Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Man robbed at Tallmadge Avenue eatery
Four teens restrain man, take items from his Akron home
Police: Ohio girl dies after fall into snow bank
Complaints against officer keep coming
Another winter punch heading toward Ohio
Cuyahoga Falls residents come home to find burning couch on balcony
Blogs:
First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight
Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs
The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30
Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win
Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated
Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9
Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day
Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball
All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up
Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.
Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend
HRLite House:
Track HR Research
Akron Gamer:
'Tecmo Bowl' recreation of Super Bowl XLIV
See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering
Licensing fees generate $6.33 million in 2007, best efficiency in U.S.
By Carol Biliczky
Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Thursday, Mar 05, 2009
The University of Akron ranked seventh nationwide in technology transfer and licensing among American universities without medical schools in 2007, the university said.
In addition, when comparing the university's $6.33 million in licensing revenue to $50 million in research expenditures, UA was first nationwide in efficiency, according to Ken Preston, associate vice president for research and director of technology transfer for the university.
''We have the ability to convert research into commercialization and revenue at a better rate than other schools that have vastly more research going on,'' Preston said. ''These numbers are great for 2007.''
He drew his assessments from the latest report by the Association of University Technology Managers, which surveyed 194 public and private universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide to capture the extent of institution-owned licensing of intellectual property in 2007.
The annual survey reported that respondents introduced 686 new products into the marketplace and helped to establish 555 new startup companies.
The main source of funding was the federal government, which emphasized biomedical research.
In Ohio, the private Case Western Reserve University led Ohio with $11.2 million in income. UA's $6.33 million was more than any other tax-supported university in Ohio, according to the report.
Preston said that ''in excess of $5 million'' of UA's licensing revenue came from two areas — a polymer coating for cardiovascular stents developed by Joseph Kennedy, a professor of polymer science and chemistry, and a specialized, heat and chemically resistant polymer invented by Stephen Cheng, dean of the UA College of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering, and Frank Harris, a UA emeritus professor of polymer science.
The report cited ''cutting-edge research'' by UA chemistry professor Wiley Youngs, who is examining silver-based pharmaceutical candidates to treat infections and cancer, as evidence of the research being conducted at the university.
However, UA might have to work a little harder to maintain the same level of prowess in technological transfer in coming years, Preston suggested.
The giant polymer inventions that have produced much of UA's licensing revenue have expired or will this year or next, he said.
''We've got our work cut out for us in coming years,'' he said. ''We have some wonderful things in the pipeline, a number in the biomedical area. But it takes an age to get them through, so it's hard to predict when they're going to come on line.''
That includes a polymer coating for a device that would function in place of a pancreas. It is being developed by Kennedy and Miko Cakmak, a professor of polymer engineering.
The Association of University Technology Managers is a nonprofit organization whose membership includes more than 3,000 technology managers and business executives.
Institutions wishing to remain confidential were not shown or listed in the report.
Carol Biliczky can be reached at 330-996-3729 or cbiliczky@thebeaconjournal.com.
The University of Akron ranked seventh nationwide in technology transfer and licensing among American universities without medical schools in 2007, the university said.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
Posted 02:17 AM, 03/05/2009
The last time I looked, UA was a participant in NEOCOM.
akron, oh
Posted 06:57 AM, 03/05/2009
Good Job, U of A
Mogadore, OH
Posted 07:48 AM, 03/05/2009
Graduated UA in 85...always enjoy reading good things about UA!
Akron, OH
Posted 08:16 AM, 03/05/2009
The good news is, that Akron U is #1 in new football stadiums.
Akron, OH
Posted 11:37 AM, 03/05/2009
"The main source of funding was the federal government, which emphasized biomedical research."
Gee. They had us thinking the evil George W. Bush destroyed all that.
Akron, Oh
Posted 11:48 AM, 03/05/2009
Betamax - It's called The University of Akron and not Akron U. Only Barbertucky yuk yuks think it's called Akron U yall.
hudson, oh
Posted 11:50 AM, 03/05/2009
I wonder where it ranks in athletic program income.
Gotta be near the bottom.
Wadsworth, OH
Posted 12:24 PM, 03/05/2009
Where is the regular band of malcontents that post on here and complain about Proenza? Their silence is deafening...
cuyahoga falls, oh
Posted 12:41 PM, 03/05/2009
Go Zips!
Akron, OH
Posted 12:57 PM, 03/05/2009
@osu1, there is a big difference between having your own medical school in which you receive revenues and directing your students to a local medical school that you have no direct control.
