AUTM on the Air

University IP strategy can look straightforward from the outside. Protect the invention, manage the policy, move the technology toward the market. But anyone working inside a tech transfer office knows the process is rarely that simple. Faculty inventors, licensing teams, university leaders, outside counsel, and industry partners may all be working toward the same broad goal, but they often come into the conversation with very different expectations. That is where communication becomes more than a soft skill. It becomes part of the strategy itself.
My guest is Stephen Hall, intellectual property team lead at Bricker Graydon Wyatt in Louisville, Kentucky. Stephen brings a rare blend of experience to this discussion. He began his career as an R&D chemist, spent 12 years handling medical malpractice and civil defense litigation, and later transitioned into patent, trade secret, and contract law. Today, he works with universities, companies, and independent innovators across fields including biotechnology, therapeutics, solar energy, catalysts, chemical sampling, healthcare, software, and more. He also advises universities on IP policy and best practices, serves as an adjunct MBA professor at the University of Louisville, and is a certified coach trained through the International Coaching Federation.
That background gives Stephen a practical way of looking at the human side of technology transfer. We talk about what litigation taught him about telling a clear story, why faculty disclosures can create mismatched expectations from the very beginning, and how coaching skills have shaped the way he listens, asks questions, and helps clients see the larger picture. He also shares thoughtful guidance on making IP policies easier to understand, approaching AI-related inventorship questions with care, and building more meaningful engagement across the university innovation ecosystem.

In This Episode:
[05:32] Stephen Hall reflects on the patience involved in moving from medical malpractice litigation into patent law and how some career paths only make sense in hindsight.
[06:42] His litigation background taught him the importance of giving every story a clear beginning, middle, and end, especially when presenting complex information to an audience.
[08:31] Working with universities, corporations, startups, and independent inventors has shown Stephen how important it is to understand each stakeholder’s accountability and perspective.
[10:20] One of the biggest communication gaps in university IP strategy comes from mismatched expectations between faculty inventors and tech transfer professionals.
[11:30] Kentucky Commercialization Ventures offers an example of how universities can approach IP policy as an ongoing process rather than a one-time document rollout.
[13:26] Tech transfer offices have to make IP policy make sense, especially when faculty awareness and engagement around policy expectations may be limited.
[14:30] Stephen explains why effective IP communication starts with understanding the audience’s knowledge, experience, and level of interest.
[16:00] Innovation stories become more compelling when they connect the technical idea to a personal experience, an unmet need, or something hiding in plain sight.
[17:33] The conversation turns to university IP policies and why they can be sensitive because they touch academic freedom, faculty incentives, institutional values, and revenue expectations.
[19:54] Stephen shares his framework that people are wired for structure, crave clarity, and need action to bring the process together.
[21:00] Case examples such as Felana v. Kent State and Stanford v. Roche show how IP policy and assignment issues can create real consequences for universities.
[22:15] Storytelling can reduce friction around IP policy by reframing it as a practical tool that helps people move forward, rather than simply a list of rules.
[23:25] Stephen explains how the “expert’s paradox” led him toward coaching, especially as he thought about helping highly trained innovators communicate more clearly.
[24:54] Coaching principles help Stephen facilitate better conversations by encouraging clients and stakeholders to generate their own insights.
[26:00] The generation effect explains why people are more likely to act on ideas they come up with themselves rather than ideas simply handed to them.
[26:55] Active listening means paying attention not only to what people say, but also to what is left unsaid.
[28:12] Stakeholder alignment often starts by recognizing where people already agree before spending focused time on the areas where they differ.
[30:00] Stephen shares an example of slowing down, asking more questions, and completing the picture before giving legal advice.
[33:39] In his MBA teaching, Stephen helps future business leaders understand the difference between patentability before a patent is granted and infringement after a patent exists.
[35:51] Teaching has sharpened Stephen’s ability to explain patent law by connecting unfamiliar concepts to ideas his students already understand.
[36:45] Artificial intelligence presents both challenges and opportunities for university TTOs, especially as machine learning continues to influence research and invention.
[39:17] Stephen cautions that inventors and institutions should be careful with anything AI generates, particularly when records could become relevant in future litigation.
[40:53] AI-related discovery could add significant cost and complexity to litigation, even when the underlying inventorship or patentability arguments are still unsettled.
[41:49] A simple way to improve meetings is to ask what one thing would make the conversation successful for the other person.
[43:47] Stephen’s closing advice is that involvement leads to engagement, especially when faculty are invited into the IP process in meaningful ways.
[45:37] Bringing faculty into policy conversations, presentations, or patent-related storytelling can create stronger engagement and professional development opportunities.
[46:30] Reinforcing that strong IP strategy depends not only on patents and policies, but on aligning people around a shared vision.

Resources: 
AUTM
Stephen C. Hall - Bricker Graydon, Wyatt
Stephen Hall - LinkedIn
Bricker Graydon Wyatt
International Coaching Federation
Kentucky Commercialization Ventures

Getting discoveries out of the lab is only part of the commercialization journey. At some point, a promising idea reaches the stage where investment decisions can determine whether the science moves forward, stalls out, or becomes something that can truly reach patients. That moment is especially important in rare diseases, where the path to market can be long, complex, and difficult for traditional capital to support.
My guest today is Tim Brent, Venture Principal with Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Tim brings experience across patient advocacy, specialty pharmaceutical operations, and venture investment, along with a personal family connection to rare disease communities. In his role, he sources and evaluates investment opportunities, supports diligence and transactions, and helps manage relationships with biotech companies after investment.
We also discuss the practical side of the work, including how Tim finds opportunities, what makes a founder conversation stand out, and where promising science can start to lose momentum. He shares what patient input adds to diligence, why clear milestones and a strong mechanism of action matter, and how venture philanthropy can sometimes help early-stage programs keep moving when traditional capital is not quite ready to step in.

In This Episode:
[02:06] Tim Brent shares how his nonprofit career led him into the bleeding disorders space and mission-driven life science investing.
[03:05] How his long connection to the bleeding disorders community and his daughters’ diagnoses add personal intensity to the work.
[05:20] How Pathway to Cures works with university spinouts, licensed technologies, scientific advisors, legal counsel, cap tables, and investment documents during diligence.
[08:17] Why patient perspective is central to Pathway to Cures and how the history of the bleeding disorders community shapes the way new therapies are evaluated.
[10:02] Risks traditional investors may overlook, including treatment burden, side effects, patient preferences, and whether a new therapy is compelling enough to replace existing options.
[11:52] How patient engagement shows up in diligence through the National Research Blueprint, lived experience experts, and the newer Bleeding Disorders Research Collaborative.
[13:33] The importance of engaging patients and community members early, rather than waiting until a company is close to clinical trials.
[14:24] What makes university tech transfer offices easier to work with, especially when researchers are genuinely excited about the discovery and open to scientific discussion.
[15:55] What can slow deals down, from scheduling the first meeting to unclear founder pitches, slow NDAs, missing data room reports, IP questions, and unclear mechanisms of action.
[18:11] What the relationship looks like after Pathway to Cures invests in a startup, including milestone check-ins, consultant referrals, and support without becoming a distraction.
[19:46] Why very early-stage companies often need more post-investment support than later-stage companies.
[20:22] Post-deal challenges that can come up unexpectedly, including slow decision-making, sudden management changes, and questions about cash burn.
[21:09] Where promising programs can lose momentum, fall behind on timelines, or run out of capital before reaching the next funding round.
[22:10] How venture philanthropy can help bridge the “valley of death” by taking on more risk, supporting rare disease markets, and helping companies de-risk early science.
[25:00] Advice for tech transfer offices that want to make early-stage opportunities more attractive to mission-focused investors.
[27:15] The future role of patient registries, patient-reported outcomes, access for underserved communities, affordability questions, and stronger partnerships.
[28:36] A personal way to think about science, investment, and patient impact by asking what you would want if someone in your own family had a chronic disease or condition.

Resources: 
AUTM
Pathway to Cures
Tim Brent - Pathway to Cures
Tim Brent - LinkedIn
Bridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey

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: 
AUTM
Hsiaoli Chen - LinkedIn
Thermo Fisher Scientific

Technology transfer is often described through patents, licenses, startups, and commercialization strategy, but rarely through the lens of a board game. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we talk with Guru Venkatesan, a business development manager at Fred Hutch and the creator of Royalty Stacks, a tech-transfer-inspired game built around patents, licenses, and leverage. The game gives players a chance to take ideas, decide how broadly to protect them, and choose whether to bring them to market through startups, exclusive licenses, or non-exclusive partnerships, all while navigating knock-offs, hostile takeovers, shifting market conditions, and the occasional boost from a rich uncle’s seed fund.
Guru’s own path into technology commercialization has been anything but linear. He grew up in a small town in India with an early interest in visual arts, but after a classic family plot twist, he studied engineering instead. He earned his bachelor’s degree in India, moved to Tennessee for a PhD in Biomedical Engineering, and later founded Tech Carnivol, a Coachella-style festival for science and engineering during graduate school. His introduction to technology commercialization came at the University of Minnesota, where he worked under Leza Besemann and quickly fell in love with the field.
The conversation explores how Royalty Stacks turns the everyday decisions of tech transfer into something people can actually sit down and play. Guru shares how he designed the game to balance strategy, humor, and education, why accessibility mattered as much as authenticity, and how concepts like patent enforcement, licensing pathways, portfolio building, collaboration, and market risk show up around the table. He also reflects on AI’s growing role in tech transfer, the challenge of explaining the profession to people outside the field, and what he hopes players will better understand about the long, risky, and often creative journey from idea to product.

In This Episode:
[03:00] Guru Venkatesan shares how his early interest in visual arts, a missed medical school cutoff, and encouragement to pursue engineering eventually led him to biomedical engineering.
[06:13] The idea for Royalty Stacks came during a late-night moment when Guru realized tech transfer naturally behaves like a strategy game built around patents, licensing, risk, timing, and market forces.
[09:43] Student-led technology festivals in India inspired Guru to create Tech Carnivol, a U.S. event with competitions, hackathons, robotics, and other hands-on science and engineering activities.
[12:18] The challenge of explaining specialized fields to broader audiences leads into how Royalty Stacks makes patents, licensing, and commercialization easier to understand.
[15:02] Guru walks through the basic gameplay of Royalty Stacks, including idea cards, patent filing, development, launch cards, play money, and power cards.
[18:57] Patent regions, licensing territories, and revenue payouts are simplified for gameplay while still pointing toward real tech transfer concepts.
[21:50] Launch Knock-Off and Enforce Patent introduce competition, copycats, and patent enforcement, with rock-paper-scissors adding a quick and lighthearted way to settle disputes.
[25:25] Hostile Takeover and Collaborate create both adversarial and cooperative paths, giving players a chance to attack, protect, partner, or take strategic risks.
[29:23] Corporate Roulette brings advanced gameplay into the mix through market events, windfalls, risks, moats, and humorous cards that can help players or disrupt opponents.
[31:25] New players often begin to understand that patents matter, but also that protection alone is not enough without enforcement and commercialization strategy.
[34:12] The game’s two winning conditions create more strategic tension by allowing players to win through cash or through a diversified portfolio and a late-game acquisition.
[36:25] Guru sees Royalty Stacks as a tool for the AUTM community, whether for family play, office team building, faculty engagement, or startup incubator education.
[39:20] Guru reflects on the irony of being a tech transfer professional commercializing a product about tech transfer, while relying more on copyright, branding, and a possible trademark than patents.
[42:33] AI could reshape licensing and portfolio management roles by reducing time spent on document review and creating more space for marketing, relationship management, and overlooked technologies.
[44:40] Royalty Stacks is launching on Kickstarter, with the campaign planned for June 16 through July 17 and expected delivery to backers in January 2027.
[45:18] Guru hopes players walk away with a better appreciation for the work, risk, and execution required to move an idea from concept to product.

Resources: 
AUTM
Guru Venkatesan - LinkedIn
Fred Hutch
Royalty Stacks Creator Intro
Royalty Stacks Kickstarter

University-industry partnerships often sound straightforward from the outside. A promising discovery is made, a company sees potential, and a collaboration begins. But anyone who has worked inside these agreements knows the reality is far more complex. Research goals, publication timelines, IP rights, background technology, data sources, and internal review processes all have to be understood before a partnership can move forward in a productive way.
My guest today is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Global Head of External Research Collaboration at Novartis. In this role, he works at the intersection of academic research and corporate R&D, helping shape the structures that allow early-stage research collaborations to succeed. With deep experience in technology transfer, licensing, IP management, alliance governance, research agreements, and term sheet negotiations, Dr. Sharma brings a practical view of what it takes to build partnerships that protect innovation while still allowing science to move.
We talk about how Novartis approaches external research collaboration, where alignment and friction often show up between universities and industry, and why relationships matter just as much as contracts. Dr. Sharma also shares his perspective on background IP, publication review, AI, and data-source diligence, and the importance of keeping the tech transfer office and PI aligned from the earliest stages of a collaboration.

In This Episode:
[01:32] Dr. Yogesh Sharma defines external research collaboration at Novartis as work focused on early-stage research rather than clinical trials, with an emphasis on understanding disease biology and identifying new therapeutic possibilities.
[04:30] Dr. Sharma explains how his background in academic technology transfer helps him understand pressure points on both sides of the table, especially when universities and corporate partners approach collaboration with different needs.
[06:00] The conversation turns to friction around the use of research results, including why Novartis may need flexibility for research programs or regulatory filings while universities need to preserve academic research and publication rights.
[09:11] Dr. Sharma describes the recurring issue of non-exclusive royalty-free licensing and explains why Novartis does not ask for broad rights in every agreement, but may need them when important clinical drugs or pipeline compounds are involved.
[10:27] Strong collaborations depend on more than contract language, with Dr. Sharma emphasizing the importance of trust and communication between the PI and company scientists when research changes direction or results do not go as planned.
[12:39] Dr. Sharma discusses the practical realities of review cycles, publication timelines, and internal approvals at a large company, including the importance of giving industry partners enough time for IP attorney review.
[14:30] Background IP becomes a major focus as Dr. Sharma explains how Novartis may take an option and help cover ongoing patent costs when existing university IP is important to a proposed collaboration.
[17:19] The discussion shifts to AI, platform science, and data ecosystems, with Dr. Sharma noting that AI is already shaping drug discovery, chemistry, target identification, data analysis, and research collaborations.
[19:10] AI collaborations require careful diligence around data sources, existing tools, open-source licenses, and whether any restrictions could limit what Novartis can do with collaboration outputs.
[21:35] Dr. Sharma offers advice to tech transfer professionals, stressing the need for early alignment with the PI around the research plan, diligence, data sources, deliverables, and what each side is bringing into the collaboration.
[23:45] After a deal is signed, Dr. Sharma explains that larger collaborations require continued engagement, project management, kickoff meetings, and a reliable point of contact beyond the PI’s lab.
[25:27] The episode closes with a look at how larger collaborations may involve structured alliance management, while smaller projects are often handled directly by scientists unless a problem arises.

Resources: 
AUTM
Novartis
Dr. Yogesh Sharma - LinkedIn
Novartis Biomedical Research / Novartis Research
Helmholtz Munich Launches Collaboration on AI-Driven Kidney Disease Research