1Technology Transfer Tactics

Gerard Eldering is Founder and President of InnovateTech Ventures, specializing in venture creation based on inventions licensed from universities and research institutions. Since the company’s founding in 2007, InnovateTech has supported numerous mid-Atlantic universities and co-founded three start-up companies including AlphaDetect and Trilumen. Gerard has been working in the technology transfer community for more than a decade and is passionate about the creation of professionally managed and funded start-up companies. Prior to launching InnovateTech, he founded and served as Director of the Technology Transfer Office at The MITRE Corporation. He is an MBA and a registered patent agent. Bill St John is experienced in strategic intellectual property protection, licensing, university-industry relationships, corporate partnerships, strategic planning, due diligence, venture financing, corporate development and management of diverse teams and operations. Over the past 25 years, he has started and managed five (5) successful technology companies based on technology licensed or developed at university or government laboratories. Exit strategies for these ventures included public markets, merger and acquisition. In addition to these positions, he has served as a Managing Director of an early-stage venture fund. Currently, Mr. St John serves as Managing Director of Sciencejump Advisory Services that provides a range of services to start-up companies, investors and various technology transfer offices. He was a founder of Sciencejump.com and Reciprocal Sciences LLC. 2Technology Transfer Tactics

 Differentiated Technology : - the “next bold step” in an “up-trending technology class”  Enables a “shrewd business model”: - technology is integral to quick returns for investors.  $500M to $1B Market Potential (w/ Deal flow)  Proven Management Team In Place  Strong IP With Little Science Risk… - manageable translation…execution risk  A “Sellable” Scientific Team and Package  Little Work 3Technology Transfer Tactics

 VC Funds Have to Produce a 21% IRR  Consider 10 Investments: - 3 winners, 3 land of living dead, 4 failures. (seed 2/3/5)  IRR Dependent On: - amount of money invested, early exit,>10X return A Venture Capitalist Makes 2 Deals Per Year - time is limited Need Support From Other VCs To Partner With Them VCs Report To Their Investors 4Technology Transfer Tactics

 Reduced Chance of Success - 2 winners, 3 land of living dead, 5 failures. (versus 3/3/4 for later stage)  Requires >10X Returns  Big Time Requirement  Lack of Management and a Refined Plan 5Technology Transfer Tactics

 Non-Differentiated (herd mentality)  Not Attached to Differentiated Business Model  Data is Lacking ( poor models, one up manufacturing, insufficient sampling)  Address Smaller Markets or market hasn’t been identified  Non-Differentiated Science Team  No Management or Unproven Team  A Large Amount of Work Involved 6Technology Transfer Tactics

 Showing them the wrong “stuff” - Too small – e.g., a great $5 million company - Improperly packaged – a broad technology focused on a small humanitarian market - No management team/entrepreneur - Approaching the wrong fund at the wrong time  Avoiding those mistakes - Know what is a VC deal and how it needs to be packaged 7Technology Transfer Tactics

 Educate Researchers Early in Their Project as to These Requirements  Encourage External Involvement Early in a Project  Packaging Technology (staging) so VCs Can See the Opportunity 8Technology Transfer Tactics

9

Problem:  Drug Delivery (DD) Technologies are Boring “there are a Million of them.”  Classic DD Business Model is Flawed  Data Was Lacking (weak testing)  IP is Weak for DD Class  Two institutions Involved complicated TT work & development  Long Time to Market (>10 years) 10Technology Transfer Tactics

 The Technology reduces the toxicities of cancer therapies.  Drug companies have drug candidates that were discontinued following Phase I Clinical Testing due to toxicity.  Technology enables the in license of these drug candidates that could be in the clinic within 4 years.  Beginning clinical trials is a value inflection point and liquidity point. 11Technology Transfer Tactics

 Compared to Later-stage Investing  Non-responsive Tech Transfer & Inventors  Extended Licensing Process  Non-alignment of Interests: - University wants RD funding/Overhead / local company, employment for community, long tail controls on IP, payment of patent work that often decreases the value of the technology. 12Technology Transfer Tactics

 Working a somewhat broken science establishment that encourages non- differentiated science.  Sinking budgets / RD funding/ support.  The University Personality. 13Technology Transfer Tactics

 Educate your researchers before they start their research.  Encourage external involvement early in a project  Support radical changes in the science establishment  Do not rely exclusively on university internal resources. 14Technology Transfer Tactics

 Structure licenses in ways that can work for them – have some flexibility  Make responsiveness a priority  Build relationships before you need them: - VC’s on University Advisory Boards -Offer access to technical expertise -VIP treatment 15Technology Transfer Tactics

Utilize the chat box to the bottom of your screen to submit a question to the panel. Please address your question to a specific presenter. OR Press 01 on your touchtone phone and this will place you into the phone queue. 16Technology Transfer Tactics

 Gerard Eldering  Gerard Eldering InnovateTech Ventures (ph) –  Bill St. John  Bill St. John The University Funds (ph) Technology Transfer Tactics