Building a National Technology Transfer Network · o Xcelerator o GIST o ASPIRE o BMEidea / DEBUT ....

Building a National Technology

Transfer Network

Heath Naquin

Agenda

About the Talking Head

Who is Venturewell?

Experience in Building Networks of

Innovation

Cases in TT Network Building

Internationally

TTA Activities

About Me

Director of I-Corps Programs at Venturewell

Executive Director for the VPR at UT Austin

Designer of UTTP program in Turkey

– Entrepreneur

– Faculty Member

– Researcher

– International Trouble Maker

About Venturewell

Our Mission

VentureWell fosters new ventures from an

emerging generation of inventors and supports the

innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems

critical to their success.

4

Innovators Faculty

Our View of the I&E Ecosystem

Our Programs & Initiatives Early Stage Innovator

Programs

I-Corps

E-Teams

Xcelerator

GIST

ASPIRE

BMEidea / DEBUT

Faculty Initiatives Programs

Faculty Grants

Pathways to Innovation

OPEN

Lean LaunchPad®

I&E Network Initiatives

National Innovation Network

BME-IDEA Meeting

TTA Advisory

GIST Network

6

Early Stage Innovator Programs

Direct work to support inventors in bringing their

ideas to market through:

– Workshops and training

– Coaching and mentoring

– Funding or awards

7

o I-CorpsTM

o E-Teams

o Xcelerator

o GIST

o ASPIRE

o BMEidea / DEBUT

E-Team Grants Program

The E-Team Program cultivates opportunities for collegiate

entrepreneurs to move ideas out of the lab and into the

marketplace.

8

Next Deadline:

May 4

ASPIRE Program

9

ASPIRE creates advanced, sector-specific training

programs and prepares high-potential, emerging

hardware ventures for investment.

GIST Startup BootCamps

Next BootCamp:

Peru (August)

Vietnam (September)

Global Innovation through Science & Technology (GIST)

Startup Boot Camps empower young science & technology

innovators & entrepreneurs around the world through on-

the-ground training and mentoring.

ESI Key Metrics and Outcomes

Made more than $7.5 Million in Grants to

Early Stage Innovators resulting in more

than $620 Million in Capital Raised

Manage a portfolio of more than 1000

unique projects and early stage startups

Deployed Programming around the world

in developing ESI clusters by working

directly with Local Ecosystems

Faculty Initiative Programs

Initiatives to support faculty in developing programs that

cultivate & support student innovators and promote

institutional change through:

– Grants

– Workshops & Training

– Conferences

12

o Faculty Grants

o Pathways to Innovation

o Open

o Lean LaunchPad®

Lean LaunchPad®

The Lean LaunchPad educators seminar teaches you how

to integrate Lean Startup principles into your curriculum,

helping your students learn how to design, test, iterate,

pivot and innovate.

OPEN Conference

Open is an annual gathering of faculty, students and others

engaged in technology entrepreneurship in higher

education.

Next Conference:

Washington, D.C.

March 24-25, 2017

I&E Network Development Programs

Initiatives to create and build networks to

strengthen the overall innovation &

entrepreneurship ecosystem.

15

o National Innovation

Network

o BME-IDEA Meeting

o TTA Advisory

o GIST Network

National Innovation Network

Hundreds of NSF-funded researchers from I-CorpsTM

Teams, Nodes, and Sites participate in the National

Innovation Network (NIN). This network of thinkers is

addressing America’s needs for innovation education,

infrastructure, and research.

What About Networks?

Example 1

National Innovation Network in the United

States

7 Nodes, 51 Sites

As of May 2016 …

38 courses held

749 teams trained

203 colleges and universities sending

teams

2,392 individuals trained

42,000+ customer discovery interviews

conducted

Expansion Across Agencies

I-Corps L 3 courses

I-Corps @ NIH 2 courses

Lab-Corps 8 Labs

2013 2014 2015 2016

including 12 teams from DOE, DOD, NIH, or USDA ARS.

I-Corps @ DOD Pilot

Accepting applications

I-Corps Energy & Transportation

Kicks-off in May

I-Corps National Teams

2011-2012 144 teams +90% 274 teams 2011-2013 2011-2014 +50% 411 teams 2011-2015 +47% 603 teams 2011-April 2016 662 teams

12%

18%

18%

25%

27%

Other

Education

Energy & Materials

IT & Communication

Healthcare/Medical

Nearly 90% of all projects are in 4

sectors

I-Corps startups (n=324)

81% teams are active 13-21

months after course

Active 81%

Inactive / Uncertain

19%

5%

25%

71%

89%

Licensed innovation

Received funding

Incorporated company

Commercially active

Of these…

As of April 2016 …

• 324 companies…. and growing

• 3 acquisitions

• $83 million raised

63%

31%

3% 2% 1%

Government awards

Angel/VC funding

Grants

Revenue

Awards/contests

Teams raised 37 private

investments totaling $25.6 million

22

8

1 2 4

0.5 or less >0.5 and <1.0 >1.0 and <1.5 >1.5 and <2.0 >2.0

Nu

mb

er

of

Investm

en

ts

Funding in MM$

Teams raised $52 Million with 171

Government Awards

SBIR/STTR Phase 1,

108

SBIR/STTR Phase 2,

32

Other Government

Awards 31

112 teams won 140 SBIRs or

STTRs

I-Corps has a positive effect on

participants’ careers

92% 88% “I [have] a different view about

technology and how to apply to

real problems. It is a life

changing experience.”

“I-Corps is a mindset-

changing program…”

ELs PIs

I-Corps has a positive effect on

participants’ research

85% 88% “[I-Corps] has fundamentally changed my approach to my

research … This foresight influences the types of

experiments we do, the way we write our publications, and

the way we write our grant proposals. “

ELs PIs

23 participants 2011-2012

Participants are creating entrepreneurial curricula

87 participants 2011-2013 121 participants 2011-2014

Example 2

Portugal

Genesis of Program

Country Mandated TTO starts in Portugal

Started in 2007

Focus on building capacity and outcomes

for TTO’s

Internationalize IP from Portuguese

Institutions

Called the University Technology

Enterprise Network (UTEN)

What was done

Institutional Assessment

Policy Review (IP and Others)

Development of Cohort of Highly trained

and Networked individuals across the

country

Assisted in Deal Making Worldwide

A Lot of Activity

Key Things to Understand about

Portugal at the Time

Faculty Owned IP

R&D Expenditure about 1.2% of GDP

(Low)

TTO’s were very new with an average age

of operations being about 3 years at

project start

TTO’s had competing priorities

Faculty Engagement was Hard

Patents produced were of dubious value…

Key Outcomes nearly 10 years

Later

TTO Processes redefined and

professionalized

Strong Global Linkages Made

Network of TTO Professionals with shared

experience and understanding

IP Law Changed

International Commercialization of

Portuguese IP

What about Turkey?

TTA Network Activities

Creating Shared Experiences

Building Capacity and Competency among

professionals

Develop Success Stories for Technology

Transfer

Help with building the institutional buy in

for TTO’s

Extreme Example of TTO Network

Deal Creation

Business Development

Opportunity Analysis

40%

35%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (years)

Res

ou

rce

Allo

cati

on

Revenue Generation

1. Resources experience a long, multi-faceted learning

curve before they achieve equilibrium (~ 3 – 4 years) 2. Average timeline from disclosure to deal exceeds 2 years 3. Average timeline from deal to revenue exceeds 6 years

a. Manufacturing & product introduction takes time b. Incubation timeline varies across industries

TTOs – Time Required to Achieve

Sustainable Revenue

Collaborative Technology

Commercialization Office (CTCO) – Critical mass of research budget – higher quantity

and quality of invention disclosures

– Talent acquisition, training and dissemination mediated from the hub to university constituents

– Regionally uniform practice linked to international best practice

– Leveraged cost model

– Revenue sharing model

– Hub model for company collaboration, licensing and incubation

– University offices address what they do best and CTCO focuses on uniform approaches to other activities

Goals of the CTCO

Develop Local Human Capital

Grow Regional Sustainability

Catalyze Global Economic Networks

Accelerate Wealth Creation

Financial Justification for CTCO

Financial model developed from 25 years

of data investigating US and non-US TTO

performance

Results from >170 institutions considered

Institutions represented in US, EU, Asia,

Australia

Financial Model Assumptions Licensable Technology Output:

– New Invention Disclosure (ID) as a function of research budget averages $1.5M to $3M in extramural research to generate one new Invention Disclosure (ID)

– According to industry standards, roughly ~ 30-50% of ID’s are patented

– Of those patented ID’s only ~ 15% will result in a licensing deal of some sort.

– Of those patents licensed, only < 15% of Licenses will generate revenue in excess of $1M

– According to research and experience, it takes between 8-15 Years until revenue recognized by a licensed invention beyond patent cost recovery.

Financial Assumptions Continued

Start Up Output at University – On average, ~ 10% of University Licenses go to Start Up

or Spin Out companies from the University

– Only 2/3 of Start Ups (66%) will receive necessary funding to operate independently beyond the first year of operations

– Of the Start Ups who receive funding, only 10-20% of Funded Start Ups will create value for University

– On average, it takes ~ 15 Years from Time of Disclosure to realize value for the university in the form of some kind of liquidity event for the Start Up

– On average it requires $30-300M in net R&D to produce 1 Start Up. This figure is dependent on the focus on the institution on applied vs. basic research.

More Financial Assumptions

Cost Basis for Assumptions:

– Most institutions can expect an annual growth in research budget of roughly 10%

– While cost for patent filings vary assumptions of costs include:

• ~$5,000 USD/application for national phase filings in Colombia

• Total Cost for international (PCT) prosecution at $25,000 USD;

• TTO operating budget at ~ .48% of total annual research budget of university;

Aggregate Assumptions for CTCO

Model Aggregate Assumptions:

– One invention disclosure with licensing or start-up potential will be submitted for every $1.5M USD in research budget;

– Of invention disclosures received, 40% will merit national patent filings;

– Of invention disclosures received, 15% will result in a licensing agreement with a outside company – established or startup;

– Of patents licensed by a TTO, 15% will result in significant revenue beyond repayment of patent costs;

– Only 50% of startups make it beyond year 1 and <25% will provide return;

– Start-up liquidity returns average at ~1% of total research budget;

Model for a Major Latin American

City Five representative

institutions chosen with “optimistic” research budgets

Only one institution may have a research budget of $50M USD/year or greater

Most institutions have research budgets of <$5M USD/year

$50.000.000

$12.000.000

$2.500.000

$25.000.000

$30.000.000

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RegionalNetAnnualProfitTTO

U1NetAnnualProfitTTO





Representative research budgets from universities (U1-U5) in the region.

Comparative Net Annual Profit:

10 Years

-$1,500,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RegionalNetAnnualProfitTTO






(CTCO)


20 Years

(CTCO)

-$5.000.000

$0

$5.000.000

$10.000.000

$15.000.000

$20.000.000

$25.000.000

Regional Net Annual Profit TTO

U1 Net Annual Profit TTO





5 10 15 20

-$5,000,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

WorstCaseIndividual BestCaseIndividual RegionalModelReturn


20 Years

(CTCO)

Financial Model Conclusions

Operating costs of CTCO are higher than individual TTO’s

CTCO revenue break even point is observed at Year 8

Net revenue of CTCO by years 9-10 at ~$2M USD/year

Net revenues of CTCO accelerate to >$20M by year 20

No university, even with $50M USD/year shows sustainable breakeven revenue

Best case for individual university is a ROI value of ~$3M USD while worst case is -$3M USD

CTCO ROI is >$18M USD

Compelling financial support for cooperative model

Regional TTO Office

Oversight Board and Funding

Body

University Partner

University Partner

University Partner

University Partner

University Partner

University Partner

Backbone Organization

Industry Partner

Governent Support

Potential Roadblocks to CTCO

Realization

Willingness to cooperate

IP rights assignment

Confidentiality

Competition issues

“Not invented here” syndrome

Priority allocation

Political issues

Sharing funding and staff

Wrap Up on National Networks

People are what Drive Networks, Not

Mandates

Group Learning and Standardization Early

lead to better Outcomes

In Person Meetings are Critical to

Fostering Relationships

Need to link in all elements of the

Ecosystem to make things work

Thank You

Heath Naquin

[email protected]

Building a National Technology Transfer Network · o Xcelerator o GIST o ASPIRE o BMEidea / DEBUT ....

Documents

Transcript of Building a National Technology Transfer Network · o Xcelerator o GIST o ASPIRE o BMEidea / DEBUT ....