commercialization success.[18:26] Kayla talks about the KCV Innovation Fellowship and how it prepares students and faculty for entrepreneurship.[22:06] She explains how the fellowship has grown into a semester-based, cohort model that builds practical commercialization skills.[24:11] The conversation shifts to Kentucky’s six regional innovation hubs and their statewide economic impact.[29:01] Kayla details how KCV now requires assessments before opt-in, creating clearer pathways and buy-in for institutions and innovators.[32:37] The IMPACT competition is discussed, with KCV celebrating its first-ever community and technical college winner.[35:17] Kayla addresses the $8.25 million NSF EDGE award and the systemic barriers it is helping to solve at smaller institutions.[46:28] She reflects on the challenge of securing sustainable funding and the importance of demonstrating ROI.[49:57] Kayla highlights ecosystem partnerships with groups like the Kentucky Bar Association, USPTO, and Kentucky Distillers Association.[54:30] The conversation explores talent development through internships and the launch of KCV Invent, funded by the NSF Excellence Program.[56:43] Kayla offers three recommendations for other states interested in replicating the KCV model: build state relationships, conduct gap analyses, and establish governance.[59:45] She reflects on what has surprised her most about the centralized approach and why it has proven so effective.Resources: AUTMKayla Meisner - Kentucky Commercialization VenturesKayla Meisner - LinkedInKentucky Science & Technology CorporationDr. Rachel Tinius, Ph.D., EP-CBumptUp LabsUSPTO – Midwest Regional Office

  --------  

  1:06:17

  --------

  1:06:17
• The Price of Patents: How New Tax Proposals Could Transform IP Strategy with Erin Daly

  A proposed shift in U.S. patent policy is sparking debate about the future of intellectual property. The idea on the table is a value-based tax that would replace, or sit on top of, the USPTO’s traditional flat-fee system. Instead of paying predictable maintenance fees, patent owners could face annual charges tied to the assessed value of their inventions. This move would dramatically change how portfolios are managed and funded.To walk us through the implications, we’re joined by Erin M. Daly, Ph.D., Esq., founder of Daly Law & Strategy. Erin started out in organic chemistry before moving into patent law, and she’s spent her career working with biotech companies and universities on everything from early-stage research to clinical programs. That combination of lab background and legal know-how gives her a practical view of how changes in patent policy land on the ground.We discuss why putting a dollar value on patents is never straightforward and how a tax like this could create big headaches for industries that depend on large portfolios, like biotech, semiconductors, and emerging green technologies. We also look at what startups and universities might face if they’re hit with new costs long before their patents generate any revenue. In This Episode:[01:57] The proposed value-based patent tax is outlined and contrasted with current USPTO fees.[02:50] Erin explains how the new system would resemble a property tax on intellectual property.[03:49] The U.S. has historically treated patents as a right supported by fees, not as taxable assets.[04:42] The proposal is still at the idea stage with no formal rule or bill introduced.[06:08] Patent valuation challenges are described, including subjectivity and lack of comparables.[08:07] Legal questions emerge about USPTO authority, due process, and potential litigation.[10:44] Erin outlines compliance concerns, audits, and paperwork burdens if the IRS were involved.[12:49] Biotech and pharma are identified as sectors most at risk under a value-based tax.[13:45] Semiconductor and AI industries could face massive valuation tracking costs.[14:40] Green tech companies may abandon patents if taxed before commercialization.[15:59] Strategic steps for tech transfer offices and companies to assess exposure are discussed.[17:39] Trade secrets may become more appealing as an alternative to patents in some cases.[18:24] Companies might restructure portfolios or shift filings internationally to reduce risk.[20:45] Erin emphasizes the importance of monitoring Congress, Federal Register updates, and IRS guidance.[22:55] Coalition groups and bar associations begin mobilizing to oppose the tax proposal.[23:33] Early legal challenges are expected to test the limits of USPTO authority and valuation disputes.[25:26] We close with a reminder that patent costs are under increasing scrutiny.Resources: AUTMDaly Law & StrategyErin M. Daly, Ph.D. - LinkedInDaly Law & Strategy - FacebookUSPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office)Federal RegisterBIO (Biotechnology Innovation Organization)Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)

  --------  

  26:05

  --------

  26:05
• The AUTM Better World Project Revisited: An Updated Look at Technology Transfer's Global Impact

  How do discoveries in a university lab make their way into everyday life? That question sits at the heart of AUTM’s Better World Project. When it first launched almost 20 years ago, it was just a small booklet with a handful of stories. Today, it’s grown into a global showcase with more than 600 examples of how technology transfer changes lives. In this episode, we’re taking another look at the project, what’s new, and why it continues to matter.I’m joined by RK Narayanan, Senior Director of Business Development and Technology Transfer at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Since 2017, RK has been leading partnerships and collaborations there, but his path stretches across both research and commercialization. He earned a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology from the University of Arizona and an MBA from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Earlier in his career, he held research roles at Harvard Medical School and MIT before stepping into technology management at Illinois, where he oversaw more than 200 innovations in the life sciences. He brings a strong focus on value creation and mentorship to his work in tech transfer.Also joining us is Parag Vasekar, Business Development and Licensing Manager for Physical Sciences at Purdue Research Foundation’s Office of Technology Commercialization. Parag’s training covers the full spectrum of materials science. He holds degrees from Pune University in India, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Central Florida, where he earned his PhD. His career has spanned both academia and industry, and today he plays a key role in evaluating technologies and shaping licensing agreements at Purdue. He also serves as co-chair of AUTM’s Better World Project Committee, giving him an inside view of how the initiative has expanded and adapted over time.Together, RK and Parag walk us through the growth of the Better World Project from those early printed pages to today’s award-winning stories. We’ll talk about standout innovations like UMass Amherst’s PFAS-destroying water purification system, the artificial pancreas, and breakthrough cancer treatments. More importantly, we’ll hear why this project isn’t just about showcasing innovation, but about showing the human impact of university research on communities worldwide.In This Episode:[01:30] RK’s career path is highlighted, from research at Harvard and MIT to overseeing 200 innovations at Illinois.[02:00] Parag’s academic and professional journey is detailed, with expertise in materials science and licensing.[03:12] The Better World Project has grown from hundreds to more than 600 innovation stories.[04:57] Examples like the Honeycrisp apple, N95 mask, and Google show university research impact.[05:39] The project began as a way to highlight outcomes of the Bayh-Dole Act and has since gone global.[06:14] From print to online multimedia, the growth reflects the maturing of the field.[07:01] Parag shares what drew him to the project and how it connects the “what” of tech transfer to the “why.”[09:09] RK explains how the project’s expansion shows the maturation of tech transfer beyond transactions.[10:14] Impact is measured in healthier patients, cleaner water, and stronger communities.[10:49] Lisa references Kate Zernike’s call for better storytelling in academic research.[11:22] Parag outlines the Better World Project Award process and the criteria for submissions.[12:29] The committee reviews entries before finalists go to the AUTM community for a vote.[13:26] UMass Amherst’s PFAS-destroying water purification system is highlighted as the 2025 winner.[14:38] Judging criteria have broadened from blockbuster drugs to more holistic measures of impact.[15:48] The committee looks for “aha” moments where research curiosity directly impacts lives.[16:33] RK explains how the project highlights long-term value beyond licensing revenue.[17:04] Examples like the artificial pancreas and PFAS system show impact measured in human terms.[18:22] Representation matters: the project spans medical devices, agriculture, and consumer products.[19:03] A story from Pakistan’s NUST about a vibrational wave therapy device illustrates global reach.[20:25] The project’s role during the pandemic highlighted universities’ rapid responses and collaboration.[21:35] Stories included rapid diagnostic tests, open-source ventilators, PPE solutions, and vaccines.[22:27] The key lesson: urgency and collaboration enable universities to meet global challenges.[23:08] Parag describes how multimedia storytelling broadened the project’s reach and emotional impact.[24:46] Barriers for smaller offices include staff limitations and lack of marketing expertise.[25:31] AUTM staff provide editorial support and encourage frequent submissions.[26:11] Parag shares the committee’s vision for the next five years, focusing on global reach and diversity.[27:05] New story categories now include AI, sustainability, and social sciences.[28:39] RK explains how storytelling makes the impact of university research clear to policymakers.[29:28] With more than 600 examples, the project provides credible evidence of impact.[30:08] The initiative is adapting to showcase AI, climate change, and global health innovations.[31:42] Examples include carbon capture, agricultural advances, telemedicine, and vaccine technologies.[32:19] The call is made for institutions worldwide to submit stories by October 15.[33:38] The committee is currently full but encourages volunteering at future meetings.[34:11] RK highlights Spinraza, developed at Cold Spring Harbor, as a personally inspiring story.[35:19] The partnership with Ionis Pharmaceuticals shows the power of sustained collaboration.[36:49] Parag points to Allegra as a reminder that consumer products also emerge from research labs.[37:30] COVID-era stories reinforced how global tech transfer can adapt quickly.[38:08] Both guests share their hopes for the project’s legacy as more than just a collection of stories.[39:50] We encourage relentless storytelling and contributions to the archive.[41:11] The Better World Project has become a powerful advocacy tool.[42:27] Submissions for the 2026 Better World Project Award are now open.[43:18] Let’s keep making the world better through technology transfer.Resources: RK Narayanan - LinkedInCold Spring Harbor LaboratoryParag Vasekar - LinkedInPurdue Office of Technology CommercializationSubmissions for the 2026 Better World Project Award

  --------  

  43:47

  --------

  43:47
• Research Integrity and the High Stakes for Technology Transfer with Michael R. Samardzija

  Most people hear the phrase “research misconduct” and think it’s an issue reserved for academia. But the truth is, it can rock the entire innovation ecosystem. One altered image in a dissertation might sound small, but it can snowball into collapsed companies, hundreds of millions in losses, and a deep erosion of trust in science itself.Joining me to dig into this reality is Michael R. Samardzija, Senior Counsel at Womble Bond Dickinson. Michael’s career is unique because he’s lived on both sides of the technology transfer world. He earned his PhD in Physiology and a Master’s in Exercise Physiology from Loma Linda University, then went on to get his JD from the University of San Diego. Over the past two decades, he’s worn many hats including Vice President of Research Affairs at Loma Linda University Health, where he launched the N3eight business incubator, Director of Intellectual Property at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and leadership roles at firms like Dentons and Bracewell & Giuliani. That blend of academic and legal experience gives him a rare perspective on the challenges TTOs face every day.Michael recently put a name to something many of us have only seen in fragments what he calls “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects”. It’s the idea that what looks like a single, contained problem in a lab can ripple outward, creating consequences for commercialization, partnerships, and the credibility of institutions. Today, he’s here to break down those connections and share what they mean for technology transfer professionals navigating this complex landscape.In This Episode:[01:29] Michael’s dual background in law and academia is outlined, including his leadership roles and IP experience.[02:11] Michael explains “Research Misconduct’s Butterfly Effects” and why it matters for technology transfer professionals.[02:59] Defining research misconduct with fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, proven by preponderance of the evidence.[04:04] Misconduct in publications can invalidate patents, licenses, and commercialization efforts.[05:27] Michael shares how his career shaped his views on risk management for TTOs and the rising tide of retractions.[06:03] Licensees may begin requiring universities to warrant patents that are free of misconduct, a risk institutions must prepare for.[07:12] Tech transfer offices should consider sequestering underlying data to provide transparency for licensees.[07:51] Organized fraud networks, “paper mills,” and systemic pressures to publish are fueling misconduct at scale.[09:13] A student uncovers duplicate publications across different journals, leading to a retraction.[10:18] Publication mills profit by selling authorship or fabricated manuscripts, creating an industry of fraudulent science.[12:21] High-profile cases show faculty losing positions over fabricated or cherry-picked data, with countries like India now imposing strict punishments.[13:49] International collaborations bring value but also increase risk when oversight standards differ globally.[14:15] Case study of Athira Pharma illustrates how research misconduct spiraled into legal, financial, and reputational crises.[15:06] Faculty at Washington State University discover dementia drug candidate Dihexa and form a startup.[17:01] Millions in NIH funding and clinical trials follow, but manipulated images in early publications trigger scrutiny.[18:22] The former graduate student admits to embellishing images, yet fundraising and IPOs continue, raising over $400M.[20:04] A whistleblower files a False Claims Act suit, leading to DOJ involvement and company stock plummeting 40%.[21:16] The case settles for $4 million, with ongoing investigations, shareholder lawsuits, and SEC concerns.[23:02] Washington State University removes the student’s dissertation and launches an inquiry.[24:12] Athira’s valuation collapses from $670M in 2020 to $25M in 2025, showing the profound damage of misconduct.[25:00] Michael stresses the need for better due diligence, expert involvement, and clear standards on acceptable data/image alterations.[27:21] TTOs should resist warranties but offer licensees access to original data for their own investigations.[28:38] Retracted papers may serve as tools in patent prosecution or litigation, a double-edged sword for TTOs.[29:09] Practical steps for TTOs include careful fraud language in agreements and collaboration with research integrity offices.[32:01] Recommendations include close coordination with integrity officers, rapid response plans, and careful handling of inventor payouts.[34:24] Michael advises TTO professionals to self-report suspicions quickly to protect institutional reputation.[36:20] Tech Transfer professionals should innovate with integrity and stay vigilant against misconduct.Resources: Michael R. Samardzija - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael R. Samardzija - LinkedInMichael R. Samardzija - Loma Linda UniversityOffice of Research Integrity (ORI), HHS

  --------  

  37:22

  --------

  37:22
• Inside the USPTO: Dr. Julie Burke on Culture, Quality, and Reform

  What does it take to safeguard innovation while making sure the patent system truly serves inventors and society? That’s the heart of today’s conversation, and few people are better positioned to answer than Dr. Julie Burke.Today, she brings a unique perspective to the world of intellectual property and patent prosecution. Dr. Burke spent more than two decades in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, eventually stepping into the role of Quality Assurance Specialist in Technology Center 1600. Her path there was built on a strong scientific foundation: a degree in molecular biology, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and postdoctoral work at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where she earned a grant from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to study the CFTR protein.At the USPTO, she examined applications in areas that changed the course of modern medicine such as cancer immunology and recombinant antibody technologies. She also handled more than 900 petitions and received multiple awards for her contributions to patent quality and international guidelines. After leaving the Office, Dr. Burke brought her expertise to Knobbe Martens, later founded IP Quality Pro LLC, and has since become a recognized voice through her expert witness work and widely published articles. She also advises Petition.ai and serves on the board of the Association for American Innovation, where she advocates for policies that encourage inventors to keep creating.Dr. Burke candidly opens up about her career journey, the culture inside the USPTO, and the systemic challenges that affect patent quality. She also points us toward a future where reforms, transparency, and a renewed commitment to excellence can strengthen the system while unlocking more innovation for everyone.In This Episode:[02:52] Dr. Burke shares her academic journey through Biogen, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, and Johns Hopkins, and how she was pointed toward the USPTO.[05:20] She reflects on family ties to public service and her idealistic start at the USPTO.[05:51] Early years as a cancer immunology examiner and later transition to Quality Assurance Specialist in TC1600.[08:26] She describes USPTO culture, personalities of examiners, and the complaints she fielded as a QA specialist.[10:36] Dr. Burke recounts being told that allowing a patent on first action would earn her a derogatory label, and what that revealed about PTO culture.[12:22] Discussion of the “reject, reject, reject” mentality and how examiners were pressured into repeat RCEs.[14:55] Dr. Burke introduces the Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) program and explains how it secretly blocked pioneering cases.[17:42] How SAWS expanded into looking at inventors’ backgrounds, including finances and character.[18:32] Comparisons to IRS “BOLO” lists and the chilling effect of having allowances pulled at the last moment.[28:48] Dr. Burke explains new challenges with petition review work, including restrictions and procedures that create extra burdens. [32:41] What needs to change to address some of these quality issues. [37:12] Hazing culture in the Patent Training Academy and high attrition among new examiners.[41:00] Impact of PTAB changes: trials scaled back, discretionary denials increased, and appeals expedited.[42:11] Loss of examiner tools like ChemDraw and SciFinder forces some to use personal computers, creating security risks.[52:28] Dr. Burke contrasts production bonuses with quality bonuses, and the damage this does to examination integrity.[55:12] Reports show 40% of litigated patents invalidated which goes back to flawed performance incentives.[58:40] Current restraints and cuts are hard on patent examiners and students and inventors. [01:02:15] We discuss examiner morale, loss of union protections, and management culture shifts.[01:05:47] She shares closing reflections on reforms needed for transparency, consistency, and examiner support.[01:09:32] Dr. Burke connects the role of professional “guilds” in maintaining quality, and draws parallels to historical trade guilds.[01:12:54] Optimism about the Association for American Innovation (AAI) and its independent reform agenda.Resources: Dr. Julie Burke - IP WatchdogDr. Julie Burke - LinkedInPetition AI

  --------  

  1:14:11

  --------

  1:14:11

More Business podcasts

Trending Business podcasts

About AUTM on the Air