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

1. COMMERCIALIZATION AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
TASK FORCE MEETING
February 27, 2013 | 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
LSU Shreveport | Noel Library 3rd Floor Assembly Room

2. WELCOME, CHARGE AND
INTRODUCTIONS
Bill Silvia and Bill Comegys, Operations and Technology
Sub-Committee Co-Chairs

3. AGENDA REVIEW
AND LOGISTICS
Dr. Christel Slaughter, SSA Consultants

4. 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

5. Save the Date
Next Meeting:
March 13, 10 a.m. to noon
LSU Ag Center, 214 Efferson Hall, Baton Rouge

6. 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

7. INTRODUCTION OF
THE PRESENTER
Bill Silvia, Operations and Technology Sub-Committee Co-Chair

8. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:
A REPORT
Margaret Wagner Dahl, Associate Provost for Economic
Development and Director, Georgia BioBusiness Center

9. PROPOSAL REVIEW
AND DISCUSSION:
THE HUMAN HEALTH
TECHNOLOGY
COMMERCIALIZATION
PROPOSAL
Facilitated by Margaret Wagner Dahl,
Associate Provost for Economic
Development
University of Georgia

10. 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)

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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!

21. LUNCH
Group Discussion

22. JOE LOVETT
Managing General Partner, Louisiana Fund I

23. ROSS BARRETT
Managing Partner, BVM Capital, LLC

24. BVM Capital
Overview for LSU Transition
Sub-Committee
Technology and Commercialization
February 2013
by
Ross P. Barrett

25. 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

26. Portfolio Companies-Louisiana Ventures, LP
26

27. Portfolio Companies—Themelios Ventures, LP
27
27

28. Themelios--Capital Invested as of December 31, 2011 (plus
syndicated 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Our Investments—Two example of
What We Have Created
31

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. DR. TAMMY DUGAS
LSUHSC-S, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and
Neuroscience

37. Technology Transfer:
The Faculty Perspective
Dr. Tammy R. Dugas, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Pharmacology, Toxicology and
Neuroscience
LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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 companies
There is a need for a scientist/advocate on the campus!

41. 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

42. 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.

43. 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.

44.  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

45. 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?!

46. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Group Discussion

47. ADJOURNMENT