Definition of Technology

Transfer
 Technology transfer [and
commercialization] is defined as the
transfer of results of basic and applied
research to the design, development,
production, and commercialization of new
and improved products, services or
processes. That which is transferred is
often not really technology but rather a
particular kind of knowledge that is a
precursor of technology. The transfer
process emphasizes the value and
protection of the intellectual product of
the researchers.


 Gary Matkin, Technology Transfer and the University,

1991
 Technology Transfer is a
Process
• It has stages, phases, and typical
behaviors.


• It operates and can be understood at

different levels (e.g., technology policy,
individual scientists).


• It involves different “stakeholder”

perspectives (e.g., developers and
users).


• It is therefore a “communication process.”

 So... Where to enter the catalytic
process of technology transfer?

• Universities and Research

Institutes:
– Mainly on the level of basic and
applied research, and early stage
development.


• Entrepreneurial companies:
– Any stage from research and
development to the market.
 Varied Roles
IDEA
Universiti
Universiti
Start
Start--up
up es
Firms es
Firms Research
Research
Research
Institutes
Institutes
RR && DD Development
Firms
Firms
Production

Larger
Larger Manufacturing
Companies
Companies
Distribution

MARKET
 Technology Transfer
(NOT)

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT DEPLOYMENT

 The Technology Transfer
Process
Disclosur
e

Commercialization
Patenting

Agreement Administration

Licensing
Products/Processes
(Royalties)
 Goals and Objectives :
Principal Investigator
●Publications
●Support of students

●Long-term relationship

●Multiple sponsor relationship/consortium

●Timeframe

●Overall research program

●Pending research projects

 Goals and Objectives :
Company Partner
●Past relationship
●What do they expect? What will they

contribute to research project?

●Timeframe

●Company position and likely strategies

 Stages, Phases, and Behaviors


• Linearity as convenient fiction (technology push). The

intellectual elegance of your science or technology won’t
necessarily attract market attention.
• Lots of feedback and recursive loops (market pull). Successful
technology transfer demands lots of iterations.
• Marker events or key milestones: Award of a patent, proof of
principle, signing a license deal.


 Lesson: This is a long-term,

confusing process-not a single
event. You need to be in for the
long haul. (universities and
 Levels and Units of
Analysis
• Economy, industry, and public policies (e.g., cost of
capital)
• Markets and users
• Organizational structures, incentives, and procedures
(e.g., university policy on software copyrighting)
• Work group culture and dynamics (e.g., faculty tenure
criteria)
• Individuals involved, their characteristics and roles (e.g.,
having an industrial-experienced graduate student)
• The technology itself


 LESSON: What you do in terms of bench-level

science is only part of the story
 Perspectives
• Basic researchers, knowledge creators
• Creators, developers, sellers of knowledge-
embedded tools
• Users (individual and organizational) of
knowledge and tools
• All of us are either, or all - simultaneously


LESSON: If you can put yourself in the



shoes of other stakeholders, you will do

better at this.
 The “Chain-Link” Model of Innovation
Research - Knowledge Creation

Transfer Processes
(varied)
Invent Detailed Market
design
Market Need Prove Redesign Distribute
Concept Product
Competitive testing Production Customer
Analysis Prototyping support

The Product Development Cycle

 Product and Process
Technology
• Product Technology
• Many end-users (e.g., consumers)
• Non-obvious relationship to creating/making other
technologies
• Often simpler
• Process Technology
• Intermediate users
• Instrumental to creating/making other technologies
• More complex
• Technologies can be both product or process, and on alternate
days, depending upon context (e.g., drill press is a product to
drill press maker; part of a process to a tool-and-die shop)


LESSON: Different paths to commercialization, depending on



process/product distinctions.
PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
 Protection of Intellectual
Property
• General Definition


 The Process by which the private value

of the creative outputs of research are
protected.


• Items to cover


– The protection approach

– Disclosing and protecting inventions
– The nature of intellectual property
 Protection: What of Value is

Protected
• Intellectual Property (as noun)
 The results of research or other creative work that
can be protected by law


• Realizing private value from intellectual property

 Using a legal mechanism which permits selected
parties to utilize a particular invention, work, or
similar creative product; and precludes others from
doing so.


• Value
 Private (commercial) value is not the same as
public value. It is usually not possible to achieve
private value from creative work which is in the
public domain.
 First Step in a Protection
Strategy :
The Invention Disclosure
• Filed with institutional intellectual
property office
• Evidence for date of invention or
creation and names of inventors or
creators (for primary)
• Identifies funding source
• Provides information for choosing a
protection approach (or whether to
protect)
• A disclosure assumes that intellectual
property exists, and has value (in
fact, these assumptions are often
 Publication Vs . Patent
•
Protection
In a global economy, world - wide patent rights can be
essential for commercial success.
• World-wide patent rights will be lost due to public disclosure
of an invention before the patent APPLICATION is filed.
• What constitutes public disclosure?
 Publication of a research paper
 A speech or a talk at a public or open meeting
 A poster presentation
 Collaborative research after a discovery
• If you think you have a patentable invention - THINK!
 Delay public disclosure.
 Let your institutional intellectual property or
technology transfer coordinator evaluate.
 If possible, remove disclosing material before a
public disclosure.
 Disclosing and Protecting
 Worst Better
1.Best
Invent 1. Invent 1. Invent
2. Publish or 2. File 2. File
talk invention invention
disclosure disclosure
3. File 3. Publish or 3. File for
invention talk patent
disclosure or
otherwise
protect
4. File for 4. File for
patent patent 4. Publish or
or or talk
otherwise otherwise
protect protect
 Intellectual Property:
Protection Approaches
 Patent
 Copyright
 Trademark
 Trade Secret


 All can be used concurrently, and

SHOULD BE. “Investment grade”
technologies tend to be in a “thicket”
of protection
 Non-disclosure Agreements

• Usually an interim method for providing

protection, until more permanent
protection is obtained. Avoids loss of
novelty (exception—trade secrets).
• Involves signing a formal document
which clearly identifies the intellectual
property.
• Enables business and commercialization
evaluations prior to open publication.
• Often has some time limit.
• Difficult to prevent “leakage” by non-
signatories.
 Patents
• SPECIFIC CRITERIA DEFINED BY LAW
 Novelty, Non-obviousness, Utility


• BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE APPLICANT

 Applicant must prove in the examination that the
invention meets the criteria


• CAREFUL EXAMINATION
 Technically qualified examiners
 Review of the “prior art”
 May take two to five years


• EVERY COUNTRY HAS A DIFFERENT SYSTEM

 Patents are granted by national offices
 One invention may differ in coverage from country to
country
 Patent cooperation Treaty and the European Patent
Office
 Patents ( Cont .)
• TERM OF PATENTS
 20 years from date of application
 Most countries have similar terms
(harmonization)


• COST OF A PATENT
 Expensive to apply - legal costs and fees
 Expensive to maintain - maintenance fees


• “FIRST-TO-FILE” vs. “FIRST-TO-INVENT”

 U.S. is sole major “first -to-invent” country
 May mean an invention in Europe will not get a
U.S. patent
 Criteria for Patentability
 NEW
 no “prior art” - a novel invention
 has not been publicly disclosed
 has not been made or sold in
commerce
 NOT OBVIOUS
 not obvious to a person “skilled in
the art
 no “prior art” which would suggest
the invention
 What is Patentable?
May include anything “under the sun” made by


man...
• Process—a method of doing something (e.g.,
manufacturing steel, surgical or medical procedures)
• Machine—combination of mechanical elements
• Article of manufacture—anything which has been
manufactured
• Composition of matter—a new chemical, a new
formulation of elements, a genetic construct


 Ideas, formulas, and “principles of

nature” are not patentable.
 Patentability Issues
• What is “patentable matter” differs from country to
country. for example:
 U.S. Europe
 Methods of treat-
 ment or therapy Patentable Not Patentable


 Inventions from
 collaborative
 research Not Patentable Patentable
 [sometimes]
• What is “patentable matter” changes from time to time


 Lesson: You have to work with a patent attorney whom you

trust.
 Copyrights
• The exclusive right granted by the government to the
owner of an original work of authorship to reproduce,
distribute, perform, prepare derivative works, and/or
display the copyright work
• Term for individual is life plus 50 years; for organizations,
publication plus 75 years (or creation plus 100 years)
• Covers the expression of an idea in tangible form but not
the idea itself
• Traditionally the vehicle for mass market software
protection, print material, and recorded materials
(tapes, records, film)
• Acquisition upon creation; U.S. registration relatively easy
• Automatically protected in many foreign countries
• Issue: work for hire versus original creation
 Trademarks
• A name or logo which is affixed to goods or
services placed in commerce and indicates
the source and quality of the goods or
services
• Term is indefinite (while still in use)
• Easily protected via registration, and easily
obtained indefinitely
• May be worth more than the invention or
creation (e.g, Gatorade)
• Trademarks can be registered within a state,
or nationally. Must be registered nation by
nation.
 Trade Secrets
• Derives economic value from not
being known to persons who can
obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use
• Need explicit efforts to maintain
secrecy, internal and external
• Incompatible long-term approach
for universities, because of
publishing norms (possible
exception is “know-how”)
 “8 Golden Rules” for Patenting

1.
 Avoid early public disclosure. File first, then
disclose.


2.
 Do not publish interim results or speculate on
broader applications of a discovery.


3.
 Do research on the commercial market and
technical novelty of an invention before filing a
patent application.


4.
 Consider the possibilities to license or develop
an invention before filing.

5.

If you cannot protect the patent from
infringement, don’t file.


6.
 File locally first. Drop international
applications if there is no interest in
development in a reasonable time.


7.
 If you cannot prove the concept of a new
invention in a reasonable time, drop the
application.


8.
 Periodically clean out your patent portfolio if
you are a research institute. Do not pay for
non-productive patents.
 Recent De-Stabilization of IP
Legal Structure

• Influence of NAFTA/GATT
(Harmonization)


• Some Federal agency “undoing” of

Bayh-Dole compact (NIST-ATP
and MEP)


• Changes in technology itself (e.g.,

Why Software is Problematic
• Software as intellectual property fits
into one of two difficult categories:
– Software as a “writing”— traditionally
copyright-protected
– Software as part of a “machine”—
traditionally patent-protected


• Since software tends to be a mixture,

it causes problems for the legal
system
 THE TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER PROCESS
Licensing inventions, technology and
copyright protected works

John Fraser, FSU

 A U T M D a ta F Y 1 9 9 1 - 2 0 0 0
Created by L Berneman , UPenn , modified by J Fraser , FSU
$200B +
Research
$2M : 1 disclosure

100 , 000
disclosures
( discoveries )

• Commercial potential
• Technical advantages
• Protectability
Opportunit • Inventor profile
y
Assessment 50% do not move forward
( Triage )

50 , 000
Patent (10% lics / 2.5%
Applications discl. )
License Income
( 3.5% per year ) 25%
125 > $1M/year 25 , 000
50 % < $ 10k Licenses Positive exit
cum . ( liquidation )
LICENSING EARLY - STAGE
TECHNOLOGY
 Why ?
• Federal legislative mandate - Bayh -
Dole 1980 Act
• Successful commercialization for
public good
• Any royalty income is free of strings,
• Related R&D contracts bring in
overhead that can be same a
federal
• Consulting agreements
•
 Cultural Issues
• Corporate setting:


– employee owns nothing, company

owns inventions
– successful commercialization,
employee rarely shares
– emphasis is on control of information,
not publication and diffusion
– contract with third parties is a “Work
for Hire”
Why is it difficult to license
out early-stage technology?
• Industry (especially the pharma industry)
is traditionally conservative.


• Industry looks for short-term results on

its investments.


• There is internal competition within

companies for research and
development funds. (If there are 2
or 3 projects in the company
pipeline, why add another
 Nature of the Technology
• Cost of getting to market (final
development, manufacturing
costs). Some technologies can only
be commercialized by an existing,
large company because of high
cost.
•
• Fragility or robustness (how much
hands-on involvement by the
inventor is needed?)
 Nature of the Market
• Is the market well-developed
(mature), or
underdeveloped?
• How differentiated, specialized
or “niche-ified” is the
market?
• How much
capacity/intelligence do the
end-users have? Do they
need hand-holding? Can
 Marketplace Analysis
• Value to industrial end-user
 >> Technical value
 - Only way to do something new
 and valuable?
 - Broad, enabling technology?
 >> Financial Value
 - Faster, better, cheaper?
 Marketplace Analysis

• Value to Developer
 >> Strategic value
 >> Size of Market
 >> Time and cost to develop
 >> Profitability of Product
 Marketplace Analysis

• Defensibility of Position
 >> Patents
 >> Other proprietary protection
 >> Cost benefits and scale of operation
 >> Marketing channels
 MARKETING
•
• 3 University studies (MIT, UPenn,
OSU) -for 60% - 70% of licenses
signed, the faculty member
suggested the company
•
• Study of Companies - for 60% - 70%
of licenses found, company
researchers found university
researchers
 License vs. Start-up
Company
 Must consider a combination of:
– Industry Structure
– Competing technologies
– Size of market
– Product profitability
– Cost to develop product, bring
to market
– Ability to Raise Capital



 License vs. Start-up
• Established Companies (Licensees)
– Have established marketing functions and big
markets
– Know how to manufacture
– Have capital
– Better resources to protect the intellectual
property
– May “lose” or “orphan” the technology
• Small or New Companies (Licensees or Start-ups)
– Can serve specialized, “hands-on” markets
– Can maintain pace of technological innovation
– Are organizationally flexible
– May result in closer long-term relationship for
inventor
– Subject to buyout or rapid change of plans
 The Entrepreneurial Option:
Why Not?
• For the Inventor/Scientist:
 >> Enterprise management is a set of skills,
 unrelated to being a good scientist.
 >> Financial backers want control.
 >> Failure rates are high, financial
 remuneration takes years.
 >> Failure rates are high, financial
 remuneration takes years.
• For the University/Research Institute:
 >> Culture-perturbing.
 >> Potential conflicts of interest.
 >> Intrusion into student training.



 License vs. Start-up

 Remember....
 Only 1-2%
 of all technologies
 from research institutions
 can become successful
 start-up companies
 Decision Factors for
the University
• Nature of the market.
• Nature of the technology.
• What does the commercialization
entity (to be selected) need to
do well?
• What does the inventor want to
do? VERY IMPORTANT.
• Does the commercialization path
enhance other mission goals?
 Decision Implications for
the Inventor
• Licensing or Sale to Third Party Company
– Less hassle, the “hands-off” path (relatively
speaking).
– Less opportunity for return.
– Less personal and financial exposure and
risk.
– Less control, and ego-identity.
• Participation in a Spin-off or Start-up venture
– Likely to demand a career shift.
– Maximum potential for gain (and risk).
– Opportunity to stay with the invention
throughout its life cycle.
 Licensing to an Existing Third Party
Company: When and Why?
• The inventor wants to stay in the lab.
• Subsequent needed development is
obvious.
• Markets are relatively clearly defined.
• An established marketing structure is
an advantage, particularly a
geographically diverse one.
• The technology is a natural
complement to the product
portfolio of one or more potential
 Negotiation Parameters
- License Terms -
• Define the licensed rights (What is
the licensee getting?)
• Exclusivity
• Territory of use (geographic)
• Field-of-use (technological)
• Milestones toward commercialization
• Proofs of diligence by licensee in
executing the license.
• Royalties and other payments
 License Terms (cont.)
• Rights to enhancements or
improvements
• Rights to sublicense, assign
• Related R&D contract
• Post-licensing responsibilities
 >> Conditions for termination
 >> Infringement: responsibilities,
obligations, benefits
 >> Resolution of disputes between
parties
 Living with a Licensee
(After the Honeymoon)

•
• Managing the transfer of
technology (e.g., a joint
development project)
• Technical follow-up
• Payments, reports, etc. (“auditing”
the diligence of the licensee)
• Infringements, disputes, etc.
• Issue of Gifts
 Wrap Up
• AUTM + Stanford stats
•
• Blockbusters are very rare
•
• Disclosing, marketing,
negotiations are the fun part
•
• In a mature 5 year plus office,
the license administration takes
STARTING A NEW
VENTURE
 The Entrepreneurial Option:
Issues for Research Institutions

• To encourage or discourage?
– Mission of the research institution?
– Culture of the research institution?

• Management of tension with other

institutional missions.
• Management of individual conflicts
of interest.
 Start-up Companies


• To be successful, a start-up must

have all of the following
ingredients:


– Commercially motivated scientist

– “Flexible” research institution
– Exciting market potential, a “good
story”
– Management team

 Starting a New Venture


• Decision to commercialize:


– Based on competitive advantage of

Product/Technology/Service
• Value to end-user (therapeutic
efficacy)
• Value to developer (product
differentiation)
• Defensibility of commercial position
(survival value)
– Accurate marketplace analysis is
Starting a New Venture

• Must assemble proper:

– Technology
– People (management team)
– Capital
New Venture: Technology

• Technology
– Clear, exclusive access to
technology
– Usually obtained through license(s)
– Provision for technology transfer
• inventor joins company
• inventor consults with company
• company has access to inventor’s
research facilities
 New Venture: People
• People
– Commercial Staff (CEO)
• credibility at raising money, building a
business
• usually experienced businessman from
industry
– Technical Staff
• experienced in specific technology
• experienced in product development
 New Venture: Capital
• Capital
– Capital raised in stages
– Requires Business Plan
• Market Opportunity
• Technology/ Solution to Opportunity
• Development Plan
• Marketing Plan
• Management
• Financial Projections
 Role of the Inventor
• Option 1: Inventor assumes all aspects of enterprise
management LEAST DESIRABLE.


• Option 2: Inventor assumes primary responsibility for

technology development, and business
manager assumes responsibility for business
planning and operations; these are co-equal or
business manager is subservient to inventor
ALSO UNDESIRABLE.


• Option 3: Business management (not the inventor)

assumes primary authority over all functions,
including technology development, which
might be directed by the inventor THIS ONE
MIGHT WORK.
 U.S. Example
• Biolex, Inc.
– Technology developed by major US
university to use a small aquatic
plant as a protein expression system
– “Proof of principle” was established
– Critical evaluation showed:
• Value to end-user
• Value to developer
• Defensibility of commercial position
 Biolex, Inc.
• Value to end-user:


– Extremely low cost production of

proteins (10x or 100x cheaper than
competing systems)
– Possibility to make proteins that no
other protein expression system
could make
– Broad, enabling technology
 Biolex, Inc.
• Value to developer:


– $10 billion of therapeutic

proteins produced today
– By 2005, $35 billion of
therapeutic proteins
– Industrial applications for
enzymes, novel materials
– Initial economic analysis shows
high profitability
 Biolex, Inc.

• Defensibility of Position


– US and Foreign patents filed

– Broad, “umbrella” claims for
technology
 Biolex, Inc.
First Steps

• Incorporate Company
– Legal documents filed for “Biolex,
Inc.”, initial sole owner of
company is scientist.


• License Technology
– Exclusive license obtained form
University in return for ownership
position (stock) in Biolex, Inc. and
 Biolex, Inc.
Next Steps
• Recruit Management Team


– CEO was former head of Bayer R&D activities,

former VP of Integrated Genetics, CEO of Telios
Pharmaceuticals
– Scientist would stay at University until capital is
raised, then would join company full-time
– Business Development/Financial person recruited
– Management team not paid until capital is raised,
but are given ownership position in the
company
 Biolex, Inc.
Next Steps

• Preparation of Business Plan (~50

pages)


• Market Opportunity
• Technology/ Solution to Opportunity
• Development Plan
• Marketing Plan
• Management
• Financial Projections
–
 Biolex, Inc.
Next Steps

• Raising Capital


– Will be discussed in greater detail

in next section
 Biolex, Inc.
Timeline

1992 -scientific research begun
 Aug 97 -patent filed
 Oct 97 - incorporation
 Oct 97 - Feb 98 - recruit management team
 Mar 98 - Apr 98 - write business plan
 Apr 98-Aug 98 - contact “venture capital” investors
 Oct 98 - receive $1.1 million “seed round”
 Nov 98 - begin operations (under contract at
University)
 Jul 99 - move into rented laboratories
Typical Start-up Company

• Technology invented at
government or university
laboratory, patents initiated
• Technology shows “proof of
concept”, which dramatically
reduces risk
• Technology licensed to
management team (inventor
may be on management team)
 Best Practices
Starting New Companies
 Research Institutions which
do well at licensing technology
to to start-ups adopt the
following “best practices”:
• An economic development
mission.
• Strong linkage to business
development infrastructure (e.g.,
incubators).
• Novel, early-stage financing (e.g.,
FINANCING NEW
VENTURES
 Financing New Ventures

 Ability to finance new

ventures depends upon:


• Quality of management team



• Economic value of business

concept
– Value to end-user and
Financing New Ventures

• The first million Dollars is the

most difficult to find


• All money is not created equal

 Financing New Ventures

• Financing sources for “early stage”

companies:
– Founders, Family and Friends
– Scientific Institutions
– Government programs
– “Angels”
– Corporations
– Venture Capital Funds
 Financing New Ventures

• Founders, Family and Friends:



– Usual source of earliest capital

– Have confidence in ultimate
success
– Know the people, technology and
business well
– Capital limited, usually less than
$100,000
–
 Financing New Ventures

• Research Institutions:


– Most institutions invest in patent

costs
– Other funds more difficult to find
– Issues of “conflict of interest”
– Capital limited, usually less than
$100,000
 Financing New Ventures
• Government programs (U.S.):
– SBIR (Federal Small Business
Innovation Research) Grants
• Phase I - up to $100,000
• Phase II - up to $750,000
• Funding only for research
• Scientist must be employee of
start-up company
– State/Local Grants and loans
• Usually limited (less than
$100,000), focused solely on
science
 Financing New Ventures
• “Angels”
– Difficult to find
– Can bring more than money
• industrial contacts
• financial contacts
• credibility
• experience
– Typically invest in $200,000 to
$1,000,0000 range
 Financing New Ventures
• Corporations:
– Excellent sources of capital
– Funding levels can be very high
– Relationship with corporation builds
credibility
• corporation brings more than money
• access to additional technology,
facilities, customers
– Decision-making process can be slow
– Corporations may want excessive
control
 Financing New Ventures

• Venture Capital Funds

– Professional Investors
– Typically manage $50 - 200 million
– Invest funds in 10 -15 different
companies
– Before they invest, they look for an
“exit strategy”
• sale of company to larger company
• public sale of stock
 Financing New Ventures
• Venture Capital Funds (continued)
– Invest only in companies that have
extremely high growth potential
– Actively involved in company (Board
of Directors)
– Invest “close to home”
– Typically invest from $250,000 to $5
million in early stage companies
– Hold additional funds in reserve for
future investments
– Can be “expensive money”
 Financing New Companies
• Financing early stage companies:
– Debt financing
• Company promises to pay back
invested capital plus interest
• Extremely rare for early stage
companies
– Equity (stock) financing
• Company gives ownership position
(shares of stock) in return for
invested capital
• Investor only makes money if share
price increases and shares can be
 Financing Biotech Ventures source: Red Herring Magazine

 7


 6



5

4 96

97
$ billions

3 98
2

0
Venture Capital Private Public Offering Pharma
Placements Collaboration
 Value of New Companies

• Early stage company:

– Patented technology licensed from
research institution
– Initial commercial proof of concept
demonstrated
– Most of management team in place
• Typical value:
– $1-5 million before new investment
capital is obtained (“pre-money”
valuation)
 Value of New Companies:
Example

Pre-money Pre-Money Value/ New New Post-Money Post-
Money
 Shares Valuation share Investment Shares Valuation
Shares


 Start-up 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 0.50 $ 1,000,000 2,000,000 $ 2,000,0 00

3,000,000


 Early Stage 3,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 2.00 $ 5,000,000 2,500,000 $ 11,000,000

5,500,000


 Mid-Stage 5,500,000 $ 33,000,000 $ 6.00 $ 10,000,000 1,666,667 $ 43,000,000

7,166,667


 I.P.O. 7,166,667 $ 86,000,000 $ 12.00 $ 35,000,000 2,916,667 $ 121,000,000

10,083,333

 Value of New Companies

• Increasing value:
– accomplished by reducing technical
/ market risk and confirming size
of opportunity
– scientific progress
– commercial progress
Value of New Companies

• Early-stage life science

company
– technology patents pending, business concept
defined, management team in place

• Mid-stage life science company

– technical and commercial proof of concept
more clearly established, collaborative
(validating) relationships in place with
technology and/or commercial partners

• Later-stage life science

company
– initial products in clinic, corporate partnerships
 Value of New Companies


 VALUE


 RISK


 EARLY MID LATE

 Idea Patent In vitro In-vivo Clinical trials In-market
 Protection (proof-of-concept)
 Exit Strategies

• Sale of company to larger

company in same industry


• Public stock offering

– Usually life science companies
have “pre-money” valuations of
$50-100 million at time of Initial
Public Offering (IPO)
 Public Companies
• Positives
– Access to large amounts of capital
– Liquidity for all stockholders
– Motivation for employees
– Status
• Negatives
– Expectations of financial markets
– Legal reporting requirements
– Reduced operational flexibility
 Lessons
• Technology transfer and
commercialization CAN be
compatible with, and in fact
enhance, the traditional missions
and roles of a university or
research institute.
• Technology transfer and
commercialization requires a
dedicated effort to be successful
• The skills necessary for successful
 Contact us ...

TCG
TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION GROUP, LLC
2237 OXFORD HILLS DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA27608-1672 USA
TEL: 01-919-833-2569
FAX: 01-919-833-3277
PAUL G. WAUGAMAN, PRINCIPAL
E-MAIL: PAUL@T-C-GROUP.COM
WWW.T-C-GROUP.COM
Contact us ...
Contact us ...