Innovation in Tech Transfer Federal Laboratory Consortium Mid-Atlantic Meeting – Rocky Gap September 16, 2008

Leverage the Chesapeake Crescent region- unique mixture of assets Natural resources Largest customer in world World class universities Skilled workforce National policy center Concentration of federal labs If properly applied- a global leader in life science, energy and national security Chesapeake Crescent Initiative

 Interview Process  Regional Strengths and Weaknesses  Strengths- concentration of R&D expertise and $$’s  Weaknesses- commercialization resources missing  Best Practices to address Regional Status

Venture Capital Investment in Seed/Startups 2007 Venture Capital (millions) 2004 R&D funding (millions) VC Seed + startup investments (millions) % of National VC investment in seed/startups Ratio of VC capital to R&D Funding Ratio of VC seed + startup investment to CCR California $ 12,055 $ 18,041 $ % 67% 12 Chesapeake Crescent Region $ 1,242 $ 18,454 $ 463.9% 7% 1 Massachusetts $ 3,489 $ 5,324 $ % 66% 9 North Carolina $ 577 $ 1,677 $ 484.1% 34% 11 Texas $ 1,416 $ 5,025 $ 312.6% 28% 2 Source: MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association

2006 Research Revenue Rankings University Only State Revenue Ranking Patents to Revenue Ranking Start ups to Revenue Ranking California1316 Massachusetts21020 Chesapeake Crescent31937 Texas51433 North Carolina91319 Source: AUTM Licensing Survey Results by State, 2006

 X-Prizes  Embedded Entrepreneurs in Residence  Rapid Prototyping  Tech Scouting Innovation in Tech Transfer

 Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge  Ultimate Fuel Economy Challenge  Ansari X PRIZE  American Security Challenge  DARPA Urban Challenge X-Prizes

 Carnegie Mellon University (SRI, MIT, DOE)  match Serial Entrepreneur with appropriate innovation  standardized terms (timeframe, no-shop, field of use, consideration)  embed Serial Entrepreneur with research team  complete due diligence (G2M, cap plan, etc)  win-win at end of term either way Embedded E-I-R Programs

 Identify scope  Identify “pain”  Technology needs and requirements  Test data  Success metrics  Scout  Broadcast needs  Shadow scenario  Collect data online  Filter  Second phase screen with customer  Final four Rapid Prototyping

 Data mining and visualization 45 days- found 125 companies 15 days- second phase top days- bake-off with top 7 60 days- prototype  Graph database 60 days- found 55 companies 30 days- second phase top days- bake-off with top 4 30 days- final due diligence with no-go decision Rapid Prototyping Examples

Tech Scouting Clients

Tech Scouting Process Client X

Informatics  data fusion  data mining  info assurance  visualization  authentication Advanced Tech  C4ISR  hi-speed computing  CBRNE-WMD-IED  energy/power systems  self organizing networks Tech Scouting Shopping List NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TRUE REPRESENTATION

Tech Scouting Technology Sources NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TRUE REPRESENTATION Incubators Federal Labs University Labs VC’s and Angels

Tech Scouting Screening Media Embassies Incubators VC’sUniversity Labs Fed Labs ESQ’s Angels CPA’s

Media Embassies Incubators VC’sUniversity Labs Fed Labs ESQ’s Angels CPA’s Shopping List LBT Biometrics CBRNE UAV Early Stage $$ Financial or Development Status Customer Tech Scouting Process

Roger London Innovation Economy Program Director Chesapeake Crescent Thank You