The Chronicle: 2002 Technology Transfer: Licenses and options executed relative to number of inventions disclosed

Tech-Transfer Scorecard

These are the highest-ranking institutions in various measures of performance in technology transfer. See Note for additional information.

» Return to the introduction

Licenses and options executed relative to number of inventions disclosed
RANK	INSTITUTION	NUMBER
1	Washington U in St. Louis	1.34
2	Iowa State U	1.17
3	Loyola U Medical Center (Ill)	0.94
4	U of Oregon	0.93
5	Wright State U	0.84
6	U of Georgia	0.72
7	U of New Hampshire	0.65
8	Stanford U	0.60
9	U of Rhode Island	0.59
10	U of Maryland at College Park	0.56
11	Purdue Research Foundation	0.55
12	U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	0.54
13	Columbia U	0.53
14	U of Minnesota	0.52
15	Montana State U	0.49
16	Cornell Research Foundation	0.48
17	Harvard U	0.48
18	U of Southern California	0.47
19	North Dakota State U	0.46
20	U of Montana	0.43
21	North Carolina State U	0.43
22	Florida State U	0.41
23	Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties	0.41
24	Dartmouth College	0.41
25	Tulane U	0.40
26	U of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio	0.40
27	Vanderbilt U	0.40
28	Yale U	0.40
29	Rutgers U	0.38
30	Washington Research Foundation, U of Washington	0.37
31	Baylor College of Medicine	0.37
32	New York Medical College	0.37
33	Michigan Technological U	0.36
34	Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, U of Wisconsin, Madison	0.36
35	Indiana U (Advanced Research Technology Institute)	0.35
36	Oregon State U	0.35
37	Southern Illinois U at Carbondale	0.34
38	Texas A&M U System	0.34
39	U of Texas at Austin	0.33
40	U of Maine	0.33
41	Johns Hopkins U	0.33
42	U of Alabama at Birmingham	0.33
43	Duke U	0.33
44	U of Texas Health Science Center at Houston	0.33
45	U of Miami	0.32
46	U of Nebraska at Lincoln	0.32
47	Oregon Health Sciences U	0.31
48	U of Illinois, Chicago and Urbana-Champaign	0.30
49	U of Michigan	0.30
50	U of Arizona	0.30
51	U of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas	0.29
52	Brigham Young U	0.27
53	Temple U	0.27
54	U of Iowa Research Foundation	0.27
55	U of California System	0.27
56	Tufts U	0.26
57	Kansas State U Research Foundation	0.26
58	U of Pennsylvania	0.25
59	Syracuse U	0.25
60	State U of New York Research Foundation	0.25
61	Michigan State U	0.24
62	New Mexico State U	0.24
63	Brandeis U	0.24
64	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	0.24
65	Ohio State U	0.23
66	U of Connecticut	0.23
67	Kent State U	0.22
68	Princeton U	0.22
69	Colorado State U	0.22
70	U of Arkansas at Fayetteville	0.22
71	U of Cincinnati	0.21
72	Brown U Research Foundation	0.21
73	U of Utah	0.20
74	U of Pittsburgh	0.20
75	U of Virginia Patents Foundation	0.20
76	Arizona State U	0.20
77	Emory U	0.20
78	Clemson U	0.20
79	U of South Alabama	0.20
80	Pennsylvania State U	0.20
81	Wake Forest U	0.19
82	Thomas Jefferson U	0.19
83	Mississippi State U	0.19
84	Northwestern U	0.18
85	Auburn U	0.18
86	Wayne State U	0.18
87	U of Tennessee Research Corp.	0.18
88	San Diego State U	0.17
89	U of South Florida	0.17
90	New York U	0.16
91	Carnegie Mellon U	0.16
92	U of New Orleans	0.16
93	Georgia Institute of Technology	0.16
94	Case Western Reserve U	0.15
95	U of Houston	0.15
96	U of Kentucky Research Foundation	0.14
97	U of Akron	0.14
98	U of Massachusetts	0.14
99	California Institute of Technology	0.14
100	U of Louisville	0.14
101	U of Delaware	0.14
102	U of Rochester	0.13
103	Medical College of Ohio	0.13
104	U of Florida	0.13
105	U of Maryland at Baltimore	0.12
106	Oklahoma State U	0.12
107	East Carolina U	0.12
108	Lehigh U	0.11
109	U of Kansas	0.11
110	U of Maryland, Baltimore County	0.11
111	Idaho Research Foundation, U of Idaho	0.11
112	U of Chicago, ARCH Development Corp	0.10
113	New Jersey Institute of Technology	0.09
114	U of New Mexico Science & Technology Corp	0.09
115	U of Dayton	0.08
116	U of Hawaii	0.07
117	Ohio U	0.06

How well does a university convert disclosures into deals? This ratio could be an indication, although it could also reflect an institution's low disclosure rate (Washington U.) or, as in the case of Iowa State's development of a soybean variety, a single invention that is licensed to many companies.

Number of inventions disclosed per $1-million spending on research

Number of U.S. patent applications filed per $1-million spending on research

Licenses and options executed relative to number of inventions disclosed

Licensing income per dollar of research spending

Average income per license

Universities that formed the most start-up companies

Number of start-up companies formed per $10-million spending on research

RELATED MATERIAL:

Browseable lists of licensing revenues and patent activity at universities, 1998-2000

SOURCE: Chronicle analysis
Research assistance by Matthew Bassow, Anne Millar Wiebe, and Seth Perry

Note: Data used for these charts come from the five most recent annual surveys conducted by the Association of University Technology Managers and cover 1996 through 2000. Only institutions that reported data in at least four of the five years were included. The charts are intended as a five-year snapshot, but in some cases, the activities in years not included in the data may affect the ratios. For example, a license executed in 1997 could have been based on a disclosure from 1994. An institution's ratios could also be affected if the surveys did not contain information for all categories in all years.