������2013 CSUPERB - I2P® Competition Kickoff Informational Webinar March 12, 2012���

���

Informational Webinar Agenda

•  Status of 2013 competition •  Motivations behind competition •  Why and What is I2P? •  Judging Criteria •  What are the 2013 CSUPERB-I2P competition

deliverables? •  Best Practices based on 2011 pilot competition •  Q&A (throughout!)

Also on call:

•  Winny Dong (Professor, Chemical & Materials Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona)

•  Terri Swartz (Dean, College of Business & Economics, CSU East Bay)

•  Warren Smith (Professor, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, CSU Sacramento – mentor for winning team in 2011CSUPERB-I2P® pilot)

Status of 2013 CSUPERB-I2P® Competition •  Competition Package Released March 1, 2012

•  Competition Package Available at CSUPERB website: www.calstate.edu/csuperb (website with FAQ pending)

•  Kick-off Webinar (today) to get the word out to all CSU universities

•  Final Presentations – at 25th Annual CSU Biotechnology Symposium (probably Jan. 3-5, 2013; but dates not certain until venue contracts signed)

Motivations

•  What is needed to take a life sciences idea to a commercial product? (regulatory affairs, clinical trials, human impacts)

•  Increased biotechnology faculty and student interest in entrepreneurial education (well-received sessions at previous two CSU Biotechnology Symposia)

•  Increased university attention on Bayh-Dole compliance and community-facing economic development

•  A rewarding pilot experience Fall 2011 – CSU Sacramento student team won pilot challenge (2 engineering + 2 business majors)

Motivations

2010 U. Texas (Austin) student survey: •  81% improved skills working in multidisciplinary

teams

•  94% increased understanding of technology commercialization process

•  58% enabled cross-disciplinary collaborations

Motivations

•  “The competition was an amazing learning experience. If there is any advice I can provide to teams who wish to compete in the future, I think the most important is to get started now. A few months was simply not enough time, it felt. Again, thank you for the experience and I hope you know that I am willing to provide any help I can to future teams.” - Rebecca Dalton, College of Business Administration, CSU Sacramento

•  “First off would like to say thank you for the experience that I gained from the I2P

Competition...I am very grateful the effort you put into allowing the team the resources for the Competition. You found us space to work on our Competition Presentation and connected us with all the wonderful and extremely helpful people. Terri and Jakub were such amazing help, that provided great feedback and insight. They really were key to our experience...” - Jose Camacho, Electrical Engineering, CSU Sacramento

•  “Thank you for the opportunity to participate at the I2P competition. We had a difficult but enjoyable time taking part in the unknown!”

- Neil Gee, Electrical Engineering, CSU Sacramento

Why I2P®? •  Terri Swartz (Dean, College of Business & Economics, CSU

East Bay & CSUPERB SPC) helped pilot the I2P® LLNL competition, involving CSU campuses

•  Swartz and Nichols agreed the format would work for a biotechnology competition

•  The biotechnology pilot competition exceeded all CSUPERB’s expectations for learning outcomes and professional development

•  Nichols / I2P® agreed to partner again this year

What is I2P®? •  www.ideatoproduct.org

•  The I2P® program is fundamentally about education. It promotes a culture of technology innovation and entrepreneurship for a multidisciplinary audience.

–  Format designed and administered first in 2000-2001 by Dr. Steven Nichols, Professor of Engineering at University of Texas, Austin

–  Supported by NSF and others

–  Went global in 2003 (2012 Global I2P® Competition in Stockholm in November)

–  85+ universities, 2 national labs, 60+ events worldwide

What is I2P®? •  a STUDENT team competition

•  Final competition teams will be formed by FOUR students

–  Two must be science/engineering/technology students

–  Two must be business/marketing/entrepreneurship students

–  Both undergraduates and graduates are eligible

–  Final team rosters will include only CSU students registered for spring/winter 2013 term (so we can award $ prizes!)

•  Student teams should be mentored, advised, coordinated by one or more CSU faculty/administrator/staff. There is no limit on number of team advisors or mentors. WE ENCOURAGE MULTIPLE MENTORS with expertise or access to expertise in marketing, IP law, business development &/or biotechnology commercialization, primary customers, etc. Mentors may be CSU faculty/staff, but also alumni or external advisors.

What is I2P®?

•  What is Biotechnology?

•  CSUPERB’s definition is: “fusion of biology and technology”

•  See the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s list of sectors & applications: http://www.bio.org/node/517

•  CSUPERB explicitly includes medical devices

What is I2P®? •  Teams must have “freedom to operate” with biotechnologies used

in the competition; likewise inventors should be protected –  If they are CSU student or faculty inventions – campuses should

make sure they are backed by invention disclosures, at minimum

–  If biotechnologies used are intellectual property of alumni, collaborator or national lab – agreements should be worked out

•  We encourage teams to consult with or gain inspiration from CSUPERB-funded PIs (list at www.calstate.edu/csuperb) but using CSU intellectual property / biotechnology is not required!

What is I2P®?

Competition entries should be: •  unique and innovative, •  be feasible to implement,

•  address an identified market need, and •  they must have an underlying biotechnology

component.

For the CSUPERB - I2P® competition the technology must be “biotechnology” (this is different than most I2P® competitions).

What is I2P®?

I N N O V A T I O N

Traditional University Role

Idea to Product (early-stage commercialization)

Business Plan Competitions

New Knowledge Creation

Biotech Market / Opportunity Creation

Specific Process or Product Plan

Commercial Demonstrations / Initial Operations

Later Phases of Commercialization

The Technology Commercialization Process

Figure based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria Idea to Product® Competition Presentation Score Sheet

© S. Nichols, 2008

Team:

Presentation Content Points (if needed) Notes

Team Innovation For each section the contribution of the team to the creation of the technology and to the synthesis of the market match should be considered.

Product/Svc. Idea & The Pain

(30% )

creative product/service and/or

15 20 25 30

The Technology (20% )

at the technology or application are novel

by a member or members of the team 5 10 15 20

First Customer & Initial Market

(20% )

- credible source of/rationale for market size - realistic market growth rate -

5 10 15 20

Technology & Product Status &

Next Steps (20% )

Status current stage of the product/service (More

points should be given for product/services at or close to prototype stage)

s

comm.

5 10 15 20

Competitive Advantage

(10% )

product/service

4 6 8 10

Economic Sustainability

The most important overall criterion is that the match between the technology and the market must represent an economically sustainable opportunity. The opportunity must be clearly characterized, must at least be a break-even proposition in the case of social entrepreneurship

. Total opportunity value is not part of this competition.

Total 34 56 78 100

=

Judging Criteria 1.  Product / Service (Pain) – 30% of score 2.  Technology – 20%

3.  Customer & Market – 20% - Biotechnology commercialization often faces regulatory and reimbursement (who is the payer?) hurdle; teams should consider these aspects of the market!

4.  Technology Product Status & Next Steps – 20% 5.  Competition – 10%

- Including understanding of intellectual property issues

6.  Economic Sustainability - The most important overall criterion is that the “match” between the technology and the market must represent an economically sustainable opportunity

Based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria: Product / Service

•  What is it? •  Target customer need defined •  Identify a clear value

•  Address strategy moving forward

Based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria: Technology

•  Provide a non-technical description •  Characterize status of technology •  What is the technology development strategy?

•  Barriers •  Student contributions to innovation?

Prototypes are not required and, in fact, are discouraged (usually distracts team from critical aspects of competition). Based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria: ���Customer & Market

•  Who cares?*

•  What are the clear benefits of the product/service (fiscal savings? cost of goods? etc.)

•  Market – size and trends •  *Who are the initial customers & what is the feedback from

those customers (primary market research)?

•  Commercialization model •  Regulatory issues

Based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria: Competition

•  Characterize current market •  Do you foresee technical (future) competition? •  Indirect (there is never “no competition”)

•  Barriers to market entry •  What is the sustainable competitive advantage?

Based on I2P® materials

Judging Criteria: ���IP & Value Proposition

•  What is the current intellectual property (IP) status and IP landscape?

•  Will the product / service require future IP filings and protection?

•  How does the product / service deliver value to the customer?

•  Is it economically sustainable? •  What are your next steps (timeline, financing?)

Based on I2P® materials

Competition Deliverables •  March - September 28, 2012: Campus teams provide CSU faculty/administrator/staff point-of-contact

–  Roughly equivalent to a non-binding letter of intent so that we can get a sense of how many serious teams form

–  CSUPERB will send updates and reminders to campus point-of-contact

–  Email Susan Baxter (sbaxter@mail.sdsu.edu) before September 28 to signal intent for each 4-student team

•  Early October: Check-in webinar (with I2P® program officials)

•  November 1st: Final 4-student team rosters must be submitted to CSUPERB

–  Teams & mentors register for CSU Biotechnology Symposium

•  November 14th: One-page Summaries due –  If more teams submit summaries than the symposium schedule can handle, a preliminary judging panel will announce

finalists November 19th

•  January 2:* Five-page Team Summaries Due

•  January 3:* Preliminary Presentations to Feedback Judging Panel

•  January 5:* Final Presentations at Symposium to Final Judging Panel

*Dates of Symposium not yet confirmed, dates may change!

Competition Deliverables At Symposium in January 2013: •  Two 10 minute presentations (preliminary & final)

–  Presentations will be stopped at 10 minutes

–  No limit on speakers

•  Up to 15 minutes of Q&A –  Entire team participates in Q&A

–  Questions from judging panel only (even in final session)

–  Individual feedback given to teams by preliminary judging panel

–  Closed deliberations after all final team presentations

Competition Deliverables

•  Simple, clear, effective visuals •  Well-organized •  Clear & concise arguments

–  Well supported by primary and secondary research

•  Q&A with judging panel is important

Best practices (Discussion points during Q&A) •  Each campus has own IP/tech transfer policies – check in with that office as early as possible! (Winny Dong) •  There is no rule against multi-campus teams competing! (Winny Dong) •  The aim of the competition is EDUCATION, not starting up new companies or commercializing CSU IP. I2P

represents part of the commercialization continuum, but I2P finalists will not have done enough to present business plans to investors (yet!). (Terri Swartz)

•  Too much focus on technology should be a warning flag – teams present NON-technical descriptions of the biotechnologies as part of the competition (Susan Baxter)

•  Even if there are multiple department interactions (engineering + business, for example) on campus, this competition requires working interactions to best recruit, mentor and set student teams up for success (Warren Smith)

•  Last year we found most CSU biotechnology faculty weren’t focused on commercialization. But when they were singled out by teams already interested in their research ideas they were willing and enthusiastic! (Susan Baxter)

•  The I2P Challenge allows teams to look across campus and find out what is going on in technology transfer; Don’t assume you know everything about or everyone interested in commercialization or economic development on your campus! “It takes a village!” (Warren Smith)

•  Consider reaching out for help from Small Business Development Centers (many are housed on CSU campuses), Entrepreneurial Centers on campus, Alumni groups, and regional Economic Development organizations. (Susan Baxter, Winny Dong)

•  Successful I2P teams represent “coalitions of the willing” (Susan Baxter)