Technology Transfer University of Colorado Denver

Invention Evaluation and Triageat the University of Colorado

Rick Silva, PhD DirectorRick.Silva@cu.edu(303) 724-0222

https://www.cu.edu/techtransfer/http://techexplorer.cusys.edu/

David AllenAVP

Technology Transfer

Kathe ZaslowDirector of Operations

Tom SmerdonDirector,

Licensing and New Business Development

Kate TallmanDirectorUCB/UCCS

Rick Silva,Director

UCD

IP/Patent Group (3 FTE)

Finance andAdministration

(2 FTE)

UCBoulder Team3 Licensing Assoc

1 Admin Asst

UCD Team3 Licensing staff

¾ Admin asst.4 Marketing assoc

IT/Database(1 FTE)

CU System TTO Organization

10-12 FTE Interns and paid contractors

5 Management group FTEs6 Licensing professional FTEs 8 ¾ Admin FTEs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nu

mb

er

of

Tra

ns

ac

tio

ns

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

UCD Disclosure Activity 2002-2008

Disclosures

Background and volume

• Quick asset identification is importantBiomaterials 2

Chemicals and Materials 4Research Tool 9

Total Materials and Tools 15

Diagnostic-Assay and Analytics 3Diagnostic-Biomarker(Adverse Events and Prognosis) 8

Diagnostic-Biomarker(Disease Detection) 13Diagnostic-Biomarker(Drug Response) 11

Total Diagnostics 35

Medical Devices-Designs, Improvements and Prototype 19Medical Devices-Diagnostic and Bioanalytic 1

Medical Devices-Implantable Devices 4Total Medical Device 24

Therapeutic-Drug Target 4Therapeutic-New Use or Method of Treatment 27

Therapeutic-Novel Chemical Entity 5Drug Delivery and Formulation-Targeted Delivery 1

Total Therapeutics 37

Software-Bio/Healthcare Informatics 6

Other 4

TOTAL INVENTION DISCLOSURES 121

UCD Invention Dislosures by Type (FY 2007-08)

Total Materials and Tools12%

Total Diagnostics29%

Total Medical Device20%

Total Therapeutics31%

Software-Bio/Healthcare Informatics

5%

Other 3%

Total Materials and Tools Total DiagnosticsTotal Medical Device Total TherapeuticsSoftware-Bio/Healthcare Informatics Other

Background and volume

Background and volume

On pace for 24+ exclusive licenses and options in the current fiscal year

4

410

8

7

8

12

7

18

2

0

5

10

15

20

Nu

mb

er o

f T

ran

sact

ion

s

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

UCD Transactional Activity 2004-2008

Exclusive Licenses

Options *

*

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Nu

mb

er

of

Tra

ns

ac

tio

ns

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

UCD Venture Activity 2002-2008

Startups

Background and volume

$372,215

$20,521$984,505

$283,296

$38,180$1,741,165$1,785,577

$218,894$1,198,797

$3,488,194

$164,590$1,409,376

$3,509,729

$214,651.29

$5,309,687

$3,995,641

$309,516

$4,813,144

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

UCD TTO Revenue 2002-2008

TTO Related Sponsored Research Funding

Patent Reimbursement Income

TOTAL License Income

Background and volume

2002-2005 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 YTD TOTAL

TTO Related Sponsored Research Funding 4,124,467.00$ 1,814,376.00$ 6,995,645.00$ 4,258,144.00$ 17,192,632.00$ Proof of Concept Funding 200,000.00$ 405,000.00$ 1,685,958.00$ 597,500.00$ 2,888,458.00$

TOTAL License Income 2,441,088.76$ 3,488,194.38$ 3,509,729.20$ 3,995,641.00$ 13,434,653.34$ Patent Reimbursement Income 277,594.53$ 164,590.20$ 214,651.29$ 309,516.28$ 966,352.30$

INCOMING TECHNOLOGY INDUCED CAPITAL 6,843,150.29$ 5,467,160.58$ 10,720,025.49$ 8,563,301.28$ 31,593,637.64$ Gross Patent Expenditures 1,133,041.37$ 403,923.68$ 446,441.03$ 569,784.49$ 1,420,149.20$

Exclusive LicensesNA NA 8 8 7 18 45OptionsNA NA 10 7 12 2 35

Exclusive Licenses and OptionsNA NA 18 15 19 20 80Non exclusive licensesNA NA 10 23 4 2 53

Total New License Transactions Executed 52 28 26 27 22 155Disclosures 191 77 134 120 78 600

New Patents Filed 195 57 84 86 72 334New Patents Issued 59 7 16 6 7 95

Service Agreements (MTA, CDA, SRAs) 1134 480 448 594 454 3110Startups 8 6 5 7 1 27

Background and volume

Guiding Principles

• Effective triage, life cycle, and portfolio management must be systematic and transparent

• Prioritize resource allocation objectively, have transparent criteria

• A filter reflecting “TTO Pragmatism,” with a bit of investment discipline

• Buy time and let the market pick winners• Leverage external expertise & bandwidth to add value• Prune- fail early, fail cheaply where possible

Customer Service

• Shared interest, shared responsibility• Plot the course early, divide homework

assignments, reevaluate in 9 months Advancement is milestone and deliverable driven

• Try to make it work, solve problems, get to yes• We are not here to say no unless we have to,

let the market decide• Validate promising opportunities and assets

through POC funding or partnering

Portfolio Management

Portfolio Management• Portfolio strategy is critical to resource allocation

Number of Projects Technology Type

POC Award Amount

Additional Grant Funding Angel Investment Venture Investment TOTAL Leverage Multiple1

2 Materials and Tools 75,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0020 Device 1,087,402.00$ 900,000.00$ 800,000.00$ 3,081,057.00$ 4,781,057.00$ 4.4010 Diagnostic 756,169.00$ 1,174,260.00$ -$ 750,000.00$ 1,924,260.00$ 2.5437 Therapeutic 3,358,449.00$ 2,236,706.00$ 2,600,000.00$ 99,150,000.00$ 103,986,706.00$ 30.9669 5,277,020.00$ 4,310,966.00$ 3,400,000.00$ 102,981,057.00$ 110,692,023.00$ 20.98

• Societal impact is a major subjective outcome we strive to achieve.• Therapeutics are the most scalable of our technologies from

a clinical impact and economic development perspective.• Our resource allocation is leverage driven, i.e. follow-on investment

is a key outcome we monitor

Triage

• Reduce legal costs– Distinguish discoveries from inventions– Tee it up, draft claims & embodiment outline– Describe the product (i.e. a drug, method of Tx)– Are near term development and proof points

funded? – Leverage relationships w/ law firms, volume pricing

UC Denver 2007-08, $2168 per disclosure received, CU System 2007-08, $1683 per disclosure received

Triage•If we don’t/can’t own it (or have an interest), No-Goo Passive ownership is acceptable, often desirableo We won’t subsidize sponsor owned patent filingso Somebody has to work on it going forward

•Roadmap the case from the starto Define enabling experiments at filingo Ensure scientific commitment & inventor ownershipo Define the value proposition and addressable market early, it will guide

the development plan or business plano Ensure milestones are clear and funded (or funding planned)

•Define the exit strategyo Will conversion of provisional depend on development funding and/or POC? Enablement? Licensing? Mkt interest?o Give inventors homework, shared ownership, shared commitmento Try to stick to the exit discipline

Receive disclosure

Accept disclosure

Data incomplete-On Hold

Commercial feasibility analysis

Startup -or -

licensing

4 months

Release rights to inventor

Advise Inventor (s)

of commercial plan

Release rights to inventor

Agreement clarifying rights

Notification of other owners

Rights Determination

Review of Related contracts

Legal Market IP Technical

Internal

processing

Internal

Analysis

Create case add to database

Assign manager

External

Development

Marketing

Business plan

Release rights to inventor

ManagementTerm sheet

Term Sheet/Negotiation

Patent Filing

Interest?

No

YesDirector

Case Manager

Mkt Manager

Tech Intern JD Intern

Domain Advisors/Partners

Assign Grade/classification

Admin

Triage - Life Cycle Mgt

Triage• Monitor the filter, fine tune it

As a percentage of disclosures received 2003 - 2004 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008

Invention Disclosures Received 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Provisional Patents Filed 64.8% 52.6% 39.2% 23.0% 20.7%

Regularized Patents Filed 50.7% 31.6% 31.6% 15.6% 7.4%

License and Options Executed 49.3% 56.6% 31.6% 23.0% 11.6%

Active Technologies 53.5% 76.3% 82.3% 80.0% 92.6%

UC Denver

2003 - 2004 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008Invention Disclosures

Received 71 76 79 135 121

Provisional Patents Filed 46 40 31 31 25

Regularized Patents Filed 36 24 25 21 9

License and Options Executed 35 43 25 31 14

Active Technologies 38 58 65 108 112

UC Denver

Prioritize- Active Mgt• A = Term sheet and transaction pending

• B = First priority for marketing & patent $

• C = Viable, second priority marketing & patent $

• D = Viability issues, candidate for abandonment

• U = Unresolved ownership, enablement, viability concerns (undecided on patenting)

Manager A B C D U Active E M N O X Z No Grade Total

David Poticha 20 22 43 52 1 138 42 14 9 18 80 1 0 302

Paul Tabor 5 2 4 4 4 19 1 0 3 5 3 0 0 31

Rick Silva 17 2 20 10 0 49 30 4 3 7 121 0 0 214

Susana Read 22 18 55 24 3 122 37 36 5 6 73 3 0 282

Total for UC Denver 64 44 122 90 8 328 110 54 20 36 277 4 0 829

Senior Mgr.AssocManagerDirector

Prioritize- Passive Mgt

• E = Exclusively committed, not in play

• N = Nonexclusively committed, still in play

• M = Tangible Materials and Tools

• O = Managed by coowner

• X = Released, Abandoned, or Inactive

Buying Time

• Refile undisclosed provisionals• Wait to regularize as long as possible• Utilize penalties for expensive filings at the

margins• Rolling divisionals• Keep cheap keepers• Nationalize crown jewels, top 5-10%• Find subsidies through optionees

Leverage

• “Form”ulate a roadmap: use an eval form to gather info on ownership, FTO, prior art, addressable market.

• PhD students, postdocs, MD, JD students can all be valuable resources if well trained and mentored to help execute a well defined tech & IP eval. process.

• MBA students need to be utilized thoughtfully, they are usually driven by market and financial analysis. Avoid the garbage in, garbage out problem.

Leverage

• Advisory panels are customers, buyers, collaborators and advisors. Most importantly, they can open doors.

• Let the market guide us: use feedback from future partners

• Take advantage of QUALITY incubation infrastructure

• If you have POC funds, let advisors push projects forward with “OPM” (Other People’s Money)

Prune the portfolio

• Let the market decide about value and merit, assume nothing, externalize feedback

• Avoid tendency to apply a VC or in-licensing philosophy (i.e. use the wrong filter)

• Use market feedback to drive consensus on the roadmap and NoGos

• Build consensus about abandonment decisions• Justify abandonment with data and rationale• Changing your mind is ok

Technology Transfer University of Colorado Denver

Invention Evaluation and Triage

Rick Silva, PhD DirectorRick.Silva@cu.edu

Thanks

https://www.cu.edu/techtransfer/http://techexplorer.cusys.edu/