AUTM on the Air

If you've ever thought that intellectual property was just for lawyers, patent professionals, and the occasional venture capitalist, today's episode might change your mind. We're talking about what it would look like if anyone, your neighbor, your parents, maybe even a seven-year-old with a wallet could find, understand, and invest in the technologies shaping our future. It's a big idea, and our guests are actively building the infrastructure to make it real.
Chris Hack and Geoffrey Smith are the co-founders of Brilliance, a company working at the intersection of AI, blockchain, and decentralized finance to make intellectual property more accessible and investable. They're building tools that help non-specialists navigate patent landscapes using plain language search, connecting problem-solvers with the right opportunities, and experimenting with tokenization as a way to open royalty stream investing to a much broader audience than has ever had access before.
In this conversation, we dig into what it actually means to democratize IP, how AI is changing the discovery and translation of patents for people outside the profession, and what role blockchain and smart contracts could realistically play in the future of licensing and royalty management. We also talk about the guardrails that need to exist, the misconceptions worth clearing up, and where Chris and Geoffrey see the biggest opportunities for tech transfer offices to dip their toes in without taking on a lot of risk.

In This Episode:
[02:28] Chris explains that democratizing IP is less about what it is and more about who can access it everyday people, not just specialists.
[02:30] The biggest barriers to IP participation are readability, discoverability, and the high cost of creation, all of which technology can help address.
[03:49] Geoffrey adds that beyond discovery and translation friction, there's a matching problem: universities want partners, companies want solutions, and no one has solved the bridge between them.
[03:50] Brilliance built AI tools not for patent professionals, but for investors and entrepreneurs who need a low-friction first pass at understanding what a patent covers and why it matters.
[05:13] The tools are not patent drafting tools, they're designed to expand the footprint of who engages with IP in the first place.
[05:48] Chris and Geoffrey share their vision of making IP as conversational and familiar as real estate, starting with the people closest to us.
[07:57] Tech transfer offices can list IP on Brilliance's repository for free, feeding their AI model and getting exposure to a new class of potential investors.
[09:55] The conversation turns to tokenization and why NFTs in this context have nothing to do with digital art and everything to do with creating an immutable ledger for royalty contracts.
[10:21] Chris breaks down how NFTs function in their prototype marketplace as pointers or receipts, not the underlying contracts themselves.
[12:49] Brilliance's current model involves acquiring royalty streams, syndicating the funding, and owning the stream with a vision to move those transactions fully on-chain over time.
[13:50] Smart contracts in this context aren't legal agreements, they're programmable rules that govern how a token behaves on the blockchain and direct payments to whoever holds it.
[15:39] Blockchain explorers could eventually give municipalities and governments real-time visibility into where innovation is happening and where to direct funding.
[16:34] The most common concerns Brilliance hears from institutions involve regulatory uncertainty and security, but Chris and Geoffrey treat those as design guidelines, not dealbreakers.
[18:49] Compliance and governance aren't obstacles; they're the blueprint for building the right product, including AML and KYC requirements for the next marketplace iteration.
[19:06] The team is watching the Genius Act and Clarity Act closely, hoping clearer federal guidelines will let them move with more confidence.
[20:08] Brilliance focuses on non-dilutive funding by purchasing the economic interest in a royalty stream while leaving the underlying IP assets intact.
[22:00] Guardrails for tokenized IP investment need to address regulatory compliance, asset vetting, buyer and seller transparency, and clear valuation frameworks.
[24:00] For tech transfer offices wanting a low-risk entry point, the IP repository is free, requires minimal effort, and immediately connects listings to active investors using AI search.
[24:30] The Connect platform matches problem-havers with problem-solvers using embedded AI, and was built specifically to solve the sponsored research visibility problem.
[25:30] Chris addresses common misconceptions: NFTs are not speculative assets, smart contracts are not legal contracts, and blockchain does not require cryptocurrency speculation.
[26:49] Geoffrey's son asked how to invest in robots and that question became their clearest articulation of what success looks like in five to ten years.
[27:59] Most of the existing IP ecosystem patent attorneys, legal contracting, relationship-driven deals will remain intact. Brilliance is adding to it, not replacing it.
[30:00] Chris shares a hope for the future: rewarding collaborative innovation over individual filings and reducing the siloing that slows down big breakthroughs.
[31:28] For tech transfer professionals wanting to stay current, Chris recommends subscribing to Brilliance's newsletter as a curated starting point for AI and blockchain trends.
[32:17] Geoffrey closes with a reminder that understanding the fundamentals of AI — not just the applications is the safest and most practical place to start.

Resources: 
AUTM
Brilliance
The Lantern
Chris Hack - LinkedIn
Geoffrey Smith - LinkedIn

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: 
AUTM
Samsung Research America
START
LEAP-U
LEAP-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: 
AUTM
Adam Brickman - LinkedIn
Vega 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: 
AUTM
Mike Waring - LinkedIn
Protecting Tech Transfer And University Innovation Funding With Mike Waring
AUTM Advocacy
Bayh-Dole Coalition
USPTO
USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
SBIR.gov
National 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: 
AUTM
The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
Michelle Durborow - LinkedIn
Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP)
Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI)
Targets to Therapies Program
Parkinson's Buddy Network
Parkinson’s IQ + You Events