COMMERCIALIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERTASK FORCE MEETINGFebruary 27, 2013 | 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

LSU Shreveport | Noel Library 3rd Floor Assembly Room

Bill Silvia and Bill Comegys, Operations and TechnologySub-Committee Co-Chairs

WELCOME, CHARGE AND INTRODUCTIONS

Dr. Christel Slaughter, SSA Consultants

AGENDA REVIEWAND LOGISTICS

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

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

Bill Silvia, Operations and Technology Sub-Committee Co-Chair

INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESENTER

Margaret Wagner Dahl, Associate Provost for Economic Development and Director, Georgia BioBusiness Center

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: A REPORT

PROPOSAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION:

THE HUMAN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY

COMMERCIALIZATION PROPOSAL

Facilitated by Margaret Wagner Dahl, Associate Provost for

Economic Development

University of Georgia

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)

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.

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

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.)

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

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

SOME SPECIFIC AREAS FOR DISCUSSION:CATALYST CONCEPT

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

CONCLUSIONTHE 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

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

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!

Group Discussion

LUNCH

Managing General Partner, Louisiana Fund I

JOE LOVETT

Managing Partner, BVM Capital, LLC

ROSS BARRETT

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.

Portfolio Companies-Louisiana Ventures, LP

26

Portfolio Companies—Themelios Ventures, LP

2727

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

Capital Invested as of December 31, 2011 (syndicated plus Federal and State Grants)

Multiplier Effect of Leveraged Capital is 6.7X

The economic impact of Venture Capital--syndicate, federal and state capital leverage

Themelios Ventures, LP invested capital

Capital Invested Additional Capital 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

29

Institutional Co-Investors: Life Science

BioAdvance - Philadelphia, PA

Ben Franklin Ventures -Philadelphia, PA

Maple Leaf, LP (Baton Rouge)

Sanofi-Aventis (Paris)

Trident Capital—Palo Alto, CA

Louisiana Fund I - Baton Rouge

Research Corporation Technologies, (RCT) - Tucson, AZ

Long Branch Ventures (New Orleans)

Taraval Associates - Menlo Park, CA

Tech Coast Angels - Los Angeles, LA

30

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.

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.

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

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

LSUHSC-S, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Neuroscience

DR. TAMMY DUGAS

Technology Transfer: The Faculty Perspective

Dr. Tammy R. Dugas, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Pharmacology,

Toxicology and NeuroscienceLSU Health Sciences Center -

Shreveport

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.

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

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 companiesThere is a need for a scientist/advocate on the campus!

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

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.

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.

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

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?!

Group Discussion

PUBLIC COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT