Raising Capital and Launching Startups in Uncertain Times

This is part of my Series on Venture Capital.

A few weeks ago I authored a post describing five common myths about raising capital. In this webinar organized by the National Council for Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer, I am joined by colleagues of mine from the venture, angel and legal community to specifically address the challenges of raising capital and launching new companies in a difficult economic environment. The webinar's agenda also includes the following specific sub-topics:

• How recent market developments are affecting tech transfer offices and startups.
• Emerging trends in the angel investment market.
• Emerging trends in the venture investment market.
• Changes in legal terms of startup transactions.
• Positioning startups for funding and operational success.

In my remarks I specifically address how the economic downturn has affected university start-ups/spin-offs and what steps university venture labs can take in light of such conditions.  I welcome your insights as always.

Notable Posts: "Read All About It"

 

London VC, "Does Operational Experience Help a VC?"

In VC deals, Price Doesn't Matter - But The "Promote" Does

WSJ on Andreesen

Don’t Raise Money: China StartupBlog

University Spinoffs: Bridging the Cultural Divide

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 A big factor in having success spinning-out university startups is the ability to bridge the cultural gap between academia and the investment community.  I think about this divide a great deal, both as a long-time investor in this space and perhaps even moreso now that I am the director of a prominent university venture lab which spins out 10-12 new companies a year.

I was therefore delighted to recently come across this short post written by Amit Monga, Professor of Finance at the University of Alberta. He shares some excellent insights into the practice of investing in university startups courtesy of his prior experience as a venture capitalist.  Dr. Monga’s central premise is that investors want to see much more than technology when they speak with a university tech transfer office.  They are, after all, in the business of launching new companies, which require quite a bit more to succeed than the initial invention or discovery.

What really caught my eye, however, is his very first point which addresses the cultural divide to which I refer above. He points out that whereas it’s very much the custom in academia to focus on a professor’s achievements in research, (including his or her credentials, awards, honors, the number of grad students in their lab, etc.), the reality is that investors first want to hear a value proposition articulated for a potential business. Monga asserts that investors must actually have the answer to this question within the first five minutes of a pitch.

Having politely sat through quite a number of such lengthy introductions that never quite arrive at describing the “pain in the market”, I must wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Monga. In fact, I would say that this value proposition should be expressed within the first two minutes of a pitch.  If the investor is interested, there will be plenty of time to learn more about the professor’s academic achievements. 

I’ll go a step further on the subject of the cultural divide and say that I’ve seen instances where an investor’s motives are viewed extremely dimly by the academic. This too can be a problem.  Again, in this instance, it’s incumbent on the tech transfer folks to invite only the most reputable people into the university and to help work through any ingrained biases that might exist on either side.  For an eventual start-up to be successful, both parties will have to get along extremely well and will come to rely on each other. Start-ups are the very opposite of “arms-length” transactions.

So whether you’re an angel investor, a VC, an entrepreneur, a grad student, a post-doc or a university professor, it’s always valuable to approach university spin-offs with a great deal of cultural sensitivity and understanding.  I assure you, this sort of awareness alone can make all the difference.

For Part Ten in this Series, click here

My Interview on Venture Hype

This is part of my Series on Angel Investing. A few weeks ago I was interviewed by the great team at Venture Hype, a popular web-portal dealing with all aspects of angel investing. The interview was posted earlier today and can be found here. We begin by discussing my background and how I became immersed in the world of entrepreneurship and early-stage investing. We then go on to cover various aspects of academic entrepreneurship and university spin-offs, what works and what doesn't work, and what investing in this space is all about. Lastly, we touch on angel investing more generally. As always, I welcome your input and questions.

 For the next post in this Series, click here.

Launching Your Company: Send Lawyers, Guns and Money? Or Do It Yourself!

This is part of my Series on Entrepreneurial Culture.

The classic Warren Zevon refrain, “Send Lawyers, Guns and Money”, could very wellepitomize the attitude many first-time entrepreneurs take on when launching their companies.  In fact, I’m asked the question, “Which lawyer should I hire?” so often that I decided to share my quick thoughts on this matter.

In my opinion you actually do not need a lawyer. What you really need is a successful serial entrepreneur to be your mentor. She or he can help you not only with incorporation but with all the other issues you’ll be facing as you launch the new company.

In a nutshell- hold your fire and save your money.

Nowadays it’s a breeze to incorporate online and there are services such as Legal Zoom and others that remove any need whatsoever for engaging counsel.  Furthermore, standard Operating Agreements are widely available and figuring out whether to start an LLC, an S Corp or a C Corp or what state is best suited for your newco basically involves a two minute conversation with your mentor.  To pay a lawyer a handsome retainer and hourly fees to help you with any of these issues is a complete waste of money in my opinion.

If you don’t have an experienced mentor to help you and absolutely insist on hiring a lawyer, please remember that these services are a commodity. You should only work with reputable, respected lawyers that primarily work with start-up companies and who are well-regarded in your local entrepreneurial and investment community. If you go elsewhere you will most likely be shelling out thousands of dollars for the usual rigmarole. Reputable counsel will help you set things up inexpensively and will be a resource that is available to you as you grow your company.  Their value will manifest itself once you actually have a revenue-generating business and are perhaps raising your first round of institutional funding. 

I of course welcome you to share your thoughts and experiences on this topic.

Deal Terms for University Spin-Offs

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Everyone asks about deal terms at some point, so we may as well address it sooner than later. Let’s say you’ve now visited a few tech transfer offices and you are ready to talk to their New Ventures person about spinning out some IP into a start-up.  What kind of deal terms should you be looking for?

The reality is that every deal is different and so it’s difficult to generate a one-size-fits-all response. Also be mindful that university tech transfer offices across the country vary greatly in their approach to start-ups.

Here are some very general guidelines to a fair deal that you may find helpful, however:

• In most cases you should obtain an exclusive license to the technology in the fields in which you intend to operate

• In most cases you should seek to back-end the economics of the deal and stay away from high up-front license fees

• You should be prepared to partner with the university and let it have an equity stake in the company. (We will have a separate series of posts on equity considerations as there are many nuances here).

• You should mutually agree to some diligence milestones that lay-out time-lines for things like first product sale and in some cases capital-raised or revenue targets. These should have built-in flexibility and not be harsh

• Royalties depend a great deal on the industry in which you’ll be operating but should never be a yoke around your neck- allowing you to operate with a comfortable margin

If you’re not getting a deal done that reflects a win-win you should quickly move on, but such negative outcomes are less and less frequent. More and more offices understand the challenges of launching a start-up and, when a talented entrepreneur is at the table, increasingly have the right approach.

For Part Nine in this Series, click here

How America’s New CTO Can Help Launch Game-Changing University Spin-Offs

This is part of my Series on Entrepreneurial Culture.

I was introduced to America’s new CTO, Aneesh Chopra, a few years ago after a rousing speech he gave in Washington DC. Back then he was Virginia’s Secretary of Technology and I clearly remember being impressed by what a great a speaker he was and just how different he was from the typical government policy wonk we’ve all heard talking in broad strokes about the importance of technology, job-creation and the like. As he was finishing his speech people actually got up off their seats and started applauding. He had the whole place buzzing.

This was obviously a guy with great intellect who was talking specifics and who brought a tremendous understanding of the tech landscape to the table. Tim O’Reilly actually wrote the definitive post (http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/aneesh-chopra-great-federal-cto.html ) about Chopra back in April and it is well worth reading as it outlines his qualifications, his vision and the many initiatives he brought to fruition in Virginia. This is someone who actually gets things done!

I’m bringing Chopra up because he was recently interviewed by the New York Times http://bit.ly/PIPwJ  and specifically mentioned what he’d like to see change within University Technology Transfer:

“Mr. Chopra noted that among universities, there is a wide range in how effective they are in commercializing the work of their laboratories. He wants to take the practices used by the most commercial of universities and spread them to other research facilities.”  He also stated that “…. rather than purely thinking about basic research…. the government should focus on investing in technologies that can be developed. A first step is to find ways to actually measure how much research is being commercialized.”

These statements were quite stunning to me actually. First of all, a prominent government official was unequivocally stating that some universities are doing a better job commercializing IP than others.  Second, in terms of that age-old policy debate  that pits the funding of pure basic research against the funding of commercializable technologies, Chopra feels that government must also fully embrace the latter. This is refreshingly plain talk from a senior political appointee.  

So how do we make this happen? I believe that the best way for the government to help commercialize the country’s most promising university technologies would be through the creation of a special fast-track program.  This program would selectively provide proof-of-concept funding for breakthrough university technologies suited for a spin-off. Bridging this “gap phase” or “valley of death” as it is called in the industry, is the most formidable challenge we are faced with in the world of university spin-offs.  This money would thus be used to fund the vital proof-of-principle work that really needs to get done before talented investors/entrepreneurs can be incentivized to spin-off companies from the academy. I am specifically talking about funds for beta versions of software, prototypes for medical devices and animal studies for drug discovery projects.

Obviously these emerging spin-offs would have to address the innovation mission of the Administration http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology/ : Modernized infrastructure: broadband, health care information tech, electrical grid & cyber-security.

The other crucial feature of this Program would be to assemble a world-class Selection Board comprised of successful entrepreneurs and/or investors with domain expertise in the relevant disciplines. This Board would not only select the country’s best spin-off opportunities but could also help recruit the right management for them.

Hopefully I'll be able to get this message to Aneesh because I truly believe it could lead to the emergence of game-changing university spin-off companies that could have a role in helping us transform this economy.

The Three Most Common White Lies I’ve Heard Told to VC’s

 

This is part of my Series on Venture Capital.

I see a lot of amazing things happen when investors and entrepreneurs interact. I’ve witnessed and been a part of many Venus-Mars moments, the rare love-fest and then of course, what I call the annual train wreck. Today I’ve chosen three questions that may come your way that you ought to understand when you’re out raising capital. I chose these specific questions from the multitude only because I’ve cringed at the responses I’ve heard so many times.

Q: So, how much money have you raised or invested in this company?

This question is actually the least loaded of the three I’ve chosen. It’s very straightforward. On three separate occasions this year, however, I’ve heard the entrepreneur, (who in each case had raised zero money), throw out a number in response that roughly corresponded to the non-dilutive grant money the company had received in the past, prior to his involvement. At least once this number was in excess of one million dollars and gave the impression of a large seed round of some kind. Whereas these responses were technically not outright falsehoods, I knew in each case that there was an intent to ‘slip this one by’.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the investor really wanted to know two things: 1: Have you put any of your own money into this company? And 2: Has anyone else put actual money into this company as an equity investment? If the company, (or the lab technology pre-company for that matter), received grant money in the past that is wonderful- but be specific about it. You are building a relationship with a potential partner after all. First of all it’s the right thing to do. Also, the investor will certainly find out eventually when he or she sees the cap table. So be clear and honest in all your answers. An example of an acceptable answer might be: “The company received some non-dilutive grant money from Gov’t Program Z one year ago, but no, we have no equity investors as of yet”.

Q: I see, so who else in the investment community are you speaking with?

Ok, so this is a rather loaded question. Some entrepreneurs greatly resent it and perhaps with good reason. They know full well that the VC will be calling any fund they volunteered by name soon after they depart the building. Georges van Hoegaerden of the Venture Company (www.venturecompany.com)  is particularly critical of this question and others like it and feels that it is an indicator of what he colorfully terms a “sub-prime VC” and the lemming mentality he so detests. http://venturecompany.com/opinions/files/detect_subprime_vc.html

But let’s put these macro issues aside for the moment. Let’s face it- when you ask someone to invest in your company, you have implicitly submitted yourself to entertaining questions of all kinds, (no matter how inappropriate). So how should one answer such a question? Well, here’s some practical advice. Don’t hem and haw and don’t start out on some long-winded, rambling and evasive story. Be prepared for how you want to answer this question. If you decide ahead of time that you won’t answer this, prepare an elegant response. For example, you could say something like “I’m talking to a number of funds but am really looking for the right partner who believes in this team and this vision”. If you’re willing to answer, do so and mention the funds with whom you’ve spoken. How you choose to respond is largely a matter of taste and personality I think, but the key is to have conviction, prepare and be forthright. Never hem and haw and never equivocate.

Q: Got it, so this is really interesting. What’s the valuation of the company?

Wow. This is the one question I’ve seen people botch from the most real-deal traditional conference-room pitch to the most academic ivory-tower business school venture competitions I’ve moderated or judged. I’ve seen the deer-in-the-headlight look take hold. I’ve seen presenters repeat the question in a near catatonic state…. “the valuation, the valuation…. well….”. I’ve seen the most confident and polished presenters suddenly look over helplessly to their partner for help.  Most often, however, people dissemble, equivocate, punt, smile nervously or giggle out loud in a strange and guilty manner as if their bluff has been called and the unforeseen moment of truth has arrived. I’ll leave the “Why” in all this to trained shrinks although I personally believe it is because presenters simply are not prepared for this stark, direct question.

So what to do? Again, my advice is simple. Prepare for this question! If you are confident in the business, in yourself and the plan you have put forth be ready to calmly state your pre-money valuation.  For example. “I’m glad you’ve asked. We’re at a pre-money of $X million and look forward to any other questions you have.”  If you’re not confident enough to set a pre-money valuation, maybe it’s best to ask yourself why before going out to raise capital.

What I’m trying to convey is this: Be prepared, be yourself, be honest. You win no matter what this way.

Should There be Profit in Knowledge? A Century of American Debate

 

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

I recently hosted a talk by Geoff Smith of Ascent Biomedical Ventures entitled: Should There be Profit in Knowledge? Geoff is a fellow Williams College alum and recovering attorney who, like me, got ensconced in the world of launching companies and venture investing in the mid-nineties.  He’s a Managing Partner at Ascent which is one of the few truly seed-stage venture funds in New York operating in the biomedical tech space. He also happens to be a Scholar at Rockefeller University where he founded and teaches the University’s Science & Economics Program. (See here for his bio: http://bit.ly/gbnAC)

One thing I learned about Geoff during his talk is that he’s really a very deep thinker about public policy as it relates to university tech transfer. His lecture covered the evolution of the intense American debate in this field over the last century, from the time of the World Wars up through the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, taking us right to the present day. His analysis wove in the scientific norms of Sociologist Robert K. Merton,  the effect of the Ransdell Act of 1930, and the pioneering work of Vannevar Bush (one of the gentlemen pictured above), who drove so much of the ground-breaking government policy in this field. Lastly, I'll say that Geoff’s conclusions were not what one might have expected from a venture capitalist. He has a real reverence for the singular importance of basic research to our society.

I left the talk and ensuing discussion with both a deepened historical perspective and greater appreciation for the transformative effect on our society that a century of American policy evolution in university tech transfer has wrought.  I also emerged perhaps with a keener understanding of its boundaries.  Fascinating stuff and many thanks to Geoff.

For Part Eight in this Series, click here

University Spin-Offs (6): Amazing Historical IPO Rate

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Soon after getting involved with university spin-offs I came across Scott Shane’s book, Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation.  Scott is a Professor of Entrepreneurship at Case Western  Reserve in Cleveland, OH.  You can find his impressive credentials and scholarship here. He is also one of the few scholars that has closely studied the world of university spin-offs.

One of the outputs of his research was a staggering statistic that has been quoted widely. He found that university spin-offs were 108 times as likely to go public as a company with no ties to a university.

The National Council for Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer has put forth a similarly impressive statistic, indicating that 8% of university spin-offs have actually gone public.

I believe that this disparity has a great deal to do with the fact that the crème-de-la-crème of university start-ups are no doubt the end result of years of research, know-how, incubation, testing, federal funding, development and patenting within the university prior to being spun-out. When such a package is licensed to a talented entrepreneurial team, we have a formidable recipe for success.

For Part Seven in this Series, click here

Raising Capital (2): Five Myths About Raising Capital

This is part of my Series on Venture Capital.

Let’s start by dispelling some myths about raising capital.

Myth #1: That because you've started a company, someone ought to fund it.

Fact: Actually, no one owes you anything. VC’s are in business to make money, not to take a bunch of fliers.

I am consistently amazed at how often I hear people complaining about how “vc’s don’t want to take any risks”.  Of course they don’t ! They want to de-risk deals as much as possible. Venture capitalists are already in the highest risk class of the alternative investments category.  Definitely keep this in mind when you are pitching your company to investors. Remember, fewer than 1% of start-ups actually receive venture funding.

Myth #2: That a first-time entrepreneur can raise Venture Capital money.

Fact:  Of the less than 1% of start-ups that actually receive venture backing each year, you can be assured that with few exceptions the leadership/track records of those companies are well-spoken for in the venture community.

If you are a first-time entrepreneur, 99.9% of the time you will be looking at funding your company with your own money, friends and family money, or, with angel money.

Myth #3: That investors will actually read your business plan

Fact: Investors do not read business plans. If they did, they wouldn’t be able to get any work done.

The way deals get done are through referrals to investors from trusted colleagues. A one-page executive summary is an acceptable way to initially share one’s company profile with an investor.  So never bother sending your 50+ page business plan  to someone unless they’ve asked for it. If you don’t believe me, see these links below from actual studies that have been carried out.

http://bit.ly/O4kO4   http://bit.ly/Cj92J

Myth #4: That a first-timer can raise money without serious proof-of-concept.

Fact: Unless you are Marc Andreesen or an uber-successful, cashed-out entrepreneur who has made his investors a lot of money, you will need to demonstrate a certain amount of traction before professional investors will even consider investing in you.

What I mean by this is as follows:

·        If you are a biotech entrepreneur, you will need to show at least strong results in animal studies.

·        If you are a medical device entrepreneur, you will need to show a working prototype, validation and support from multiple clinicians who would use such a product, as well as a clear path through FDA approval.

·        If you are a tech entrepreneur, you will need to show heavy traffic and consistent month on month growth to your site.

Myth #5: That because you have spoken to a venture capitalist about your company you are “in talks with investors”.

Fact: What this simply means is that you met someone that may or may not be interested in your start-up.

Spare yourself a lot of heart-ache and lower your expectations. If you’ve had a conversation or pitched someone who happens to be an investor, don’t get your hopes up until they are actually ‘in diligence’ and you have a term sheet.

Raising Capital (1): What’s it Really All About?

This is part of my Series on Venture Capital.

‘Raising Capital’ for one’s start-up is perhaps one of the most talked-about and important aspects of early-stage entrepreneurship there is.  And despite the amount of attention and discussion the topic receives, I also think it is perhaps the most misunderstood of all.

At some point, all start-ups, (whether they be university spin-offs, services/consulting companies and/or technology companies), that aspire to some conventional measure of growth and success will require operating capital of some kind.   As someone who over the past sixteen years has raised millions of dollars in capital both for my own start-ups and for several dozen university spin-offs, I’ve definitely developed a feel for what I believe works and for what doesn’t work.

In this series we explore the challenges, myths and rules of thumb that apply to this process and of course welcome your input.

Angel Investing (3): Judging the Team

               

This is part of my Series on Angel Investing.

Another observation I’ll make is this. With the advent of the internet we’ve obviously seen a remarkable democratization of information and in particular, unprecedented access to heretofore difficult-to-obtain information. Previously arcane disciplines such as venture capital, for example, have been “opened-up” and laid bare for anyone with a laptop and some free time to explore.  Chess is another example. In the past decade the internet and sophisticated chess software programs have created the phenomenon of the 12 year old Grandmaster! No longer are years of practice and study with dusty old chess tomes and wizened instructors required for a really talented human being to acquire the knowledge needed to ascend to this kind of playing strength. Now 10 year olds can course through thousands of classical grandmaster games with the click of their mouse and, through pattern-recognition and raw talent traverse in a few years’ time a landscape that required almost a decade of study only a generation ago. Do we even need to discuss the technological revolution we’ve seen in golf? Videos, DVD’s, handheld GPS devices to tell you the yardage, hybrids, belly putters, and titanium shafts lined with kryptonite. Everyone has access to equipment that Sam Snead could have only dreamed of.  We now see things that are shocking to the senses as a result. I already mentioned the spectacle of the baby Grandmaster in chess. What about that celebrity golf event I stumbled upon on TV a few years ago? Remember that kid actor from the movie Sixth Sense who could “see dead people”? I watched this tiny fellow stride up onto the tee like King Kong, suddenly pull out his driver like it was Excalibur and start smashing huge drives way out there on every hole. I think he was hitting it past Marky Mark. He'd probably hit puberty by then but still looked like he was maybe 15 years old to me. No doubt he’d shelled out a lot of his movie royalties for professional golf instruction out in L.A.

For the most part though, most of us who are not quite in the league of the Andreesens, Kasparovs and Tiger Woods’ of the world are simply walking around with an immense amount of superficial information in our heads. (Certainly an order of magnitude more than our parent’s generation). Thousands of Google and Wikipedia searches, films, DVD’s and the like are no doubt responsible for this.

And in this particular context- which involves the judging of entrepreneurs, you’ve simply got to be aware that plenty of people looking for funding have read pretty much everything that’s available on the net having to do with raising capital. So what I’m saying is that a ton of entrepreneurs you’ll meet all “know what to say”.  You’ve just got to get good at seeing when they don’t “know of what they speak”.

The bottom line is: just look for authenticity. You’ll know it when you see it.

For the next post in this Series, click here.

University Spin-Offs (5): Angels in our Midst?

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Angel Investors are the absolute life-blood of start-ups and early-stage investing in this country.  Angels are the ones who get involved with entrepreneurs at the earliest, highest risk stages of a venture, bringing that essential capital- as well as a high degree of support and enthusiasm. Let me take this one step further:

Angels are also the life-blood of university spin-offs.

It is actually a common misconception that university spin-offs emerge from the academy with venture-backing. Despite an enormous amount of bluster and braggadocio in the industry, this is actually the exception as opposed to the rule. The overwhelming majority of university spin-offs emerge from the academy ab-initio with angel funding (if they actually have funding of some kind). It's the hope that after a year or more of development, some percentage of such companies will be ready for a traditional institutional venture-round of financing.

Is it true that sometimes there is such an appealing mix of well-baked and extraordinary technology and the availability of a committed team that a company will spin-out of the academy with institutional venture financing? Yes, it does happen and that's terrific. But again, most of this heavy lifting is done by angels and/or angel/entrepreneurs at this nascent stage.

The emphasis on venture financing one encounters at various tech transfer conferences and public discourse on the matter thus misses this essential point and may be a contributing factor to the fact that many tech transfer offices do not recognize the importance of Angels to this ecosystem. 

As someone who has been on both sides of the table, my view is that when those in tech transfer offices run into legitimate and respected people who happen to be Angels, we ought to respect their time and enthusiasm. They are most often folks who have run successful businesses before, love being helpful and want to stay active in the arena of company building. 

For Part Six in this Series, click here

University Spin-Offs (4): Professor as CEO?

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 A question that comes up often at various conferences is whether the inventor/professor should leave the university to launch the start-up as the CEO. Whereas in extraordinary situations this may be appropriate, for the most part, it is not a good idea for a number of reasons.

Ideally, a university spin-off, (like any other start-up), should be run by an experienced and talented entrepreneur with a deep network of contacts. It’s just a fact that most professors are not in this category. Most investors can regale you with a few unfortunate tales of woe in which they violated this maxim and backed a CEO professor who left the university to spin-off a company. There are less such cautionary tales of late because most experienced investors just won’t do this again. The investment community has learned from its mistakes over the last 10-15 years.

The other reason it’s not such a good idea is that the inventor/professor can be incredibly valuable to the spin-off without leaving the academy. He or she can keep working in the lab, keep teaching students and at the same time serve as a Chief Scientific Advisor and shareholder in the company. Most schools allow a professor to hold equity in a spin-off so long as the spin-off does not fund research in the professor’s academic lab.

The last major reason the professor should stay put is that often, one can achieve a  very effective ‘technology transfer’ simply by hiring a graduating PhD student from the professor’s lab. This is often a terrific way for the start-up to benefit on an ongoing basis from the human/technical expertise/know-how that is so critical to the future development of the ultimate product.  

For Part Five in this Series, click here

University Spin-Offs (3): Suffering from Entrepreneur's Block?

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 If you’re an entrepreneur looking for your next start-up, of course it’s probably best to have your own idea for a company. No doubt you’re enmeshed in your city’s local entrepreneurship network- but if you really have a bad case of entrepreneur’s block and haven’t come up with anything worthwhile lately, you might consider paying a visit to your local university tech transfer office. Never heard of tech transfer you say? Been too busy building companies? Ok, start reading my first posts on this subject,  

http://bit.ly/d1aCk and catch up on this thread.  

You may be amazed to learn that some universities spin-off up to a dozen companies a year based on their IP. Sure it’s true that some of these are “faculty-vanity” plays, but there’s plenty of good companies emerging from the academy.  

I’ll let you in on another fact: If you’ve got a few successes in your past, you’ll be very welcome when you show up. See if they have a person running their start-up arm, sometimes called  “new ventures” or “the venture lab”.

So pay a visit, introduce yourself and they’ll keep an eye out for you.

For Part Four in this Series, click here

University Spin-Offs (2): A Quick Primer

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

American universities serve as an enormous and profound engine of innovation for the US and the world. Many people are surprised to learn that many companies with household names originated in the academy. Google, Lycos, Genentech, Gatorade, Chiron, Hewlett Packard, Polaroid and many others are companies formed around university intellectual property. 

Each year literally billions of dollars in federal funding flow into universities around the country in the form of grant funding and provide the motor for the operation of countless labs and ground-breaking research in medicine, software, engineering, robotics, clean tech and biotechnology.

For many years, however, university technology often just “sat on the shelves” and was rarely commercialized throughout the 20th century. With the advent of the Bayh Dole Act of 1980 all this changed and universities were given ownership of this valuable technology. Many opened in-house technology transfer offices, the mission of which was to see these inventions commercialized and brought out for the benefit of society. The results have been nothing short of transformative. See these links below to learn more about what has been called “perhaps the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the past half-century," according to The Economist. ("Innovation's Golden Goose," an opinion piece published in the Dec. 12, 2002, edition)”.

http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Bayh_Dole_Act&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2179

http://www.betterworldproject.org/

The bulk of this massive success has been driven primarily through straight licensing activities in which the universities have licensed IP directly to established companies (ie. big pharma, etc.) which has led on occasion to the development of life-changing drug development and enormous revenues flowing back to the universities in the form of licensing fees.

As I mention above, however, in the past 10-15 years, it has become more and more common to see universities spinning off start-up companies based on university IP, in which the university retains an equity stake and a royalty stream. In that university IP is “early stage” and often not commercial grade, it is often necessary and appropriate that a start-up be launched around this fledgling technology so as to be able to bring it through the proof-of-principle stage whether this be a beta version of the software, a prototype of a medical device or animal testing in the case of drug discovery projects.  This “gap” between laboratory IP and a commercializable project is known as the “valley of death” in the industry. It is essentially the job of the tech transfer office to determine what IP within the university is commercializable, to protect it when and where appropriate via the patent process, and then to help the technology across this valley either through straight licensing or through the start-up route.

For Part Three in this Series, click here

 

University Spin-Offs (1): The vaunted gates creak open and entrepreneurs peer inside

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurs lurking within the hallowed halls of the academy? An oxymoron for centuries no doubt. An outrage, even, for some purists. 

It all began for me some six years ago when a colleague invited me onto an ivy league campus to introduce me to the university's technology transfer office.  The what? I had never heard of such a thing! Once I entered however, I was stunned by what I saw. An entire universe of innovation and technology at its most nascent, rawest stage. Hundreds of technlogies, hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding pouring into a multitude of labs each year, a host of brilliant minds and nobel laureates feverishly at work. Yes it was raw and savage- but beautiful too in a way. It was like entering the Thunderdome in MadMax- you know, "two men enter, one man leaves".

I was the one who stayed for a while....

Since that day I've been enmeshed in the arcane world of university spin-offs (on both sides of the table) and have actively been involved in spinning out approximately 35 such start-ups based on university intellectual property (IP). It is an absolutely  fascinating and rapidly growing field, a sub-set of university tech transfer but an increasingly important one. If university tech transfer is only 28 years old, (its birthday was the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980), then university spin-offs must just be entering their teen-age years by now.

In a sense, those of us who participate either as investors/entrepreneurs or as the new ventures specialists within universities, are writing the story of university spin-offs as we speak.  Some universities are farther along down this road than others, but more and more university tech transfer offices are realizing the advantages of having a dedicated Start-Ups/New Ventures program run by an entrepreneur/investor-type focused on cultivating the investment community and spinning out companies based on university intellectual property.

In this series I'll be writing about the phenomenon and practice of spinning-out companies from the academy. Please join if you're interested. The imposing old gates have definitely creaked open and the call has gone out to entrepreneurs:

"Welcome to Thunderdome"... let's have some fun inside.

For Part Two in this Series, click here.