VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 87 POSTED ON: 10/23/2012
The Basics of Technology Funding and Business Deals Rosemary French Innovation Strategist IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin Biographical Info Rosemary French, BA Innovation Strategist @ IC2 Institute • Expertise in Licensing: • Managed Life Science portfolio of over 100 patents alongside a Senior Licensing Specialist at the UT Austin OTC • Strategic partnership formation for early-stage R&D for over 20 selected high-value technologies • Patent license agreement negotiation: 15 licenses signed • Start-up creation: identified and vetted potential CEOs, negotiated startup licenses; mentored entrepreneurs to create investor-ready pitches Biographical info continued • OTC stats: – UT Austin OTC: $25.6 MM FY 10-11 – 150+ disclosures, 300+ patents processed FY 10-11 – 34 US and 28 Foreign patents issued in FY 10-11 • Involvement in International TTO Initiatives: – Performed on-site training and mentoring at two TTOs in Portugal, conducted research on 12 incubators across Portugal – Worked with over 50 innovators to provide strategic technology development and commercialization mentoring Key Learning Topics 1. Identifying technology funding vehicles 2. Rationale for R&D partnering relationships 3. Basic business deal structures 4. Basic business negotiation techniques Fact On an average, only 5% to 20% of R&D sees the light of day …the rest wither away on the shelf over time. (The Aberdeen Group, Boston) Discussion • What is the goal of technology commercialization? • Why create a TTO? Creating a Tech Commercialization Hub Pieces of the tech commercialization puzzle: University research TTO – Commercialization Strategies University-Industry Partnerships R&D, Start-up Company Incubation Efforts Enhance technology commercialization outcomes, university reputation Developing TTOs to Leverage Research for Public Benefit Lessons Learned: 1. Establish networks of TTOs – Mexican government encourages its public technology institutes to establish TTOs as networks – Example: Portugal TTO Network generated through UTEN – Small TTOs – difficult to gain international recognition – UTEN: established common framework for best practices – TTOs can exchange contacts through the network – International visitors can vet the top technologies from the entire network instead of visiting one institution at a time 2. Define Clear Rules on IP Rights – Encourage researchers to commercialize their ideas Percent of R&D Financed by Private Sector Low Level of Patenting in LAC Public funding of research in LAC has emphasized the generation of conceptual knowledge but has been less efficient at energizing technological innovation such as the production of patents R&D Investment in LAC • Challenge: Private participation is relatively low in LAC (% of R&D financed by private sector) • the majority of countries in LAC invest less in research and development (R&D) than other countries with similar income levels • LAC: Less than 50 percent of R&D investments are financed by private industry, which contrasts with the experience of dynamic global innovators such as China, Korea, and the United States Things to Consider • What are some ways to increase interaction between your university and potential industry partners? • Examples at UT Austin: “Ready to Commercialize” vs. UT system event Sponsored Research Example CardioSpectra, Inc. • Prof. Milner in collaboration with Interventional Cardiologist Marc Feldman, MD at the UT Health Science Center – San Antonio – developed an Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) diagnostic catheter for detecting vulnerable plaque. – allows doctors to better predict the likelihood a patient will suffer a heart attack based on vulnerable plaque, – provides diagnostic capabilities currently unavailable through existing technologies such as MRI, computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound devices. • Milner and Feldman founded CardioSpectra, Inc., a company through which the OCT system and catheter were marketed. – Sold to Volcano Corp. for $25MM, with additional milestone payments of $38MM 1. Identifying technology funding vehicles • Key Concept: Funding technologies and funding companies are two different things – When you ask for money, you need to know what you are selling • Colombia example How to fund companies: 1. Friends, Family and Fools 2. Private Equity – VCs and Angels 3. Government Funding a. National Science Foundation b. SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) c. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) How to fund technologies: 1. University sponsored research (not typical) 2. Government grants 3. Industry sponsored research • Examples of Sponsored Research at UT Funding Technologies • Strategic R&D Alliances between Industry and Research Centers – Mexico Example: the aeronautics alliance between several companies in Queretaro, universities and a public technology institute (established joint R&D lab in aeronautics – the first in Mexico). When can a company become involved with a university technology? • Commercialization Timeline Company Sponsored research Funding: Company Formation Initial Technology Start-up Company formed Commercialization Prototype Developed Roadmap: STP By Inventor 2. Rationale for R&D Partnering Relationships • University-industry relations consist of a variety of activities, including: – Sponsored Research – Licensing – Gifts and endowments designated for colleges, schools, departments, or individuals – University-industry exchange programs and student internships. – Continuing education and training of professionals Rationale for R&D Partnering Relationships (continued) – Participation of industry representatives in campus advisory groups – Cooperative research projects – Use of university facilities on a fee-for-service basis – Industrial parks – R&D facilities housed on university property – Faculty consulting Why R&D Partnerships with Industry? • Collaboration between industry and research – Create knowledge with a specific industrial application in mind • R&D partnership is about business deals and funding • Pursue Sponsored Research Opportunities • Enhance commercialization output • Enhance university reputation Activity • Make a list of 4 companies that could be potentially interested in licensing your technology and explain your rationale. Creating a strategic visions for University- Industry Partnerships • Applied research focus • Will your TTO actively pursue SRAs? – Office of Sponsored Projects • What kinds of firms will you target? – Large, leading international firms? – SMEs? – local sectors • Industry/market sector focus? Defining the Scope of Collaborations • Guiding Principle # 1: A successful university- industry collaboration should support the mission of each partner. Any effort in conflict with the mission of either partner will ultimately fail. – University mission: education of students, creation and dissemination of knowledge – Industry mission: create value for investors, provide useful goods and services, expand the state of the art Source: National Council of University Research Administrators and the Industrial Research Institute University Contribution to the Industry Mission • Retention of Trained Work Force: Training of future and current industry workforce (students) through undergraduate and advanced degrees • Publication: Contribution to the general knowledge base for public benefit Advancing the state of the art in a field • Knowledge Transfer: Acting as a filter to distill, from the general public knowledge base, a subset of that knowledge particularly applicable to industry’s product needs • Sponsored Research: Performance of specific research on behalf of industry Source: National Council of University Research Administrators and the Industrial Research Institute University Contribution to the Industry Mission (continued) • Technology Transfer: Licensing inventions and developments (Intellectual Property) for commercial purposes, including revenue generation • Providing access to university-owned equipment, materials, facilities and specialized resources • Fostering economic development that expands markets • Objectively testing, evaluating and reporting on new technology Industry Contribution to the University Mission • Employing students and graduates • Donating (equipment and money – either unrestricted or earmarked e.g., for scholarships, research, or facilities) • Providing either materials or funding for student internships and faculty sabbaticals • Employee time and knowledge donation through involvement in activities such as assisting student projects, guest lectures, service on thesis committees, service on advisory boards. • Material Transfer: Enabling access to industry-owned equipment, materials, facilities and specialized resources Source: National Council of University Research Administrators and the Industrial Research Institute Industry Contribution to the University Mission (continued) • Applied Research: Providing leading-edge research directions • Sponsored Research: Providing financial and/or in- kind support for specific research activities of interest to the industry partner • Paying technology licensing fees and royalties, which support ongoing research and educational programs • Publication: Contributing to general knowledge base (publication) • Technology Transfer: Bringing university contributions to the public in the form of goods and services University Constraints • Must educate students • Must perform research for public benefit • Must operate within changing federal and state rules and regulations, e.g. non-profit tax rules, export regulations and increased regulations on the use of humans, animals and hazardous materials • Must manage potential and actual conflicts of interest and commitments • Must be consistent with all sponsors • Academic year limitations on student and faculty time • Facing federal funding that is limited or nonexistent • Lack of match between industry segmentation of research and university segmentation (shared constraint) Industry Constraints • Research investments must show returns • Can distinguish basic and applied research, but distinction not always recognized by universities • Differences between external and internal research must be recognized and planned for by industry • External research must be part of a competitive business plan and budget • Must establish agreements in a commercially timely manner • Must establish agreements to ensure the ability to commercialize with appropriate returns • Research funded by industry usually requires clear goals, milestones, and specific time frames for completion A Long Term Relationship is the Desired End State • Guiding Principle # 2: Institutional practices and national resources should focus on fostering appropriate long-term partnerships between universities and industry. • university/industry partnership extends human intellectual reach and is key to regional competitiveness, innovation and economic development Establishing Long-Term Relationships with Industry Partners • The value of a long-term relationship can be greater than the sum of the individual transactions, and the relationship between the university and the industry partner may be more important than the results of one isolated project. • individual institutions should examine their policies, training, reward structures and business practices with an eye to whether they promote long-term partnering Establishing a Framework that Encourages Long Term Collaborations • Guiding Principle #3: Universities and industry should focus on the benefits to each party that will result from collaborations by streamlining negotiations to ensure timely conduct of the research and the development of the research findings. • Reducing time spent in negotiating terms Working with Industry: Key Considerations • IP rights – current and future joint IP • Material transfer affect on IP rights – Sending a sample to a company – Receiving equipment/material from a company 3. Basic Business Deal Structures 1. Challenges of Making a Deal Happen 2. Licensing vs. Spinout vs. Divestiture 3. Patent License Agreements: Goals and Prospective Outcomes Fact On an average, only 5% to 20% of R&D sees the light of day …the rest wither away on the shelf over time. (The Aberdeen Group, Boston) As a result… A B C Commercialize Protect & Enable Divest/Donate Execute 10_ the Business and/or License (25%-35%) (2%-5%) (50%-60%) 9_ 1 2 8_ 7_ 6_ 5_ 4_ 3_ 3 2_ 1_ Core Related Non Core Unrelated Non Core | | | | | | 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of Patents/Other IP Discussion • How many technologies does your TTO manage? • How many provisional patents would you file? How many full patents? Challenges: Technology to Market • Disconnect between R&D and potential market needs • Most IP are only part of a solution • IP developed for one use, ends up far more useful in another area • Lack of business sense • Lack of radical entrepreneurs/best practices – The ability to first say “yes” and then figure out “how” • Sense of risk aversion coupled with fear of failure – Failures are a necessary part of success • Lack of qualified risk capital – Big bets, big wins Source: International Business Accelerator, 2010 What does this mean for TTOs? • Proactive engagement with 20-30 potential licensees per technology is required to obtain a license • Focus on the technologies with the lowest risk and highest potential reward • Actively engage with industry: what does industry want/need? Does the technology fill that need? Converting IP into Cash Research & Development Patents Intellectual Property Business Divest License Spinout Cash Upfront Fee/ Equity Royalties Return On Investment “ROI” Source: International Business Accelerator, 2010 Commercialization Models RETURNS BENEFITS DRAWBACKS Cash (one- Divestiture time) One time windfall cash Loss of IP Responsibility (documentation, installation & Technology Control over pricing and maintenance) Upfront Fees & profits Sales force & staffing License Royalties Control over operations Warranties, liability Limited control - pricing & operations Business Potential of high returns Higher initial costs Responsibilities off-loaded Dilution by outside investors Spinout Equity to Spinout Losses upon failure Source: International Business Accelerator, 2010 Divestiture: Valuation • Cost-Based Method – This is the minimum that you should accept • Materials and Supplies • Lab time (use of equipment, electricity, resources) • PI and team hours (weighted) • Discounted Net Present Value – Seven years credible sales/Revenue Projections • Directly attributable to your IP • 20-30% discount rate • Market Value – What the buyer is willing to pay • Underlying purpose of acquiring IP Licensing Valuation • Early stage technology = high risk – Fees and royalty rates are rarely large – Most royalty rates are in the 3-6% range (at best) • Deciding factors: – Type of technology – Development stage – Size of potential market – Profit margin for anticipated product – Amount of perceived risk – Strength of the patents – Projected costs to bring a product to market What is the technology worth? A patentable idea increases in value with every step of the cycle. Source: Licensing Executive Society, Inc. The Basics of Licensing. How do I determine the value of an idea? • Factors that influence royalty rates: – The strength and scope of the protected IP; – The expense necessary for a license to reach full production; – The cost of any additional R&D required; – The exclusivity or non-exclusivity of the licensing agreement; – The geographic scope of the license; – The competitive product, processes, and technology available to the prospective licensee; – The total market and its estimated growth; – Common industry or standard license rates; and, – Whether the license covers all or part of a process or product. Source: Licensing Executive Society, Inc. The Basics of Licensing. Evolution of Agreements in Commercialization Confidentiality Agreement Material Transfer Agreement/Inter- Institutional Agreement Options Licensing Agreements What’s Missing from the List?? Consultancy Agreements can and usually do happen at various stages in the commercialization process. Scenario 1 • Researcher at Public Institution want to engage in collaborative research exchange with an interested partner. • Proprietary Chemical/Biological Materials Developed are Present • Examples would Include: – transgenic animals – cell lines & cultures – Antibodies – Microorganisms (Bacteria, enzymes, yeast, etc.) – vectors (plasmids, baculoviruses) – chemicals (including drugs/pharmaceuticals) CDA vs. MTA • MTA’s take CDA’s a step further by covering: – Permitted Use of Materials – Prohibited Use of Materials – Access to Results – Use of Results – Publication Rights – Ownership of Resulting IP – Royalties Can be Introduced Scenario 2 • Researcher wants to enter into a research collaboration with another partner • Can be Public or Private, but usually academic or research focused in nature • Can cover almost any level of science • Examples: – Joint researcher grant applications – Co-Orientation of PhD student research outside of home institution – Co-Technology Development – Shared Laboratory Space and Equipment for Research Among Institutions Key Components of Inter-Institutional Agreements • Roles and Responsibilities in Research • Governs Resource Allocation • Resulting IP Ownership Splits are Pre-Defined and can be Re-Negotiated during research • Defines PI and Co-PI relationship • Defines Responsible Party for Publication and/or Commercialization Efforts Scenario 3 • Researcher has a proprietary IP on an invention which has garnered commercial interest • Interested Party would like to exclusively evaluate IP for validity and applicability to it’s own needs • Interested Party wants to: – To acquire a particular right (e.g. a patent licence) or asset (e.g. a patent); – To require another party to enter into an agreement (in a specified form) or to negotiate the terms of a further agreement; – To evaluate materials, products or assets to determine whether to enter into further agreements (such as further research or licensing arrangements). Evolution of a Licensing Deal • No single process for developing a licensing deal • Critical factors for success: – Networking – Research – Proactive marketing tactics Evolution of a Licensing Deal 1. Establish mutual interest at the non- confidential level. a. IP rights can be lost if the idea is disclosed without taking adequate precautions. b. Licensee may ask to see related publications. c. Multiple discussions needed to develop trust and interest. a. Can get discouraging – don’t give up! Option Agreement Characteristics • Provide Right of First Refusal • Usually involves a Fee • Generally Provides Exclusivity • Limited in Time (Usually up to 6 Months) • Can be Stand Alone or part of other types of agreements (i.e. clause) Scenario 4 • Researcher’s Lab has developed Method for Drug Discovery • IP is Present • Industry (or Increasingly Institutions) want access and control of technology future development • Term Sheet has been Presented • Negotiations have concluded Critical Elements of Licensing Agreement • Definition of IP to be transferred • Geographical Coverage • Fields of Use • Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusivity • Third Party Rights • Sublicensing • Recovery Provisions • Royalty Rates • Patent Payments and Maintenance Responsibilities • Up Front Fees and Payments • Development Fees and Requirements • Others Example of PLA Terms • Patent License Agreement • Patent License Agreement for Startups Resources For You • Praxis Unico http://www.praxisunico.org.uk/re sources/practical-guides.asp • AUTM (Assoc. of University Technology Managers) • LES (Licensing Executives Society) Evolution of a Licensing Deal 1. Non-disclosure agreement if there is interest to discuss a potential licensing opportunity. a. Licensee is often reluctant to sign an NDA. 2. Due Diligence – Both Sides a. Licensee: does the technology have real commercial potential? b. Licensor: motives for licensing, types of past deals with universities, current related products and level of success Patent License Agreement: Basic Goals 1. Refund patent costs and future conversion fees 2. Ongoing considerations to the university (a royalty) 3. Required minimum annual royalties after a specified period of time regardless of actual sales 4. Performance milestones to assure that the university’s technology enters the market PLA: Basic Goals (continued) • This "formula" hopefully assures: – technology is developed to completion and put in the stream of commerce – a fair return to the university – the technology is returned to the university should the licensee not pay the minimums or achieve the specified performance milestones. Evolution of a Deal 4. License Negotiation a. A license is a trade b. It only happens when both sides conclude that they will benefit by entering the deal more than the cost, or loss, required to make the deal possible. Basic Terms and Conditions of a Patent License Agreement In general, all licenses fall into three categories, namely: 1. Exclusive: Only the licensee can exploit the license. 2. Sole: Both the licensee and licensor can exploit the license (this kind of license is relatively rare). 3. Nonexclusive: The licensor and an unlimited number of licensees can exploit the license. Patent License Agreement Terms • Patent Fees: Licensee is expected to repay all patent costs to date, and to cover future conversion fees • Payments associated with Diligence Milestones – Sponsored Research – R&D Milestones associated with a fee – First sale of Licensed Product • Sublicense fees • Annual royalties • Equity Royalty Rate Definition • are usage-based payments made by one party (the "licensee") to another (the "licensor") for the right to ongoing use of an asset, sometimes an IP. • Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. Determining Royalty Rate • No such thing as an industry standard patent royalty rate • On the average, royalty rates tend to run between 4-6% of “Net Sales” • Other important factors to consider: – Minimum royalties • It is unwise to draft a license agreement, especially exclusive licensing agreements, unless there is a provision for minimum royalties. Determining Royalty Rate • The primary purpose of minimum royalties is to give the licensee an incentive to exploit the license. • Royalties Based on Net Sales – Generally paid quarterly – “Net Sales” are usually defined as gross sales minus usual trade discounts, taxes, transportation and returns. Licensing: Setting a Royalty Rate The 25% Rule • Usually applied to set a royalty rate • Estimate the licensee’s operating profit (related to your IP), over royalty period • Divide that total profit, by the net sales over that period = Profit rate • Royalty rate = 25% of the profit rate • Can also be used for a single payment deal • Estimate the licensee’s operating profit (related to your IP), over royalty period • Licensor’s share = 25% of operating profit • Single payment = Probabilistic net present value of (25% of operating profit) • The 25% “rule” applies only if both sides agree to use this method * Goldscheider et al. “Use of the 25% rule in Valuing IP” Licensing: Royalty Rates Lower Limit Upper Limit Median Chemicals 0.5% 25.0% 3.6% Computers 0.2% 15.0% 4.0% Consumer goods 0.0% 17.0% 5.0% Electronics 0.5% 15.0% 4.0% Energy 0.5% 20.0% 5.0% Food 0.3% 7.0% 2.8% Health care 0.1% 77.0% 4.8% Machine / tools 0.5% 25.0% 4.5% Pharma & biotech 0.1% 40.0% 5.1% Semiconductors 0.0% 30.0% 3.2% Software 0.0% 70.0% 6.8% Telecom 0.4% 25.0% 4.7% (3% to 7%) * Goldscheider et al. les Nouvelles. Dec. 2002 4. Basic Business Deal Negotiation Techniques 1. What Makes a Good Negotiator? 2. Preparing for Negotiations 3. Patent License Agreement: Negotiating Terms Qualities of a Good Negotiator Negotiation Myths • “The average person is not tough enough to win at negotiations” – Negotiation is not a combat sport; bullies are not successful for very long. • “Negotiation is all-or-nothing. You are either a winner or a loser” – Negotiations should be a win-win proposition. Negotiation Myths • “Only good talkers make good negotiators” – Good listeners make the best negotiators. • “Negotiation requires people who are selfish and rude” – Not rude but okay to be assertive, not timid • “Women do not make effective negotiators” – Women generally tend to be better listeners and more collaborative. Profile of a Negotiator • Negotiation • Focus on satisfaction consciousness • Willingness to take • Listening risks • The ability to ask • Solving the problem good questions • Willingness to walk • High aspirations away • Patience • Flexibility Are you a good negotiator? • How much experience do you have with license negotiation? • How confident are you with your negotiations skills? • What has gone well for you in your past negotiation experiences? • What has not gone well? How can you be more prepared next time? Negotiation’s 4 Outcomes 1. Lose-Lose – Neither party achieves their needs or wants – e.g. exercise exclusive option sponsored research 2. Win-Lose, Lose-Win – One party makes outstanding gains while the other one loses out Negotiation’s 4 Outcomes 3. No Outcome – Parties are not able to come to terms that they can agree upon – Not always a bad thing; better not to do a deal than to do a bad deal 4. Win-Win – The needs and goals of each party are met Negotiation’s 4 Outcomes • Three keys to creating a win-win outcome – Avoid narrowing the negotiation down to one issue – Realize your counterpart does not have the same needs and wants you do – Do not assume you know your counterpart’s needs Recap • University-Industry Partnerships – Focus on developing a relationship – Be careful about IP • Funding technologies and funding companies are two different things – Create unique pitches for every meeting • Win-win negotiation – Be prepared – Be flexible and focus on the relationship – Know when to walk away Questions? Preparing for Licensing Negotiations • Who are the parties to the prospective agreement? (University, R&D organization, Large Co., Small Co.) • What are the objectives of each party? (Is there a basis for a commercially viable agreement?) • What are the performance expectations? (Is each party able to perform what the other expects?) • Who should drive the licensing negotiations? (Internal Drivers vs. External Drivers) • Does IP owner provide R&D, Tech support, know-how, consultants, or other deliverables in addition to IP?
"Return On Investment ROI"