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!
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
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?!