AUTM on the Air

Industry partnerships can look very different depending on which side of the table you’re sitting on. For technology transfer professionals, the work often centers on preparing the opportunity, supporting the inventor, protecting the IP, and finding the right commercial partner. For companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, the question is slightly different: does this technology solve a real problem, fit an existing product area, improve on something already in the market, or open the door to a new capability?My guest today is Hsiaoli Chen, Senior Manager of Corporate Innovation Partnerships at Thermo Fisher Scientific. Hsiaoli brings nearly 20 years of experience in business development, technology scouting, and licensing across the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. and Europe. She started her career as a biomedical researcher, and that scientific foundation still shapes how she evaluates new opportunities, talks with inventors, and looks at the evidence behind an emerging technology.In this conversation, Hsiaoli shares how Thermo Fisher works with universities, startups, researchers, and tech transfer offices to identify promising technologies and build productive partnerships. We talk about what catches her attention in a technology offering, why benchmarking against an existing product can make a disclosure easier to evaluate, and how validation data helps industry partners understand what still needs to happen before a technology can move forward.We also get into the practical side of licensing, including timelines, royalty expectations, contract templates, and the flexibility needed to get deals done. Hsiaoli also shares her perspective on global differences in university partnerships, the technology trends she’s watching in AI, automation, proteomics, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy, and the simple things TTOs can do to stand out as strong, prepared, and collaborative industry partners.In This Episode:[02:03] Hsiaoli Chen shares how her path from academic biomedical research to a startup in Munich opened the door to business development, licensing, and technology commercialization.[03:31] Her research background still shapes how she evaluates new technologies, especially when looking at the science, experiments, and validation behind an invention.[05:12] Thermo Fisher’s university partnerships often begin through researchers who already use the company’s products or through introductions from tech transfer offices.[07:06] Benchmarking a university technology against an existing Thermo Fisher product can help the right internal team quickly understand where the opportunity fits.[08:42] Early-stage academic technologies may still be worth evaluating when inventors can clearly identify what additional validation or development work is needed.[10:02] Licensing conversations with Thermo Fisher often look different from biopharma deals because many technologies may reach the market within 12 to 24 months.[11:28] Royalty expectations, contribution from multiple technologies, and royalty management mechanisms can all affect whether a university deal makes commercial sense.[12:36] Flexibility around contract templates can help reduce friction and move licensing conversations forward more efficiently.[14:03] Global partnership structures vary, with U.S. tech transfer offices often taking the lead while some European inventors may have more direct influence over commercialization.[15:48] AI, automation, and predictive models for peptides, proteins, and antibodies are becoming increasingly important in chemistry and biology screening.[16:52] Proteomics, single-cell analysis, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy manufacturing workflows are among the university research trends Thermo Fisher is watching closely.[18:39] Thermo Fisher uses a robust internal funnel to evaluate technologies coming from universities, startups, biotechs, and even other companies.[19:34] Product managers, R&D colleagues, IP counsel, business teams, and legal partners may all become part of the evaluation process as an opportunity advances.[21:07] A strong tech transfer partner often provides complete information up front, including benchmarking, publications, and public patent details when available.[22:21] Some promising technologies do not move forward because exclusivity is unavailable, consortium terms are limiting, or the deal structure does not fit the business needs.[23:38] A technology that looks strong on paper may still fail to advance if it does not perform well under Thermo Fisher’s internal technical evaluation conditions.[24:36] Hsiaoli’s advice for tech transfer professionals is to prepare clear, concise technology offerings, stay flexible on negotiation terms, and keep building relationships through conferences and direct engagement.Resources: AUTMHsiaoli Chen - LinkedInThermo Fisher Scientific

Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and Invention offers a practical policy and practice framework designed for use across institutions and jurisdictions. In this episode, we talk about how the handbook came together, including the decision to use the BookSprints methodology, a structured five-day collaborative process used to develop a complete policy and practice guide.I’m joined by four remarkable individuals who played central roles in the creation of the handbook. James Filpi, JD, from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program, envisioned the project and championed its development at CLDP, an organization focused on strengthening legal and regulatory frameworks that support commerce worldwide. Joy Goswami, MBA, Director of Licensing and Commercialization Initiatives at the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and a member of AUTM’s leadership, brings experience from one of the nation’s largest research funding organizations and the broader technology transfer community. Michael Samardzija, PhD, JD, partner at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, brought a practitioner’s perspective from years of legal and IP work in the technology transfer space. Alysa Khouri, who facilitated the BookSprints process, kept the group moving and helped structure the work over the five days.I also want to acknowledge the broader group who participated in the BookSprint, including Edward Blocker of the Intellectual Property Owners Association; Davit Ghazaryan and Naira Campbell-Kyureghyan from the American University of Armenia; Priya Prasad of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program; Richard S. Cahoon of Cornell University; and myself, Lisa Mueller, from Casimir Jones. The handbook was developed at Caboose Farm near Camp David, Maryland, in August 2025, where the group was sequestered for five intensive days. Let’s dive into the conversation.In This Episode:[00:33] We just finished Technology Transfer: A Policy Primer for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property and will be sharing the collaborative process we used. [04:20] James Filpi explains the original vision for the handbook, including CLDP’s focus on giving policymakers and technology transfer managers a practical framework for building innovation ecosystems in emerging markets.[06:18] Alysa Khouri explains the BookSprints methodology, including its five-day structure and how the process moves from shared framing to writing and intensive cross-editing.[10:45] The advantages of overnight editing, illustration support, and working across time zones are discussed as part of the BookSprints model.[15:33] Michael Samardzija reflects on the intensity of the five-day sprint and how early uncertainty gave way to structure once roles, chapters, and editing rhythms were established.[17:46] Joy Goswami describes how different institutional and professional perspectives were aligned into a single, coherent handbook.[20:35] The decision to work in seclusion at Caboose Farm near Camp David is discussed, including how the setting supported focus and collaboration.[25:20] The day-to-day rhythm of the sprint is described, from early mornings and shared meals to writing, revising, and late-night editing.[31:56] The organization and scope of the handbook are outlined, including its progression from IP fundamentals to ecosystem development and emerging trends.[34:15] How policymakers, universities, tech transfer offices, startups, and investors can use the handbook is explored.[37:39] The decision to release the handbook under a Creative Commons license is discussed, along with why open access was critical to its use in training, policy development, and global adaptation.[43:23] Reflections on what made this BookSprint distinctive emphasize collaboration, shared purpose, and practical outcomes.[47:13] Participants reflect on what surprised them most about the process, including how quickly a coherent, high-quality handbook came together.[54:07] Next steps are outlined, including workshops, training programs, legislative drafting support, and international rollout plans.Resources: AUTMJames D. Filpi - CLDPJames D. Filpi - LinkedInJoy Goswami - The State University of New York Research FoundationJoy Goswami - LinkedInMichael Samardzija, Ph.D. - Womble Bond DickinsonMichael Samardzija - LinkedInAlysa Khouri - LinkedInTechnology Transfer GuidebookCommercial Law Development Program CLDPBookSprintsCreative CommonsCaboose Farm

Over the next two weeks, we’re doing something a little different, with a special two-part conversation featuring five extraordinary women who will be joining the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026. To give us the space to really dig in, we split these conversations across two episodes, so we could spend more time on the perspectives, experiences, and leadership each of these new board members brings to the tech transfer community.In this episode, we’re joined by Felicia Metz from the University of Maryland Ventures, Maithili Shroff from the University of New Hampshire, and Katie Butcher from Northwestern University. Next week, the conversation continues with Patricia Stepp of Rice University and Laura Schoppe, founder of TechPipeline, bringing in additional viewpoints from both inside and outside the university setting.Katie Butcher brings an MBA from Notre Dame and a Master of Science in Law from Northwestern into her role, giving her a strong mix of business and legal experience that shapes how licensing and commercialization work at Northwestern. Felicia Metz is an Associate Director at University of Maryland Ventures, where her work spans patent prosecution, building and managing IP portfolios, and licensing strategy. Maithili Shroff is a Licensing Manager at the University of New Hampshire, an R1 institution, where she draws on her PhD training to support innovation and intellectual property commercialization, with a perspective shaped by working across a wide range of research areas. Together, these three leaders reflect the breadth of backgrounds, expertise, and lived experience shaping the future of tech transfer, and they offer a thoughtful look at why this moment matters for the profession and for AUTM’s leadership going forward.In This Episode:[00] This is a special two-part series introducing five women who will join the AUTM Board of Directors in February 2026.[03:26] Katie shares her path to tech transfer. She has an MBA and has worked in the legal field. She spent her first 20 years in the entertainment industry. [04:33] Her background was strong, but she also had a lot of learning on the job in science, technology, and learning. It's been an exciting adventure being in this field. [05:58] Felicia entered tech transfer as a student and unexpectedly built a long-term career in the field.[08:10] She explains how the profession has evolved toward specialization and complementary skill sets across offices.[09:41] Maithili describes how her PhD led her to question what happens to research after publication.[11:22] She shares how the AUTM fellowship and the collaborative culture of the community shaped her career path.[13:18] The panel discusses why tech transfer welcomes professionals from many backgrounds, not just STEM or law.[15:23] Curiosity, flexibility, and comfort with ambiguity are emphasized as essential traits for success.[16:49] Why running for the AUTM Board felt timely and meaningful.[18:42] The importance of representing non-STEM and operational roles in tech transfer leadership.[20:14] Advocacy, higher-education pressures, and why board service feels urgent right now.[21:20] We discuss funding uncertainty, policy shifts, and broader challenges facing tech transfer.[24:02] Budget constraints, staffing pressures, and the reality of doing more with fewer resources are explored.[26:09] The importance of telling the tech transfer story and demonstrating real-world impact comes into focus.[29:10] Data and metrics are discussed as tools for visibility, accountability, and storytelling.[32:18] Artificial intelligence enters the conversation as both a disruptive force and a potential support tool.[35:10] The panel considers how AI could improve efficiency without replacing human judgment.[38:00] The guests share their hopes for where tech transfer and AUTM could be in five years.[39:50] Felicia shares a personal story that underscores why tech transfer work truly matters.[43:47] Reflections on partnership, service, and shared success.Resources: AUTMKatie Butcher - Northwestern UniversityKatie Butcher - LinkedInFelicia Metz - University of MarylandFelicia Metz - LinkedInMaithili Shroff - University of New HampshireMaithili Shroff - LinkedInAUTM Better World ProjectPatents, Peer Review, and Policy: What Congress Needs to Understand Now with Kate ZernikeLessons From the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit with Steve Susalka

In November 2025, Bangkok, Thailand became the epicenter of a global conversation about the future of innovation. Leaders from around the world gathered for the WIPO-AUTM Knowledge and Technology Transfer Summit, creating a rare space for open discussion about what is working, what is strained, and what needs to evolve in the tech transfer profession.With participants representing 27 countries, the summit surfaced a striking reality. Whether operating within long-established innovation ecosystems or building tech transfer capacity from the ground up, institutions are wrestling with many of the same core issues. Conversations repeatedly returned to questions of impact, sustainability, and talent, as well as a growing disconnect between how innovation actually unfolds and how it is often funded or evaluated. Short timelines and rigid expectations simply do not match the slow, uneven, and sometimes unpredictable path from research to real-world application.At the same time, it was clear that there is no single right model. Every region approaches technology transfer through the lens of its own culture, institutions, and policy environment. Some emphasize startups, others focus on licensing or industry partnerships, and ownership structures vary widely. What connects these approaches is a shared understanding that technology transfer is no longer a straight line from disclosure to deal. It has become an ecosystem role that requires flexibility, patience, and long-term thinking.To help unpack what these global conversations mean for the future of the profession, we’re joined by Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, who chaired the summit and had a front-row seat to these discussions. Drawing on perspectives from across continents and systems, Steve offers a grounded view of where technology transfer stands today, where it’s headed, and what it will take to strengthen the profession, support the people doing the work, and expand its real-world impact.In This Episode:[05:32] Steve Susalka shares why the WIPO-AUTM Summit prioritized global dialogue over prescribing best practices.[07:12] Similar concerns surface regardless of whether countries have mature or emerging tech transfer systems.[09:01] Common challenges emerge across 27 countries, even among vastly different innovation ecosystems.[11:04] Why misunderstanding the role of tech transfer creates unrealistic expectations at the institutional level.[13:18] Short-term funding cycles collide with the long timelines required for meaningful innovation.[15:02] The tension between public mission and commercial pressure facing many university offices.[17:44] A comparison of global ownership models and how they influence faculty, startups, and industry engagement.[19:26] How early industry engagement can reduce friction later in the commercialization process.[22:09] Startup formation as a critical bridge across the “valley of death” for early-stage technologies.[24:41] Why some of the most impactful technologies require patience, risk tolerance, and exclusive pathways.[27:36] The profession’s shift away from linear tech transfer models toward ecosystem-based approaches.[29:58] The growing importance of culture-building and education alongside traditional licensing work.[32:15] Why attempting to replicate Silicon Valley or MIT often fails without comparable infrastructure and culture.[34:22] Tech transfer professionals as translators between academia, industry, and government.[36:58] The human toll of tech transfer work, including burnout, turnover, and career sustainability concerns.[39:11] What sustainability really means for tech transfer offices beyond annual budgets.[41:27] How promotion and tenure systems can either reinforce or undermine innovation efforts on campus.[44:08] Why global collaboration can help regions avoid repeating the same hard-earned lessons.[46:03] What surprised Steve most in conversations with leaders from emerging innovation ecosystems.[48:37] Why measuring success purely through revenue misses the broader value of innovation activity.[50:41] AUTM’s role in advocating for the profession and making its impact more visible.[55:12] Aligning funding expectations with realistic innovation timelines as a path to greater impact.[59:08] Steve’s closing call to action for institutions, policymakers, and tech transfer professionals worldwide.Resources: AUTMFostering Global Innovation: AUTM's Role in Shaping International Tech Transfer ConversationsWIPOStephen Susalka - LinkedIn