Patent fight shows perils of 'technology transfer'

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- Mere months ago, the University of Missouri routinely touted chemical engineering professor Galen Suppes for his innovative research into renewable energy.

Now the school considers him a renegade scientist trying to keep the university from getting its fair share of profits from his inventions. Missouri is suing the professor in federal court.

Their deteriorating relationship points to the pitfalls of "technology transfer," the growing enterprise in which university labs help incubate discoveries that can speed lifesaving drugs and modern conveniences to market.

Those innovations can line the pockets of scientists and their university employers with millions in royalties. A prime example is the University of Florida, where the creation of Gatorade nearly four decades ago launched the sports drink industry while earning the school more than $80 million.

But for every Gatorade success story, missteps or disputes like the one in Missouri are more typical.

Missouri says it is profiting from technology transfer. In the most recent fiscal year, the campus spent $1.4 million marketing intellectual property while earning $6.2 million in licensing income.

Making money with beneficial research was the goal of Suppes and his business partner, William "Rusty" Sutterlin, a former Missouri graduate student and postdoctoral fellow. In 2003, they formed a spin-off company, Renewable Alternatives.

Suppes, 45, says the university failed to recognize and pursue the commercial prospects for his research. Yet when he tried to reclaim his rights to those inventions that the university wouldn't pursue, Suppes says, the university obstructed him with onerous rules.

In Missouri's lawsuit against Suppes, the university says the professor won't release the rights to more than 30 inventions and 11 potential patents it says were developed in his campus labs. The lawsuit doesn't assess the royalty income the school says it has lost.

Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research at the university's flagship campus in Columbia, acknowledged that universities benefit from their scientists' ideas. But without the schools' labs, graduate students and ability to pull in research money, those ideas would never turn into products, Duncan pointed out.

He also said Missouri's rules on patent and copyright law are straightforward, and are explained to all professors when they're hired. Suppes joined Missouri in 2001 from the University of Kansas.

In many cases, the lawsuit claims, Suppes altered the language in waivers and licensing documents before returning the forms to the university, to give him more flexibility. The university said it asked him to stop, but he didn't.

"The concept of changing the regulations to meet one's preference -- I don't know of any university that operates this way," Duncan said.

Suppes' partner, Sutterlin, grew frustrated with the impasse and relocated their startup company to Tuscaloosa, Ala. Suppes remains in Missouri, continuing his teaching and research.

Suppes said the problem runs deeper than a single dispute between the university and a disenchanted professor. At a time when the university has imposed a hiring freeze and is considering job cuts, he suggests the flap is causing some colleagues to reassess their efforts to bring research to market.

"The only thing (Missouri) is interested in," he said, "is going out to grab the easy money."