• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013
 

Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013

on

  • 2,256 views

Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013

Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,256
Views on SlideShare
595
Embed Views
1,661

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,661

http://sites01.lsu.edu 1648
http://www.lsu.edu 9
https://sites01.lsu.edu 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013 Commercialization & Tech Transfer Task Force Meeting, Feb. 27, 2013 Presentation Transcript

    • COMMERCIALIZATION ANDTECHNOLOGY TRANSFERTASK FORCE MEETINGFebruary 27, 2013 | 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.LSU Shreveport | Noel Library 3rd Floor Assembly Room
    • WELCOME, CHARGE ANDINTRODUCTIONSBill Silvia and Bill Comegys, Operations and TechnologySub-Committee Co-Chairs
    • AGENDA REVIEWAND LOGISTICSDr. Christel Slaughter, SSA Consultants
    • Meeting Information This meeting is streaming live at: www.lsushreveport.adobeconnect.com/lsu2015/ For more information about this task force or the Transition Advisory Team visit: www.lsu.edu/lsu2015 4
    • Save the DateNext Meeting: March 13, 10 a.m. to noon LSU Ag Center, 214 Efferson Hall, Baton Rouge
    • Today’s Agenda Introduction of the Presenter “Technology Transfer: A Report” Margaret Dahl, Associate Provost for Economic Development and Director, Georgia BioBusiness Center Lunch Joe Lovett, Managing General Partner, Louisiana Fund I Ross Barrett, Managing Partner, BVM Capital, LLC Dr. Tammy Dugas, LSUHSC-S, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience Public Comment Adjournment 6
    • INTRODUCTION OFTHE PRESENTERBill Silvia, Operations and Technology Sub-Committee Co-Chair
    • TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:A REPORTMargaret Wagner Dahl, Associate Provost for EconomicDevelopment and Director, Georgia BioBusiness Center
    • PROPOSAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: THE HUMAN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION PROPOSALFacilitated by Margaret Wagner Dahl, Associate Provost for Economic Development University of Georgia
    • ORIGINAL INTENTION The goal: improve processes to have better outcomes in technology-based economic development in the biomedical industry sector and build industry capacity in Louisiana (Previous leadership specifically mandated the initiative focus on LSU’s biomedical research enterprise through three specific institutions-LSU New Orleans, LSU Shreveport and LSU Pennington)
    • PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 21st Century health will be largely affected by the development of preventive and predictive medicine, biotechnology, molecular biology, and population health Combined research enterprise represents over $135M per year, over $85M NIH funding-a respectable portfolio for commercialization opportunities Models considered were derived from Georgia (Georgia Research Alliance); Seattle, Washington; Austin, Texas Participants included in this process were formal and informal leaders comprising a wide constituency of professional economic developers, venture capitalists, business leaders and entrepreneurs as well as university senior administrators and faculty.
    • HUMAN HEALTH PILOT PROJECT GOALS Play a strategic role in technology-based economic development by providing a robust set of activities to increase economic output from LSU-derived research in human health Increase industry sponsored research Increase revenues from intellectual property Accelerate commercialization efforts to provide specific resources to support and sustain spin-off companies under “proof of concept” activities
    • SUMMARY OF INITIATIVE ELEMENTS: THE ECOSYSTEM Governance structure to provide general leadership and fiscal policy decisions (Chancellors from LSU Shreveport and New Orleans, Executive Director of Pennington) Identify experienced personnel in deal-making, relationship building skills, and team-based decision making who will be dedicated to this specific project across the three institutions Utilize a shared information platform with standardized operation procedures (enabling shared IP information, bundling technologies capabilities, contract management etc.)
    • THE ECOSYSTEM CONTINUED Shared triage system for developing appropriate commercialization strategies Shared marketing platform Establish a Proof of Concept Center approach including grant funded startup Leverage established business community networks Partner with award winning technology based incubator programs Ensure core lab infrastructure is readily accessible and very affordable
    • RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY “Unlike Detroit, there’s no caste system here. Our people don’t think about which executive they work for, just which project they are working on.” Rick Lepley, Senior VP, Mitsubishi – create The Team Ensure the success of the Team by streamlining processes (expert patent counsel engagement, ability to negotiate terms, establish express template agreements where appropriate, signature authority by President, and measure satisfaction of faculty and business) Establish CATALYST and partner with economic development professionals and acceleration/incubator organizations linked to localized angel networks and venture capital
    • CATAlyst SOME SPECIFIC AREASr FFOR DISCUSSION:   Opportunities fo unding  CATALYST CONCEPT     IP Development &  Evaluation  • Predisclosure     • Intellectual property  development  Proof of  Technology    • Up to $25 K Grant  concept studies  adjustments      Milestones/   Goals    Technology, Market &  Commercialization    Validation  Technical  Assess  • Post disclosure  analysis  capitalization req.  Investigator‐ • Proof of concept  initiated  expansion  concept  • Up to $50 K Grant  Market needs  assessment  Milestones/ Goals  New Venture  Formation  • Post disclosure  Technical   Business  • Business formation  feasibility planning • Up to $75 K Grant  Market  research  Milestones/ Goals  Start‐Up Company  Strategic  Strategic  Development  marketing business plan • Business Development  • Marketing  • Expansion  Market  Business  • Up to $100 K Loan  validation   launch
    • EXTERNAL EXAMPLE: GEORGIA’S VENTURELAB Since 2002 Georgia through the Georgia Research Alliance VentureLab program has evaluated more than 600 inventions or discoveries at UGA, Georgia Tech, Emory, Georgia State, Morehouse, MCG, Clarke Atlanta VentureLab grants were awarded to the most promising which has led to 120 early stage startups They employee 600 people They have attracted $460M in private equity investment UGA VL: FY12 28 VL companies received external funding ($3.2M SBIR, industry, EPA) 4 moved into incubator
    • CONCLUSION THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT Multiple standards of benchmarking necessary - fostering the academic commercialization culture - service, service, and more service - cultivating academic entrepreneurship Tangible 3 year measures: - 130 cumulative invention disclosures - 15 cumulative licenses - revenues associated with upfront fees, milestone payments - 6 startups (SBIR funding, angel investment, proof of concept) - $1M industry sponsored research funding
    • OBSERVATIONS Creating a culture of collaboration across institutions is extremely hard. By establishing a team dedicated to one goal: impacting human health through excellent commercialization of LSU research much would be achieved. This is important because it is a key measure of how engaged LSU is in economic development APLU: national discussion occurring regarding the role of the Land Grant in economic development-LSU needs to be at the table
    • CONCLUSIONS Teaching a faculty member to be an entrepreneur is like teaching a cat to swim: It can be done. You will lose blood. You’ll never be satisfied with the results. You will annoy the cat. Good Luck!
    • LUNCHGroup Discussion
    • JOE LOVETTManaging General Partner, Louisiana Fund I
    • ROSS BARRETTManaging Partner, BVM Capital, LLC
    • BVM Capital Overview for LSU Transition Sub-CommitteeTechnology and Commercialization February 2013 by Ross P. Barrett
    • Management Team Russell O. Vernon, Founding Partner, based in New York; former President of Commerce Capital Markets, Inc.; Director of Investment Operations at Warburg Pincus; and Director of Operations at Chancellor Capital Asset Management; U.S. Military Academy, BS; U.S. Army War College, MSS (Strategic Studies); Columbia University, MBA. Ross P. Barrett, Founding Managing Partner, based in Shreveport, LA; co- founder of VC Experts, Inc.; former legislative aide to U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston; SMU, BS; LSU Law School, JD; NYU School of Law, LLM in Taxation. Member, Louisiana Committee of 100. 25
    • Portfolio Companies-Louisiana Ventures, LP 26
    • Portfolio Companies—Themelios Ventures, LP 27 27
    • Themelios--Capital Invested as of December 31, 2011 (plussyndicated capital). The economic impact of Venture Capital--syndicate, federal and state capital leverage Themelios Ventures, LP invested capital Capital Invested Additional Capital Syndicated Company $651,892.00 $350,000.00 Company $689,936.00 $1,900,000.00 Company $668,506.76 $5,169,137.24 Company $3,000,000.00 $18,369,000.00 Company $775,000.00 $1,100,000.00 Company $1,222,500.00 $8,000,000.00 Company . $1,011,875.00 $1,300,000.00 Total $8,019,709.76 $36,188,137 28
    • Capital Invested as of December 31, 2011(syndicated plus Federal and State Grants) The economic impact of Venture Capital--syndicate, federal and state capital leverage Themelios Ventures, LP invested capital Additional Capital Capital Invested Syndicated Federal State Total Company . $651,892.00 $350,000.00 $- $125,000.00 Company $689,936.00 $1,900,000.00 $- $- Company $668,506.76 $5,169,137.24 $4,144,000.00 $180,729.00 Company $3,000,000.00 $18,369,000.00 $800,000.00 $800,000.00 Company $775,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $- $- Company $1,222,500.00 $8,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $- Company . $1,011,875.00 $1,300,000.00 $1,700,000.00 $350,000.00 Total $8,019,709.76 $36,188,137 $8,644,000.00 $1,455,729 $54,307,576.00 Multiplier Effect of Leveraged Capital is 6.7X 29
    • Institutional Co-Investors: Life Science BioAdvance - Philadelphia, PA  Louisiana Fund I - Baton Rouge Ben Franklin Ventures -  Research Corporation Technologies, Philadelphia, PA (RCT) - Tucson, AZ Maple Leaf, LP (Baton Rouge)  Long Branch Ventures (New Orleans) Sanofi-Aventis (Paris)  Taraval Associates - Menlo Park, CA Trident Capital—Palo Alto, CA  Tech Coast Angels - Los Angeles, LA 30
    • Our Investments—Two example of What We Have Created 31
    • Esperance Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Overview: Lytic peptide research that has cancer killing effects.Status: - Closed over $21,000,000 Series A, A-1 and B financing transaction. - Licensed technology from LSU; --Currently FDA trials at Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, etc. - Comparable sales from $200- 800mm. 32
    • Esperance Pharmaceuticals, Inc.History of Company:• Pennington and Ag Center showed collaboration.• Due Diligence by investors• Themelios syndicated with two other groups (LFI and RCT)• Seed Round: $750,000 in 2006-2007• Series A Round: $9mm in 2008-2010; Series A- 1 Round: $4.5mm; Series B Round: $8.0mm from Sanofi-Aventis (May 2011)• Result: over $20mm invested based on LSU Research. 33
    • Embera NeuroTherapeutics, Inc. Overview: Addiction therapy drug development company based in Louisiana. Update: - Original human data secured in 2009 - 45 cocaine addicted patients in a double-blinded, placebo controlled study. -Smoking Cessation study at Pennington in 2013 34
    • Overall Important Points Live in an era of less (ex: Postal Service versus UPS/FedEx) Intangibles and Reputation Critically important because ROI is hard to justify Increase Volume, Volume, Volume: not everything will work. Depends on policies and procedures that are certain and clear Clear Guidelines on who can negotiate what Accountability and Leadership Inefficiencies with Process of negotiation Make it easy 35
    • DR. TAMMY DUGASLSUHSC-S, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology andNeuroscience
    • Technology Transfer:The Faculty Perspective Dr. Tammy R. Dugas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
    • Tech transfer and commercialization = foreign language for many faculty Faculty are not trained for this. Tech transfer and commercialization is often not considered a scholarly activity  Tenure and promotion is a peer-reviewed process  Without a global acceptance of tech transfer activities, the effort may seem ill-advised. Faculty are often not aware that they may have something that might be marketable.
    • And then along came the solution: The LSUHSC-S happened upon Dr. Tony Giordano, Assistant Dean for Research and Business Development  Both scientist and expert in business development  He attended faculty/student seminars  Sought out faculty individually  Formed research interest groups  Helped faculty conceive of ideas, submit patents and form companies
    • And then along came a solution:  The LSUHSC-S happened upon Dr. Tony Giordano, Assistant Dean for Research and Business Development  Both scientist and expert in business development  He attended faculty/student seminars  Sought out faculty individually  Formed research interest groups  Helped faculty conceive of ideas, submit patents and form companiesThere is a need for a scientist/advocate on the campus!
    • 2012 LSUHSC-S Research Planning Retreat Faculty driven  60 faculty  6 committees  Proposed recommendations were compiled, debated and ranked 3 committees submitted recommendations for a new TT office at the LSUHSC-S (see handout). The recommendations were combined into one final recommendation. Ranked 4th of 24 total recommendations put forth by the faculty
    • The final recommendation: Two positions are necessary:  Floor-walker – scientist  Business Development In at least one proposal, the faculty conceded that the foundation may have a role in spearheading/financing at least part of the effort.  E.g., Business development expertise could be placed there, as long as the individual worked pro-actively for the good of institutional research.
    • Examples the faculty discussed: University of Minnesota’s Medical Devices Center Innovation Fellows Program  4 mid-level careers professionals/year.  Program provides mentoring on starting a company.  The professionals work with scientists and physicians to decide what products are needed.  Goal: 20-30 inventions patented/year.  Each professional spins out their best idea.  Program partners the fellows with VC groups specializing in medical devices.
    •  Partners with universities in the Cleveland area Facilitates business formation and recruitment to grow health care companies and to commercialize technologies in Cleveland. They report:  > 170 companies created, recruited, accelerated  > $1.5 billion in new funding attracted by their company partners  >$210 million in revenues collected by technology offices  >540 TT deals with industry partners
    • The faculty need advocates! Advocates on the campus  Important for mentoring  Identifying technologies that are marketable  Giving the faculty a sense of security Who advocates for faculty in licensing and other negotiations? System level = risk management  Risk = reward?!
    • PUBLIC COMMENTSGroup Discussion
    • ADJOURNMENT