AUTM on the Air

University technology transfer has changed in a pretty fundamental way. Established companies are often looking for technologies that are further along than they once were, which means universities increasingly have to do more of the early work themselves. That can mean validating the technology, figuring out the market, recruiting leadership, finding funding, and sometimes building a startup simply to get the invention far enough along for industry to take notice.
My guest is Michael Dixon, Ph.D., President and CEO of UNeMed Corporation, which serves the University of Nebraska Medical Center and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Mike began his career at UNMC as a scientist working in molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry before moving into technology transfer in 2003. Today, he leads UNeMed’s commercialization efforts and has spent more than two decades watching the field shift from a model built largely around licensing to established companies toward one that increasingly includes startup formation and venture development.
We talk about what it really means to de-risk a university technology, how UNeMed decides which inventions are suited for startups, and why good intellectual property alone is not enough to build a company. Mike also discusses the challenge of finding the right leadership, building an ecosystem without trying to own every piece of it, and structuring licenses in ways that give young companies room to grow. We also look at how technology transfer offices can measure success when commercialization may take years, companies may pivot along the way, and the ultimate goal is not simply forming startups, but getting university research into products that people can actually use.

In This Episode:
[02:05] Michael Dixon shares how university technology transfer has shifted from licensing primarily to established companies toward a greater reliance on startups.
[03:30] Why companies increasingly want technologies that are further along and how that puts more development responsibility on universities.
[05:57] We discuss what de-risking really means and why universities are increasingly acting like early stage venture investors.
[10:29] How UNeMed decides whether a technology is suited for a startup, needs more research, fits a traditional license, or should not move forward yet.
[13:45] Mike talks about the importance of strong technology, a realistic development plan, the right talent, and enough resources to execute.
[15:30] We discuss the challenge of finding startup leadership and why faculty inventors are not always the right people to serve as CEO.
[18:59] How UNeMed supports more innovation and entrepreneurship with a smaller staff and decides where to focus its time and resources.
[21:26] Building a commercialization ecosystem by connecting startups with investors, mentors, accelerators, and other outside partners.
[24:00] Why universities do not need to build every program themselves and how partnerships can help a technology transfer office do more with less.
[26:36] Mike discusses startup friendly licensing and why preserving a young company’s early cash can sometimes create more value for everyone.
[29:00] How UNeMed balances financial stewardship, local economic development, and the larger goal of moving university research into useful products.
[31:21] We talk about measuring success when startups pivot, commercialization takes years, and the eventual product may look very different from the original invention.
[33:35] Which metrics can show whether a technology transfer program is making progress before a product finally reaches the market.
[36:24] Looking ahead at the growing role of venture development and the partnerships universities may need to help technologies cross the commercialization gap.
[36:57] What universities will need to demonstrate if they want more resources devoted to startup and commercialization programs.
[38:30] Mike’s rapid fire advice on startup licensing, building venture capabilities, and becoming more comfortable with calculated risk.
[40:00] Why the strongest university startup opportunities bring together good technology, the right talent, and enough resources to develop the idea.

Resources: 
AUTM
Michael Dixon, PhD - UNeMed
Michael Dixon - LinkedIn
An Industry Shift Pushed Universities To Do More Entrepreneurship. Tech Transfer Is Learning To Adapt
UNeTech Institute
VisionSync

Taxpayers help pay for university research, but figuring out what they get back isn't as simple as adding up licensing revenue. Sometimes the payoff is a new product. Other times it's a better-paying job, a growing local industry, or a technology people rely on without knowing it started in a university lab. Those benefits can be substantial, even when they're difficult to capture in the usual reports.
Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM, and Stuart Wilkinson, CEO of Knowledge Exchange UK, return to talk about the second Global Perspectives on Knowledge Exchange roundtable, which brought together voices from the U.S., UK, and Chile. Despite the differences between their research systems, many of the same concerns kept coming up. Steve and Stuart look at why jobs and workforce development deserve more attention and what universities can do to show the broader value of their work.
They also explore an interesting side of research commercialization: a startup can fail and still leave behind people with skills that lead to something successful. From a Florida workforce program to the challenge of keeping promising discoveries moving forward, the conversation offers examples that make these issues easier to understand. Steve and Stuart also consider how universities can better communicate their successes and why the full value of publicly funded research often goes far beyond what the numbers show.

In This Episode:
[02:25] Steve Susalka discusses what the latest Global Roundtable revealed about the return on publicly funded research, including the importance of job creation and workforce development across the U.S., UK, and Chile.
[04:14] Stuart Wilkinson explains why universities need to look beyond patents and licensing revenue to demonstrate how research contributes to economic growth, public well-being, and lasting social impact.
[06:37] The financial success of technology transfer offices has created expectations around revenue generation that can sometimes overshadow their broader purpose.
[08:46] How university leadership can take a more comprehensive view of technology transfer success, including job creation, faculty recruitment, and the benefits research brings to society.
[10:18] A Central Florida workforce program demonstrates how university research can help people move from minimum-wage employment into better-paying jobs in the semiconductor industry.
[12:00] Collecting employment data from licensees and startup companies could help universities better document the economic benefits of their commercialization activities.
[14:21] Measuring the broader impact of research remains challenging, particularly when the most meaningful outcomes are difficult to quantify using traditional performance metrics.
[16:37] Personal stories and qualitative evidence can help communicate research impact, while regional differences make comparisons between universities and innovation ecosystems more complicated.
[18:05] The UK's Knowledge Exchange Framework offers a way to compare institutions with similar characteristics while recognizing their different contributions to local and national economies.
[20:04] Familiar innovations such as Allegra, LED technology, and the Honeycrisp apple offer relatable examples of how university research benefits people in everyday life.
[22:18] AUTM's Better World Project highlights hundreds of research success stories, demonstrating that valuable innovations can emerge from institutions of all sizes and backgrounds.
[24:00] Communicating the benefits of research requires different approaches depending on whether the audience includes policymakers, university leaders, industry partners, or the general public.
[25:19] Stuart examines why an unsuccessful startup can still produce lasting value by giving researchers, entrepreneurs, and employees skills they carry into future opportunities.
[27:48] Looking at failure through the lens of workforce development reveals how even projects that never reach the market can strengthen the broader innovation ecosystem.
[30:29] Community colleges and other educational institutions play an important role in preparing workers for industries emerging from university research and commercialization.
[33:05] Strong research alone isn't enough to bring discoveries to market, and gaps in funding, expertise, and development resources can limit the return on public investment.
[35:49] Stuart introduces his six P's of research commercialization, explaining why ideas, funding, programs, places, people, and policies must work together to support innovation.
[38:43] Keeping the benefits of publicly funded research within national borders becomes complicated when successful technologies depend on international investment, partnerships, and markets.
[41:34] International acquisitions and overseas commercialization can still generate meaningful benefits for the country where an invention originated, even when some economic activity moves elsewhere.
[44:12] Technology transfer offices need to make communicating their successes a priority, since those stories can help universities gain recognition and support for future innovation.
[46:38] Bringing communications professionals into technology transfer teams can improve how research achievements are shared, while digital platforms make it easier to reach wider audiences.
[48:41] Examples involving online safety, Chile's salmon industry, and smartphone technology illustrate how publicly funded research delivers benefits that extend far beyond licensing income.
[51:10] A preview of the next Global Roundtable introduces the role of established industries in helping university discoveries reach the market.
[51:57] The conversation closes with a reminder that the value of publicly funded research is ultimately reflected in the opportunities it creates and the improvements it brings to people's lives.

Resources: 
AUTM
Global Roundtable Discussions
Steve Susalka, CEO of AUTM
Steve Susalka - LinkedIn
Knowledge Exchange UK
Stuart Wilkinson - LinkedIn

What really happens on the other side of a patent application? Attorneys and inventors spend plenty of time thinking about claims, prior art, and Office Actions, but the examiner reviewing the application is working through the same invention from a very different perspective. Understanding how examiners approach that process can change not only the way applicants respond to rejections, but the way they think about prosecution from the beginning.
My guest is Maille “Molly” Lyons, a scientist, researcher, educator, and former USPTO patent examiner who spent 14 years examining biotechnology applications. Today, through SeaLyons LLC, she works with inventors and patent professionals to help them better understand the U.S. patent examination process. She is also the author of There Are NO Bad Patent Examiners: The Unofficial Guide to Working with the “Good” Ones, which takes a practical and often humorous look at what happens from the examiner’s side of the desk.
We talk about how examiners are trained, what they look at when a new application reaches their docket, and why claim language is so often where misunderstandings begin. Molly also explains why rejection is a normal part of prosecution, how examiner interviews can help move a case forward, and why telling an examiner they are wrong is rarely the best place to start. We also discuss what she learned after leaving the USPTO, the value of treating prosecution as a collaborative process, and what technology transfer offices can do to help researchers navigate patents before a public disclosure creates problems.

In This Episode:
[02:05] Maille “Molly” Lyons shares how her background in scientific research and teaching led unexpectedly to a career as a USPTO patent examiner.
[03:19] We talk about learning patent law from scratch and the intensive training new examiners receive through the Patent Academy.
[05:50] Molly discusses how examiner training has changed, why she loved patent examination, and the importance of strong writing skills.
[10:16] The story behind There Are NO Bad Patent Examiners and Molly’s scale from “good” to “super fantastic.”
[12:49] Who the book is for and why applicants should understand that a rejection is a normal and often useful part of prosecution.
[16:30] We discuss moving away from an “us versus them” mindset and treating patent prosecution as a collaborative process.
[19:41] When a disagreement may need to move beyond the examiner through pre appeal, appeal, or another level of review.
[21:38] Molly uses the idea of a fence around an invention to explain claim scope and the examiner’s responsibility to both the inventor and the public.
[24:57] What an examiner looks at first when a new application reaches the docket and why the claims come before the specification.
[28:48] We talk about where misunderstandings most often begin and how examiner workloads and production requirements affect the process.
[32:55] Why following a familiar application structure can make an examiner’s job easier and reduce unnecessary objections and rejections.
[35:16] Molly discusses “octopus” claims, drafting choices that make examinations more complicated, and the importance of word choice when responding to an examiner.
[38:10] How to respond when an Office Action appears to be wrong without turning the disagreement into a personal argument.
[41:26] We discuss leading with the strongest arguments, addressing everything the examiner has raised, and preserving issues that may matter later on appeal.
[45:16] Why examiner interviews can move prosecution forward and help uncover the real source of a disagreement.
[48:43] When involving a supervisory patent examiner can help and why escalating too quickly can make a difficult situation worse.
[52:01] Molly shares what technology transfer offices can do to build stronger relationships with university researchers before public disclosures occur.
[55:43] Molly’s rapid fire advice for patent practitioners and why the best examiner applicant relationships work as a collaborative dialogue.

Resources: 
AUTM
Mary Maille (Molly) Lyons - LinkedIn
SeaLyons LLC
PatWorld - Mary Maille (Molly) Lyons
Meet the IP Professional:Maille Lyons – Seeing Patents from the Other Side
There are NO bad Patent Examiners: The unofficial guide to working with the "good" ones

What happens when nearly 10,000 patents from the earliest years of the American patent system are lost, scattered, or destroyed? Those records tell a much bigger story than who invented what. They capture a period when inventors were solving practical problems, sometimes arriving at the same ideas independently, sometimes getting things wrong, and often making small improvements that helped move American industry forward.
My guests are Scott B. Guthery, Julie Burke, and Michael Risch, coauthors of Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology. Scott is an inventor with more than 50 U.S. patents and an author on technology and its history. Julie is a former USPTO patent examiner and quality manager, the founder of IP Quality Pro, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association for American Innovation. Michael is a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law whose work includes patents, information access, and America’s earliest patent records.
We talk about how the X patents came to exist, why so much of the original record disappeared, and what it took to piece parts of that history back together. We also look at some of the unusual inventions the authors uncovered, what failed and overlapping ideas can teach us about the way innovation really happens, and what this early chapter of the patent system may still have to say to today’s inventors, patent professionals, and technology transfer community.

In This Episode:
[02:23] Scott B. Guthery explains what X patents are and how nearly 10,000 early patent records were lost.
[05:27] Reconstructing the patent record after the 1836 Patent Office fire.
[09:14] Julie Burke on what X patents reveal about America’s early Industrial Revolution.
[11:15] Scott shares how the idea for *Unfettered Invention* began and how AI helped unlock handwritten patent records.
[14:04] Michael Risch discusses his earlier research into America’s first patents and what it revealed about patentable subject matter.
[18:13] How the U.S. patent system worked before 1836 and the role courts played in defining patent law.
[22:11] Julie compares early Patent Office operations with the challenges faced by the USPTO today.
[25:03] How ordinary inventors learned to navigate the early patent system.
[27:47] Thomas Jefferson, Jacob Isaacks, and an early example of outside technical review.
[29:09] Thomas P. Jones and the *Franklin Journal’s* role in sharing patent and technology information.
[32:35] Reconstructing lost patents through archives, historical societies, court cases, and auction records.
[36:23] How AI helped uncover missing patents and make difficult historical documents more accessible.
[39:52] Examples of overlapping inventions and what they reveal about independent innovation.
[43:06] Memorable inventions, including water turbines, horse-powered ferries, alarm clocks, and coil mattresses.
[46:55] What failed inventions can teach us about experimentation, timing, and technological progress.
[51:06] The drawbacks of an early patent system where inventors often had little access to existing patent information.
[52:57] Lessons from the X-patent era for Patent Office administration, preservation, and access to information.
[56:07] What technology transfer professionals can learn about supporting promising inventions.
[57:05] Why the X patents still matter today.

Resources: 
AUTM
Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology
Association for American Innovation
Julie Burke PhD - LinkedIn
Michael Risch - LinkedIn
Michael Risch - Villanova University
Scott Guthery - LinkedIn
Patents by Inventor Scott B. Guthery

Canada has a strong research base, but turning discoveries into lasting economic and societal value is not always easy. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, I talk with Sarrah Lal about the launch of AUTM’s Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee, or CPPAC. As the committee’s inaugural chair, Sarrah brings insight into why the group was created and why this is a timely moment to look more closely at the policies that shape research commercialization across Canada.
We discuss the gaps that can slow promising research on its way to the marketplace. Funding is one challenge, but so is the lack of a clear path from discovery through commercialization. We also explore how CPPAC is bringing together technology transfer and innovation professionals from across the country so they can compare experiences, identify shared problems and build practical recommendations that reflect what people working in the field are seeing firsthand today.
We also look at what CPPAC hopes to accomplish over the next 12 to 18 months. We discuss the need for stronger early-stage support and better access to growth capital, along with sustainable resources for technology transfer offices. We also look at why success should be measured through long-term outcomes rather than short-term activity and how greater alignment across the innovation ecosystem could help strong Canadian research create meaningful impact.

In This Episode:
[02:10] Sarrah Lal explains why AUTM’s Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee (CPPAC) was created and why this is an important moment for research commercialization in Canada.
[04:43] Canada has a strong research foundation, but fragmented programs can make it difficult for innovations to move smoothly from discovery to commercialization.
[08:11] Measuring research commercialization success means looking beyond patents and startups to the broader economic and societal outcomes that develop over time.
[11:58] Commercialization barriers often involve incentives, industry engagement, institutional capacity, and access to capital rather than the quality of the research itself.
[15:13] CPPAC is using evidence, stakeholder input, surveys, and focus groups to develop practical policy recommendations that address gaps in Canada’s innovation ecosystem.
[19:54] Systems thinking can help policymakers understand how funding, regulation, infrastructure, incentives, and other parts of the commercialization pathway affect one another.
[23:18] CPPAC’s priorities include improving early-stage funding, attracting growth capital, and creating more sustainable support for technology transfer offices.
[25:45] Greater alignment around shared national priorities and stable long-term policy could help Canada translate more of its research strengths into economic growth and lasting impact.

Resources: 
AUTM
Sarrah Lal - McMaster University
Sarrah Lal - LinkedIn
AUTM Canadian Public Policy Advisory Committee