devonshire research group, llc · alm’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not...

Devonshire Research Group, LLC

The Short Thesis for Allied Minds: ALM LN Equity

April 2017

Disclaimer

2

Devonshire Research Group, LLC (“Devonshire Research Group”) is an investment adviser to funds and accounts that are in the business of buying andselling securities and other financial instruments.

Devonshire Research Group clients currently have a net short position in the securities of the subject company covered herein (“Subject Company”).Devonshire Research Group clients will profit if the trading prices of Subject Company’s securities decline. Devonshire Research Group may change itsviews about or its investment positions in Subject Company at any time, for any reason or no reason. Devonshire Research Group may buy, sell, cover orotherwise change the form or substance of its Subject Company investment. Devonshire Research Group disclaims any obligation to notify the market ofany such changes.

The information and opinions expressed in this presentation (the “Presentation”) are based on publicly available information about Subject Company.Devonshire Research Group recognizes that there may be non-public information in the possession of Subject Company or others that could leadSubject Company or others to disagree with Devonshire Research Group’s analyses, conclusions and opinions. The Presentation expresses DevonshireResearch Group’s opinions, which are based upon publicly available information, inferences and deductions through its due diligence and analyticalprocess. To the best of its ability and belief, all information contained herein and in any oral communication is accurate and reliable, and has beenobtained from public sources Devonshire Research Group believes to be accurate and reliable, and who are not insiders or connected persons of thestock covered herein or who may otherwise owe any fiduciary duty or duty of confidentiality to Subject Company. However, such information ispresented “as is,” without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. Devonshire Research Group makes no representation, express or implied,as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or with regard to the results to be obtained from its use.

The Presentation contains a very large measure of analysis and opinion and includes forward-looking statements, estimates, projections and opinionsprepared with respect to, among other things, Subject Company’s anticipated operating performance, access to capital markets, market conditions, cashflow, assets and liabilities. Such statements, estimates, projections and opinions may prove to be substantially inaccurate and are inherently subject tosignificant risks and uncertainties beyond Devonshire Research Group’s control. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice, andDevonshire Research Group does not undertake to update or supplement any reports or any of the information, analysis and opinion contained in them.

The Presentation is not investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Except where otherwise indicated, thePresentation speaks as of the date hereof, and Devonshire Research Group undertakes no obligation to correct, update or revise the Presentation or tootherwise provide any additional materials. Devonshire Research Group also undertakes no commitment to take or refrain from taking any action withrespect to Subject Company or any other company.

As used herein, except to the extent the context otherwise requires, Devonshire Research Group includes its affiliates and its and their respectivepartners, directors, officers and employees.

Notice of investment interests

3

As of the publication date of this report, the Principals and Clients of Devonshire

Research Group LLC have a net short position in the securities of Allied Minds, PLC

(which include, but are not limited to: stock, put options, bonds, and swaps) and stand to

realize gains in the event that the price of the stock “ALM” declines over the long run, or

if investment sentiment improves the appeal of an expected decline in any of its

securities.

However, Devonshire recognizes that while the technology strategy of the Company

reflects a long term bearish outlook for Allied Minds, PLC’s security instruments, the

short term use of press release and public statements by executives of the Company may

suggest unpredictable short term volatility.

Principals and Clients of Devonshire Research Group LLC are short term volatility

oriented with a long term net short position across multiple security instruments.

On knowing when to quit

4

“If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit.

There's no point in being a damn fool about it.”

-W. C. Fields

News flash: events of April 5, 2017 are an irreversible short catalyst, with high likelihood of securities fraud and investor lawsuits to come

• In December of 2016, Allied Minds raised £64m from investors to “invest” in existing businesses – 3 months later, the $147m write-down nullifies this investment, and creates the perfect storm for investor lawsuits to come

• On April 5, 2017, Allied Minds announced the severing of funding to 7 subsidiaries, stating that that the failed ventures carried an estimated value of $147m (£118m); DRG calculates this write down includes over $115m invested directly into the companies

• The ventures discontinued included those that DRG considered to be among the highest upside, meaning the valuation of the combined residual entity is likely to continue to slide

• While other short callers – especially Kerrisdale – have singled out ALM as a short target, DRG believes that prior callers have misunderstood ALM’s business model, treating it through the lens of P&L and accounting scrutiny, rather than evaluating it as what it is: a publicly traded venture fund, or Public IP Company (PIPCO)

• ALM is the last of the PIPCO’s, each of which has suffered at the hands of the recent America Invents Act (AIA), which significantly reduced licensing as a viable business model

• Privately held venture companies with Limited Partners, would typically have their funding pulled and move to liquidation after 5+ years of failures; ALM’s public investors should hold ALM to the same standards

• Why ALM, a high risk venture fund, should have been permitted to collect pension and private individual investment, without the scrutiny of accredited or qualified investment, will likely trigger additional legal scrutinyin the coming months

• DRG believes there is a high likelihood for investor and/or securities lawsuits to follow in the coming months and years, as investors compare the slides and analyses to follow against the claims ALM management made during their capital raise in December of 2016

5

Questions DRG would encourage the board to ask of Allied Minds shareholders and executives

▪ Are you disappointed with the performance of your investment over the past few years?

▪ If the company’s risks and venture-based business model were truly appreciated by other investors, what drove the latest sell off? Is there a floor?

▪ Are you concerned that the business is misunderstood by public shareholders, and possibly, by it’s current investors as well? Do the many subsidiaries make it even more confusing to new investors?

▪ If ALM were a private venture fund, would investors have halted further investments in the fund, sold the fund’s assets to another firm, or perhaps liquidated the fund altogether?

▪ Is ALM trying to exit business ventures, like a normal venture fund might, and eventually close and liquidate its assets, or is it trying to survive and become a tech licensing company?

▪ Is it possible these two central business models are at odds with each other, and with the purpose and requirements of a publicly traded vehicle?

▪ Should the SEC allow companies like ALM to trade publicly, exposing retail investors to risks normally reserved only for accredited and / or qualified investors?

6

Executive Summary

Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company while conducting deep forensic financial accounting

▪ ALM is a publicly traded venture capital fund, and therefore suffers fundamental mark-to-market issues

▪ The business is predicated on the ability to monetize out-licensed IP from Universities

▪ Other true comparable companies include Public IP Companies (called PIPCOs)

▪ PIPCO’s have suffered tremendously following the American Invents Act, and the devaluation of licensing businesses

Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders

▪ ALM has not generated any meaningful revenue from its subsidiaries and is overstating their valuations

▪ ALM's revenue multiple puts it on par with an early stage software company, not a mismanaged VC fund

▪ ALM’s management fees are higher than VC industry standards, despite not returning any winners

ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price

▪ Despite claims that it is a “technology-driven” company, ALM has not patented as much as expected given its market cap

▪ ALM’s portfolio is not heavily cited by other industry players, signaling that the patents lack value

▪ A top-down analysis of ALM’s patent portfolio suggests that it is worth <$25 million

ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter

▪ The patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are vastly smaller than the portfolios of their competitors

▪ Some of the subsidiaries’ portfolios have already been damaged by inter partes review (IPR) attacks

▪ The market sizes for the technologies that ALM’s subsidiaries are pursuing are too small to warrant their valuation

7

On misunderstood, overly-complex business models

8

“If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds

are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your

understanding.”

-Nassim Taleb, Anti-Fragile

What is Allied Minds, and why is it trying to be two conflicting, contrasting business models at the same time?Business models should not be this difficult to describe

9

Allied Minds is a publicly traded exit-valuation driven venture fund, whose ventures

represent non-traditional, IP-centric cash-flow licensing opportunities

Identify University tech

that bears no licenses,

no business activity

Exclusively license that

University IP, place the

patents in a business

Attempt to build a

novel business,

centered around the IP

Sell services, products,

or license the

technology solutions to

others

Business Model 1: Traditional

VC-like business model

Business Model 2: Tech transfer,

licensing business model

Place investments in

companies, operate

them…

…make money by

exiting those

businesses one by one

Acquire exclusive IP

agreements covering

high tech…

…make money by

entering cash-flow

centric licensing

agreements

A core problem: is ALM

trying to exit businesses,

or enter into royalty

licenses?

A core problem: if this IP

was so great to begin with,

why did the inventor, owner,

university not pursue it?

Business Model 1: Traditional

VC-like business model

Publicly traded Venture Capital funds are a bad idea at all stages of the fund’s lifecycle; there are good reasons why most funds are private

10

Capitalization and

Investment

Portfolio

ManagementExit and Liquidation

Post-Exit

Management

Lifecycle of a typical standalone high tech venture fund

Deal flow and due

diligence management

Term sheet / legal and

investment

Manage successful

investments through

subsequent rounds

Write off unsuccessful

investments / terminate

funding

Manage value capture

from disappointing

investments

Operate “zombie fund”

until all positions

exited, liquidated

Participate in

subsequent rounds; exit

to future shareholders Manage and unwind

covenants, accounting,

legal obligations

Distribute profits and

performance fees,

reimburse mgmt. fees

Proprietary deal flow are closely

guarded sources of competitive

advantage

Private venture capital can hold

unprofitable investments for

years if their conviction differs

from the implied financials

If too many investments in a VC

fund are unsuccessful by years 5-7,

the fund is often shut down, rolled

into another fund, or converted to

a “zombie fund” with no ongoing

active mgmt.

A publicly traded VC is forced to

disclose and reveal its key

sources of deal flow publicly

Public VC companies must

constantly report mark-to-market

style accounting performance

Publicly traded funds are

incentivized to continue as a

going concern regardless of rate

of failure

Private distributions are simple

and tied to liquidity events, often

on a per-deal basis, then the

fund is dissolved

Public VC funds have no

obvious “kill-switch” to terminate

the going concern, even after

profitable liquidity events!

Pri

vate

Ad

van

tage

Pu

blic

Dis

adva

nta

ge

Sim

plifi

ed

VC

Flo

w C

har

t

Bloomberg’s list of comparable companies, and those identified as sector equivalents - are inaccurate and misleadingAnalysts, struggling to understand ALM’s business, placed it into the wrong sector

11

Stenprop Ltd

TISO Blackstar Group

Intermediate Capital

3I Group

Deutsche Beteil

Altamir

Gimv Nv

Partners Group Holding

Eurazeo

Brederode

Capman OYJ-B

Compagnie Lebon

MAS Real Estate

Mutares Ag

Touchstone Innovations

Groupe IDI

Allied Minds

STP SJ Equity

TBGR LN Equity

ICP LN Equity

III LN Equity

DBAN GR Equity

LTA FP Equity

GIMB BB Equity

PGHN SW Equity

RF FP Equity

BREB BB Equity

CAPMAN FH Equity

LBON FP Equity

MSP SJ Equity

MUX GR Equity

IVO LN Equity

IDIP FP Equity

ALM LN Equity

Asset Management

Asset Management

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Private Equity

Real Estate

Real Estate

Turnaround Firm

Venture Fund

Venture Fund

Venture Fund

Company Name Bloomberg Ticker Business Model

Much larger, diversified

across very different assets;

financial services

Significantly larger deal sizes,

financial leverage based

investments, later stage and

more mature companies and

deal flow

Completely different asset

class

Different business model

Only two other companies

properly serve as comps; they

are traditional VC funds

Misleading rationale

Because of the way many long-only asset managers and index funds rely on comp factors, ALM will

automatically receive fund flows due to its association with these larger, higher performing companies

But ALM shouldn’t be compared to private equity, it should be placed alongside other PIPCO’s – a depressed sector struggling to stay afloat

12

300

400

100

200

500

0

600

Touchstone Innovations

(IVO LN Equity)25

5

20

30

10

0

15

Groupe IDI

(IDIP FP Equity)

10

5

15

0

Inventergy Global, Inc.

(INVT US Equity)

10/2002 4/2017 1/2005 4/2017

3/2011 4/2017

1.0

2.5

1.5

2.0

3.0

0.5

0.0

MV Portfolios, Inc.

(MVPI US Equity)

3/2011 4/2017

20

5

15

10

0

On Track Innovations Ltd.

(OTIV US Equity)

11/2002 4/2017

40

15

30

25

5

35

10

0

20

SITO Mobile Ltd.

(SITO US Equity)

8/2008 4/2017

Blo

om

berg

/

An

alys

t “C

om

ps”

Bu

sin

ess

Mo

del

Bas

ed

Co

mp

s

The conclusion DRG would draw,

based on a comparison of the only

two pure “VC” funds in the

Bloomberg and Equity Analyst

stated indexes, is that ALM is in an

attractive sector of the market

The conclusion DRG would draw,

based on a comparison of ALM to

4 other companies with similar

business models of monetizing

out-licensed intellectual property,

is that ALM is in an unattractive

sector of the market

Executive Summary

• Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting





• Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders




• ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price




• ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter




13

ALM’s historically stated ownership values (aka ROI) for its subsidiaries do not appear to be anchored in financial logic – how, then, is this calculated?

14

2014 2015 2016E 2016@6

%

Change

- - - - N/A

- 7,591 - - N/A

5,722 11,752 7,726 3,863 -34%

7,350 1,506 13,834 6,917 819%

268 20,849 1,594 797 -92%

13,340 20,849 23,154 11,577 11%

29,670 10,845 -198 -198 -102%

121,000 121,000 N/A ? N/A

2014 2015 2016E 2016@6

%

Change

6,457 957 338 169 -95%

4,898 2,791 1,080 540 -61%

5,854 5,162 5,914 2,957 15%

184 217 224 112 3%

3 - - - N/A

4,476 7,213 6,880 3,440 -5%

8,547 6,467 12,054 6,027 86%

69,600 40,000 N/A ? N/A

2014 2015 2016E 2016@6

%

Change

1,258 2,343 2,234 1,117 -5%

518 1,134 12,230 715 978%

11,235 19,371 22,382 11,191 16%

14,661 37,240 37,026 18,513 -1%

51 373 1,900 950 409%

25,207 55,775 71,304 30,252 28%

18,759 10,259 10,044 5,022 -2%

297,400 424,800 N/A ? N/A

Revenue

Cost of Revenue

SG&A

R&D Expense

Finance Income / (Cost), Net

Loss for the Period

Net Assets

Stated Ownership Value

Spin Transfer Tech RF Biocidics

All Other

Subsidiaries

DRG Conclusion

and Attempts to

Rationalize

No improvement in revenue,

“run-away” R&D costs, losses

mounting, net assets halved, and

yet the stated ownership value

remains the same?

Revenue decrease was an

alarming 95%, signaling a collapse

of this business, the dominant

source of revenue in 2014, but

the stated ownership value was

decreased only a minor amount?

There was de minimis forecast

revenue growth between 2015 and

2016, a strong decrease in net

assets, and yet the cumulative

valuation of these was written up?

There is an alarming degree of creativity involved in the implied method of calculating ALM’s Group Subsidiary Ownership Adjusted Value (GSOAV)

Recently written off

Two of ALM’s subsidiaries mysteriously sky rocketed in stated value at the end of 2015 – coincidentally “buffering” recent write offs

15

ALM’s added two new subsidiaries, received $99.2mm in new financing and posted no change to Stated Ownership Value

ALM's Stated Ownership Value (in millions USD)

Rank Company 2014 2015 2016 Major Events from 2016

1 Spin Transfer Technologies $121.0 $121.0Unknown

impact

▪ Completed working prototpe of ST-MRAM

2 SciFluor Life Sciences $91.4 $91.3Unknown

impact

▪ Received FDA approval to enter Phase I/II for SF0166

3 Precision Biopsy $16.2 $61.8Unknown

impact

▪ Granted a new patent

4 Federated Wireless $9.1 $59.9Unknown

impact

▪ Submitted application to FDA for TRUS &

MR/Fusion enrollment

5 RF Biocidics Inc $69.6 $40.0Unknown

impact

▪ Raised $22mm in Series A funding

6 Optio Labs $32.8 $33.6Unknown

impact

▪ Entered alliance to build ecosystem for 3.5GHz band

7 Cephalogics $22.3 $22.9Unknown

impact

▪ APEX 85 received Almond Board of CA TERP

certification

8 Novare Pharmaceuticals $16.7 $16.8Unknown

impact

▪ No major announcements

9 CryoXtract Instruments $17.8 $12.6Unknown

impact


10 Biotectix $11.7 $12.2Unknown

impact


Other (13 companies) $79.4 $63.7Unknown

impact

▪ Formed 2 new subsidiaries

▪ Raised $99.2mm in capital, including $20mm debt

facility

Total $488.0 $535.8

Rece

ntl

y w

ritt

en

off

ALM is currently trading at a 250+ EV / Rev multiple - far above any comparable across the many industries it participates

16

Key financials across Allied Minds Comps (EV in millions USD)

Despite recent sell-off, Allied Minds continues trading like a highly speculative, early stage software company — not a mid-stage investment fund with a poor track record

Biotechnology

2

Software

5

Pharmaceuticals

3

Semiconductors

6

Technology Hardware / Storage

7Hedge Funds / VCs / PEs /

Investment Firms

8

Medical Devices

4

Life Sciences

1

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Luminex 270.6 772.4 2.9

Neogenomics 244.1 877.0 3.6

Albany

Molec. 570.5 1393.6 2.4

Clinigen 504.3 1010.3 2.0

Syngene 169.3 1144.1 6.8

Cambrex 490.6 1709.8 3.5

Tecan 514.0 1572.2 3.1

Average 394.8 1211.3 3.1

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8

Note: sourced from Bloomberg; all comps have TEVs between $500M and $1.5B

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Amicogen 59.5 364.3 6.1

Genus 576.1 1,480.8 2.6

Repligen 104.5 996.6 9.5

Seegene 63.5 727.1 11.4

Biotest 612.2 941.5 1.5

Vitrolife 100.2 907.8 9.1

Takara Bio 247.8 1,384.4 5.6

Average 252.0 971.8 3.9

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Binex 70.2 440.9 6.3

Sequent Sci. 97.0 574.3 5.9

Searle Co. 108.2 641.1 5.9

Corcept Ther. 81.3 781.4 9.6

Supernus 215.0 1,100.4 5.1

Towa Pharma 684.6 979.0 1.4

Genomma 623.8 1,350.9 2.2

Average 268.6 838.3 3.1

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Boditech Med 47.4 349.5 7.37

Lifetech Sci. 53.1 728.6 13.71

Natus Medical 381.9 1038.1 2.72

Cynosure 433.5 862.0 1.99

Ion Bean

Appl.363.9 1260.1 3.46

Truking Tech 154.4 1095.5 7.09

Average 239.1 888.9 3.72

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Sinosoft Tech 78.1 351.4 4.50

Linx SA 143.1 718.6 5.02

TiVO 649.1 3045.4 4.69

Gigamon 310.9 1395.4 4.49

Capcom 642.1 1285.9 2.00

Zynga 741.4 3419.1 4.61

Average 427.5 1702.6 3.98

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

NuFlare Tech 369.1 438.3 1.19

Chipmos 570.6 714.4 1.25

Tower Semi. 1249.6 1729.9 1.38

Tessera 259.6 2629.6 10.13

Rambus 336.6 1483.2 4.41

Power Integ. 387.4 1734.1 4.48

Average 528.8 1454.9 2.75

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Primax

Electronics1996.2 462.6 0.23

Elecom 673.1 72270.0 107.36

Casetek 1016.7 634.5 0.62

Stratasys 672.5 606.8 0.90

Super Micro 2215.6 1353.2 0.61

3D Systems 633.0 1330.0 2.10

Average 1201.2 12776.2 10.64

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79

Name Rev EV EV/Rev

Alaris Royalty 74.4 699.0 9.4

Tamburi

Investment 13.5 389.1 28.8

Triangle Cap. 113.7 1169.0 10.3

Och-ziff Cap. 770.4 2299.3 3.0

Fortress Inv. 1163.8 1985.7 1.7

Virtus Inv. 333.4 1008.5 3.0

Fiera Capital 259.9 1078.8 4.1

Average 389.9 1232.8 3.2

Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8

Even compared to PIPCOs with EVs in excess of $100M, Allied Minds has the largest EV / Rev multiple

17

Company Ticker Licensing Business Model EV Revenue EV / Rev

Allied Minds PLC ALM LN Equity Hybrid product / IP 342 1.3 266.3

VirnetX Holding Corp VHC US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 144 1.6 92.9

AxoGen Inc AXGN US Equity Hybrid product / IP 353 11.4 30.9

Xperi Corp XPER US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 2,035 70.1 29.0

Rambus Inc RMBS US Equity Tech development 1,384 97.6 14.2

Murphy Oil Corp MUR US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 6,646 483.0 13.8

RWS Holdings PLC RWS LN Equity Tech development 808 65.1 12.4

TiVo Corp TIVO US Equity Tech development 2,832 252.3 11.2

Asure Software Inc ASUR US Equity Tech development 105 9.7 10.8

QUALCOMM Inc QCOM US Equity Hybrid product / IP 59,618 5,999.0 9.9

InterDigital Inc/PA IDCC US Equity Tech development 2,214 273.9 8.1

RPX Corp RPXC US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 510 81.8 6.2

Acacia Research Corp ACTG US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 117 22.0 5.3

Windstream Holdings Inc WIN US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 6,045 1,309.1 4.6

Wi-LAN Inc WILN US Equity Hybrid product / IP 127 30.2 4.2

Average 5552 580.5 34.7

19 failed subsidiaries; with no winners, how long can this last before ALM admits defeat?

18

0

3

6

9

12

2010 20162011 2012 20172013 2014 2015

▪ Glia Glen

▪ EndoScreen

▪ LifeScreen

▪ Purtein

▪ BA Logix

▪ AXI

▪ SaltCheck

▪ Illumasonix

▪ Precision

Augmented

Reality Works

Running Total of ALM’s Profitable Subsidiaries vs. Failed Subsidiaries

DRG believes that if ALM were a private fund, it’s Limited Partner’s would have seized control and shut the fund down; how much longer will public investors continue to support a failed investment model?

▪ SiEnergy

Systems

▪ Allied Minds

Devices

▪ Broadcast

Routing

Fountains

19

121199

663

0

5

10

15

20

Running

Total of

Failed

Subsidiaries

Running

Total of

Profitable

SubsidiariesZero Profitable Subsidiaries

▪ RF Biocidics

▪ Novare

Pharmaceuticals

ALM’s fee structure is more costly to investors than traditional “2 and 20” models; why pay a premium for a track record of failures?

19

Mgmt.

Fee

Success

Fee

Allied Minds’

“Phantom Plan”

Compensation Model

$52.6M in holding

company operating

expenses for 2016, or

22% of total invested

capital ($239.4M) in

current subsidiaries

10% of all liquidity

events*, after opex and

associated interest

payments on capital

invested (not to exceed

5%)

VS.

2% of capital raised

20% carry over hurdle

rate (typically 8%)

Proven VC

Compensation Model

1.5% of capital raised

15% carry over hurdle

rate (typically 8%)

Unproven VC

Compensation Model

Allied Minds’ management fee is higher than venture capital comps, even

though it has yet to return any value to shareholders

*According to ALM’s prospectus,

“liquidity events” can be IPOs, a sale of

substantially all of a subsidiary’s assets, a

sale of 2/3 of a subsidiary’s voting equity,

a merger, dividends above what would

be required to cover a subsidiaries tax

obligations, and a subsidiary liquidation

VS.

Executive Summary

20

Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting

















ALM has only listed 34 US granted patents in its prospectus and annual reports; this is an incredibly small portfolio for a $~400M “technology driven” company

21

Count of US Granted Patents by Application Year for each ALM Subsidiary

Color-Coded by Method Found

1

66

3

7

111

4

1111

0

5

10

15

2007 200820051996 1997 19991998 20022000 2001 2010 201120092003 2004 20152014 201620122006 2013

US Granted Patents Referenced in ALM Prospectus & Annual Reports

34

Total

Sifting through the smoke and mirrors: below details the search strategies used to capture remaining hidden ALM patents

22

Allied Minds’ US Granted Patent Portfolio = 76

Note: Above search hedges used to generate patent counts in Thomson Innovation

Company Patent Seach Hedge

# of US

Grants

ABLS I(PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Yale) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ

Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Yale) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=((Spiegel ADJ David) OR (Spiegel ADJ Dave) OR (Spiegel ADJ D));4

ABLS II (PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Harvard) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ

Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Harvard) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=(((Whitman ADJ Malcolm) OR (Whitman ADJ M)));2

ABLS III(PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (NYU) OR (New ADJ York ADJ University) OR (iBeCa*) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-

Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (NYU) OR (New ADJ York ADJ University) OR (iBeCa*) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=(((Dasgupta ADJ R) OR (Dasgupta ADJ

Ramanuj)));

2

Biotectix(PA=((Biotectix)) OR AS=((Biotectix)) OR IN=(((Hedricks ADJ Jeff) OR (Hedricks ADJ J)) OR ((Richardson-Burns ADJ Sarah) OR (Richardson-Burns ADJ S)) OR ((Martin ADJ Dave) OR (Martin ADJ D)) OR ((Eichenberger ADJ M) OR

(Eichenberger ADJ Marc)) OR ((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)))) AND CTB=((polymer*));8

BridgeSat(PA=((BridgeSat*) OR (Bridge Sat*)) OR AS=((BridgeSat*) OR (Bridge Sat*)) OR IN=(((Mitlyng David) OR (Mitlying D)) OR ((Parvez Rizwan) OR (Parvez R)) OR ((Campagna Joseph) OR (Campagna Joe) OR (Campagna J)) OR ((Serafini John)

OR (Serafini J)))) AND CTB=(satel*);0

CephalogicsPA=(Cephalogic*) OR AS=(Cephalogic*) OR IN=(((Caputo ADJ Jeff) OR (Caputo ADJ J)) OR ((Herrig ADJ Russ) OR (Russ ADJ H)) OR ((Seshagiri ADJ Chandran) OR (Seshagiri ADJ C)) OR ((Hallacoglu ADJ Bertan) OR (Hallacoglu ADJ

B)) OR ((Oruganti ADJ Tanmayi) OR (Oruganti ADJ T)) OR ((Culver ADJ Joseph ADJ P) OR (Culver ADJ J ADJ P) OR (Culver ADJ Joe) OR (Culver ADJ Joseph) OR (Culver ADJ Joe ADJ P)));1

Cryoxtract(PA=(Cryoxtract*) OR AS=(Cryoxtract*) OR IN=(((de ADJ Dios ADJ Jorge) OR (Dios ADJ Jorge) OR (Dios ADJ J) OR (de ADJ Dios ADJ J)) OR ((Long ADJ Graham ADJ S) OR (Long ADJ G ADJ S) OR (Long ADJ Graham)) OR ((Basque

ADJ Todd) OR (Basque ADJ T)) OR ((Fraone ADJ Joe) OR (Fraone ADJ J)) OR ((Wilson ADJ Amy) OR (Wilson ADJ A)) OR ((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)))) AND CTB=(extract*);4

Federated Wireless(PA=((Federated ADJ Wire*) OR (FederatedWire*)) OR AS=((Federated ADJ Wire*) OR (FederatedWire*)) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR ((McGwier ADJ Bob) OR (McGwier ADJ

Robert) OR (McGwier ADJ R) OR (McGwier ADJ B) OR (McGwier ADJ Rob)) OR ((Reed ADJ Jeff ADJ H) OR (Reed ADJ J ADJ H) OR (Reed ADJ J) OR (Reed ADJ Jeff)) OR ((Mitola ADJ Joseph) OR (Mitola ADJ Joe) OR (Mitola ADJ

J)))) AND CTB=((wireless*));

1

Foreland

Technologies(PA=((Foreland ADJ Tech*) OR (ForelandTech)) OR AS=((Foreland ADJ Tech*) OR (ForelandTech)) OR IN=(((Espinal ADJ Dan) OR (Espinal ADJ D)) OR ((Serafini ADJ John) OR (Serafini ADJ J)) OR ((Brammer ADJ Robert) OR

(Brammer ADJ Rob) OR (Brammer ADJ R) OR (Brammer ADJ B) OR (Brammer ADJ Bob)) OR ((Jacobs ADJ Michael) OR (Jacobs ADJ M)))) AND CTB=((secur*) OR (cybersec*) OR (cyber ADJ security));0

HawkEye 360(PA=(((HawkEye ADJ 360) OR (HawkEye360) OR (Virginia ADJ Tech*))) OR AS=(((HawkEye ADJ 360) OR (HawkEye360) OR (Virginia ADJ Tech*))) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR

((McGwier ADJ Bob) OR (McGwier ADJ Robert) OR (McGwier ADJ R) OR (McGwier ADJ B) OR (McGwier ADJ Rob)))) AND CTB=((satellit*));0

Lux Cath(PA=((Lux ADJ Cath) OR (LuxCath)) OR AS=((Lux ADJ Cath) OR (LuxCath)) OR IN=(((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Armstrong ADJ K ADJ C)) OR ((Larson ADJ Cinnamon) OR (Larson ADJ C)) OR ((Ransbury ADJ

Terry) OR (Ransbury ADJ T)) OR ((Bower ADJ James) OR (Bower ADJ J)))) AND CTB=(cathet*);3

Optio Labs(PA=((Optio ADJ Labs) OR (OptioLabs)) OR AS=((Optio ADJ Labs) OR (OptioLabs)) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR (DOUGHERTY ADJ B) OR (HAMRICK ADJ D ADJ A) OR

(HANLIN ADJ R ADJ A) OR (SHARPE ADJ G ADJ G) OR (THOMPSON ADJ C ADJ M) OR (WHITE ADJ C ADJ J) OR (ZIENKIEWICZ ADJ K ADJ K))) AND CTB=((restrict* SAME access));1

Percipient Network(PA=(((Percipient ADJ Network*) OR (strongarm))) OR AS=(((Percipient ADJ Network*) OR (strongarm))) OR IN=(((O'Boyle Todd) OR (O'Boyle T)) OR ((DiCato Stephen) OR (DiCato Steve) OR (DiCato S)) OR ((Cloke Patrick) OR (Cloke

P) OR (Cloke Pat)) OR ((Serafini John) OR (Serafini J)))) AND CTB=((secur*));0

Precision Biopsy(PA=((Precision ADJ Biopsy)) OR AS=((Precision ADJ Biopsy)) OR IN=(((Tehrani ADJ Amir) OR (Tehrani ADJ A)) OR ((Werahera ADJ Priya) OR (Werahera ADJ P)) OR ((Nichols ADJ John) OR (Nichols ADJ J)) OR ((Amirana ADJ

Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Eichenberger ADJ Marc) OR (Eichenberger ADJ M)))) AND CTB=((biops*));1

ProGDermPA=((ProGDerm*) OR (Novare*) OR (LONDON ADJ HEALTH ADJ SCI ADJ CT ADJ RES ADJ INC)) AND IN=(turley);

2

RF Biocidics(PA=((RF ADJ Biocidic*)) OR AS=((RF ADJ Biocidic*)) OR IN=(((Phillips ADJ Charley) OR (Phillips ADJ C)) OR ((Yaghmaee ADJ Parastoo) OR (Yaghmaee ADJ P)) OR ((Lagunas-Solar ADJ Manuel ADJ C) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ M ADJ

C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ M ADJ C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ Manuel ADJ C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ Manuel) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ M) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ Manuel) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ M)))) AND

CTB=((RF) OR (radio*));

4

SciFluor Life

Sciences(PA=(SciFluor*) OR AS=(SciFluor*) OR IN=(((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Edwards ADJ Scott) OR (Edwards ADJ S)) OR ((Askew ADJ Ben) OR (Askew ADJ B)) OR ((Ritter ADJ Tobias) OR (Ritter ADJ T)) OR

((Furuya ADJ Takeru) OR (Furuya ADJ T)))) AND CTB=((fluor*));10

Seamless Devices(PA=((Seamless ADJ Devices) OR (SeamlessDevices)) OR AS=((Seamless ADJ Devices) OR (SeamlessDevices)) OR IN=(((Yang ADJ Roger) OR (Yang ADJ R)) OR ((Kuppambatti ADJ Jayanth) OR (Kuppambatti ADJ J)) OR ((Kinget ADJ

Peter) OR (Kinget ADJ Pete) OR (Kinget ADJ P)) OR ((Hills ADJ Scott ADJ R) OR (Hills ADJ R ADJ S)) OR ((Elias ADJ Jeff) OR (Elias ADJ J)))) AND CTB=((amplifier*));9

SoundCure(PA=((SoundCure) OR (Sounds ADJ Cure) OR (UC ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ California ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ of ADJ California ADJ Davis)) OR AS=((SoundCure) OR (Sounds ADJ Cure) OR (UC ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ

California ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ of ADJ California ADJ Davis)) OR IN=(((Zeng ADJ Fan-Gang) OR (Zeng ADJ F ADJ G) OR (Zeng ADJ F-G)) OR ((Carroll ADJ Jeff) OR (Carroll ADJ J)))) AND CTB=(tinnitus);2

Spin Transfer Tech(PA=(Spin ADJ Transfer ADJ Tech*) OR AS=(Spin ADJ Transfer ADJ Tech*) OR IN=(((Hoberman ADJ Barry) OR (Hoberman ADJ B)) OR ((Pinarbasi ADJ Nustafa) OR (Pinarbasi ADJ N)) OR ((Levi ADJ Amitay) OR (Levi ADJ A) OR

(Levi ADJ Ami)) OR ((Kent ADJ Andrew) OR (Kent ADJ Andy) OR (Kent ADJ A)))) AND CTB=((MRAM) OR (Magnetoresistive ADJ random-access ADJ memory) OR (MTJ) OR (Magnetoresistive ADJ random ADJ access ADJ memory));18

Whitewood

(PA=(Whitewood ADJ Security*) OR AS=(Whitewood ADJ Security*) OR IN=(((Serafini ADJ John) OR (Serafini ADJ J)) OR ((Moulds ADJ Richard) OR (Moulds ADJ R) OR (Moulds ADJ Rick) OR (Moulds ADJ Rich)) OR ((Thoms ADJ

Matt) OR (Thoms ADJ M)) OR ((Hughes ADJ Richard) OR (Hughes ADJ R) OR (Hughes ADJ Rick) OR (Hughes ADJ Rich)) OR ((Nordholt ADJ Jane) OR (Nordholt ADJ J)) OR ((Newell ADJ Raymond ADJ T) OR (Newell ADJ R ADJ T)

OR (Newell ADJ Ray ADJ T) OR (Newell ADJ R) OR (Newell ADJ Raymond) OR (Newell ADJ Ray)) OR ((Pelprat ADJ Michael ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ M ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ Mike ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ Michael) OR (Pelprat ADJ

M) OR (Pelprat ADJ Mike)) OR ((Rosiewicz ADJ Alex) OR (Rosiewicz ADJ A)) OR ((Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Robert) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Rob) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ R) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Bob)) OR ((Potter ADJ Bruce)

OR (Potter ADJ B)))) AND CTB=(((random NEAR5 number) OR (encrypt* OR security)));

4

Rounding up, our generous estimate is that ALM has just 76 US granted patents across all subsidiaries

23

1 1 1 1

7

3

6 6

12

3 3

5

6

8

7

4

1

4

1

11 111

0

5

10

15

2009

11

6

2011

13

2012 2013

13

4

2008

4

20072006

3

2005

2

200420032002200120001999199819971996 2014 20152010 2016

10

US Granted Patents Found by DRG by Inventor / Assignee / Text Searching

US Granted Patents Referenced in ALM Prospectus & Annual Reports

34

42

76

Total


Color-Coded by Method Found

These patents are scattered across multiple technology areas; in

other words, the portfolio is a mile wide and an inch thick

24

10

3

6

13

7

3

2

2

7

3

5

8

1

9

7

7

10

31

171415

982212111

Total US

Patents


Subsidiary 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ABLS

ABLS I 1 1 3 2 3

ABLS II 1 2 1 1 2

ABLS III 1 1 2 1 1 1

AM Federal Innov.

Biotectix 2 1 2 1 2 1

BridgeSat 1

Cephalogics 1 3 4

Cryoextract 1 1 1 2

Federated iWireless 1 2

Foreland Tech

HawkEye 360

Lux Cath 1 3 3

Optio Labs 1 1

Percipient Network

Precision Biopsy 1 1

ProGDerm (Novare) 2 1

RF Biocidics 1 1 1 2 2

SciFluor 2 2 2 2 5

Seamless Devices

Sound Cure 1 1 2 1 1

Spin Transfer Tech 3

Whitewood 4 3 3

Portfolio valuation method: assuming every ALM US patent were successfully litigated and received the median patent damages remedy, the portfolio would generate only $36 million

25

Allied Minds’ Patent Portfolio Valuation

Median Damages Award for Successfully

Litigated US Patents

103 833k42%x x

% of US Patents that are Successfully

Litigated

=36.0M

1 2 3

Allied Mind’s Estimated US Patent

Counts

ALM describes itself as a “technology-driven” company, yet it has fewer patents than expected given its market capitalization

26

Average Patents Held by a Company across Market Cap Bands

Industry <$2B $2B to $10B >$10B

Aerospace/Defense Products & Services 35 158 7,280

Biotechnology 42 114 509

Chemicals - Major Diversified 57 1,860 6,175

Communication Equipment 89 675 14,159

Data Storage Devices 207 1,836 4,839

Drug Manufacturers - Other 40 364 4,425

Drugs - Generic 24 184 121

Information Technology Services 1,230 2,946 27,889

Medical Appliances & Equipment 104 448 2,753

Medical Instruments & Supplies 314 487 1,955

Medical Laboratories & Research 739 162 1,976

Networking & Communication Devices 264 2,225 797

Scientific & Technical Instruments 72 680 602

Semiconductor Equipment & Materials 262 1,706 3,552

Semiconductor - ICs and Memory Chips 337 1,358 6,728

Specialty Chemicals 116 471 1,546

Wireless Communications 42 10 17

Average 234 923 5,019

Given Allied Minds currently trades at a ~$400 million valuation, investors should expect its total US granted patent count to be well over 200; however, it’s far less

1 2 3

Across the top 50 most litigious IP industries, the weighted average percent of litigated patents that are found to be infringed is 42%

27

Percentage of Litigated US Granted Patents Deemed to be Infringed, by Industry

Litigation

Rank Industry

Total # of patents

litigated by public

companies

% of litigated

patents deemed

to be infringed

1 Drug Manufacturers - Other 157 71.97%

2 Business Services 85 27.06%

3 Drug Manufacturers - Major 81 59.26%

4 Communication Equipment 76 38.16%

5 Diversified Machinery 75 48.00%

6 Medical Appliances & Equip. 63 50.79%

7 Application Software 56 41.07%

8 Electronic Equipment 43 41.86%

9 Biotechnology 39 41.03%

10 Semiconductor - Broad Line 37 10.81%

11 Business Software & Services 35 17.14%

12 Semiconductor – ICs 34 47.06%

13 Medical Instruments & Supplies 31 38.71%

14 Industrial Electrical Equipment 31 38.71%

15 Semiconductor- Memory Chips 26 34.62%

16 Computer Based Systems 25 48.00%

17 Specialty Retail – Other 25 40.00%

18 Semiconductor Equipment 24 4.17%

19 Information Technology Services 22 22.73%

20 Data Storage Devices 22 31.82%

21 Medical Laboratories & Research 21 57.14%

22 Auto Parts 21 23.81%

23 Chemicals - Major Diversified 19 57.89%

24 Drugs - Generic 19 73.68%

25 Diversified Electronics 17 17.65%

Litigation

Rank Industry

Total # of patents

litigated by public

companies

% of litigated

patents deemed

to be infringed

26 Oil & Gas Equipment 16 43.75%

27 Personal Products 16 56.25%

28 Specialty Chemicals 15 0.00%

29 Processing Systems 15 0.00%

30 Air Services – Other 14 21.43%

31 Security Software & Services 14 0.00%

32 Computer Peripherals 13 46.15%

33 Electric Utilities 13 84.62%

34 Aerospace/Defense Products 12 50.00%

35 Technical & System Software 11 45.45%

36 Cleaning Products 10 50.00%

37 Property & Casualty Insur. 10 90.00%

38 Gaming Activities 10 0.00%

39 Drugs Wholesale 10 20.00%

40 Drug Stores 10 50.00%

41 Network & Comm. Devices 9 33.33%

42 Semiconductor – Specialized 8 12.50%

43 Apparel Stores 8 0.00%

44 Diversified Computer Sys. 8 25.00%

45 Internet Software & Services 8 50.00%

46 Agricultural Chemicals 7 57.14%

47 Auto Manufacturers – Major 7 71.43%

48 Research Services 7 0.00%

49 Machine Tools 6 33.33%

50 Multimedia & Graphics Soft. 6 0.00%

Total / Weighted Average 1,347 42.02%

1 2 3

A top-down valuation of ALM’s IP portfolio: median patent damage remedy for all US patent cases over the past decade is 833k

28

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dam

age

Rem

edie

s

(in

millio

ns)

Median =

833k

Median Patent Damage Remedy’s Granted by US Courts, Last 10 Years

Source: Analysis of all damage remedies in the Docket Navigator database

2007

1 2 3

Simple math: the value of Allied Minds’ patent portfolio is likely less than $36M

29

Allied Minds’ Patent Portfolio Valuation

Median Damages Award for Successfully

Litigated US Patents

103 833k42%x x

% of US Patents that are Successfully

Litigated

=36.0M

1 2 3

Allied Mind’s Estimated US Patent

Counts

This top-down valuation model assumes that Allied Mind’s IP is seminal and core to established markets, which it is not

30

Forward citations are an indication of a patent portfolio’s value; the median Allied Minds patent trails the median patent across every industry comparable

Medical Appliances & Equipment

Wireless Communication

Networking & Comm. Devices

Data Storage Devices

Medical Instruments & Supplies

Scientific & Technical Instruments

Semiconductor Equip. & Materials

Semiconductor – ICs & Memory Chips

Information Technology Services

Communication Equipment

Biotechnology

Drugs – Generic

Aerospace / Defense Products & Services

Specialty Chemicals

Medical Laboratories & Research

Drug Manufacturers

Chemicals – Major Diversified

Allied Minds IP Portfolio

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Count of Forward Citations / Year by Industry for Industries Relevant to Allied Minds

Note: Sample size of patents across industries >600,000

Industries Relevant to ALM

ALM’s portfolio of US granted patents does not score well across a range of bibliometric factors, in addition to forward citations

31

Value Signal More = Better

Higher forward citations

per year imply increased

significance of a patent’s

technological relevance in

its domain

Allied Minds’ citation score

is carried by Spin

Transfer’s patent portfolio;

the median patent citation

count is extremely low

More = Better

Shorter independent

claim lengths imply

broader coverage in the

invention

Allied Minds’ patent

claims tend to be long

(+100 words); this is

often characteristic of

limited portfolios

Less = Better

Value Signal

Reasoning

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

Low

0.72

MaxMedianMean

0.17

11.5

Forward Citations /

Year

# of Independent

Claims / PatentShortest Independent

Claim Length14

33

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

MaxMedianMeanLow

681

106143

27

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

MeanLow Median Max

ALM US Granted

Patent Bibliometrics

Takeaway

More independent claims

implies that additional

implementations were

considered and patented,

potentially expanding the

scope of the patent

Allied Minds’ claims count is

also carried by Spin Transfer;

the median patent citation

count is not high

ALM’s US Granted Patent Portfolio Bibliometrics

Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting

















Executive Summary

32

None of ALM’s subsidiaries own more than 1% of the patents in the technology areas in which they participate

33

Value

Rank Subsidiaries

ALM's 2016 Stated

Ownership Value Industry US Grants

Total in Tech

Domain

% of Total Domain

Owned

1 Spin Transfer Tech $121.0 Inform. Tech. 3 5034 0.06%

2 SciFluor Life Sciences $91.3 Healthcare 13 18622 0.07%

3 Precision Biopsy $61.8 Healthcare 2 262 0.76%

4 Federated Wireless $59.9 Inform. Tech. 3 5830 0.05%

5 RF Biocidics $40.0 Inform. Tech. 7 1245 0.56%

6 Optio Labs $33.6 Inform. Tech. 2 5148 0.04%

7 Cephalogics $22.9 Healthcare 8 6598 0.12%

8 ProGDerm (d/b/a Novare) $16.8 Drug Development 3 6791 0.04%

9 CryoXtract Instruments $12.6 Healthcare 5 4001 0.12%

10 Biotectix $12.2 Industrial 9 2220 0.41%

- Seamless Devices Unspecified Inform. Tech. 0 1195 0.00%

- Whitewood Encryption Systems Unspecified Cyber Security 10 3862 0.26%

- ABLS I Unspecified Drug Development 10 9572 0.10%

- LuxCath Unspecified Healthcare 7 790 0.89%

- ABLS II Unspecified Drug Development 7 20428 0.03%

- SoundCure Unspecified Healthcare 6 1555 0.39%

- ABLS III (d/b/a iBeCa) Unspecified Drug Development 7 1110 0.63%

- Percipient Networks Unspecified Inform. Tech. 0 4521 0.00%

- BridgeSat Unspecified Inform. Tech. 1 1048 0.10%

- HawkEye 360 Unspecified Telecomm. 0 866 0.00%

Note: The collected ownership for the “unspecified” companies

amounts to $79.4M, according to the 2016 ALM semi-annual report

Rece

ntl

y w

ritt

en

off

Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are inferior to their competitors

34

Spin Transfer

SciFluor Life SciencesPrecision Biopsy

Federated Wireless

HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks

Seamless Devices Whitewood Encryption

ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III BridgeSat

Patenting Trends of Top Assignees in ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains

Optio LabsSoundCure

ProGDerm (Novare) RF BiocidicsCryoExtract

CephalogicsBiotectix

Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are peripheral to their respective technology domains

35

ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III BridgeSat Federated Wireless

HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks Precision Biopsy SciFluor Life Sciences

Seamless Devices Spin Transfer Whitewood Encryption

Patent Assignee Network Diagrams of ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains

Optio Labs SoundCureCryoExtract

Biotectix Cephalogics

ProGDerm (Novare) RF Biocidics

Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries do not form effective chokepoints or bottlenecks in the industries in which they participateLicensing is unlikely a viable growth strategy for ALM’s intellectual property

36

ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III

Seamless Devices Spin Transfer Whitewood Encryption

SciFluor Life Sciences

Federated WirelessBridgeSat

HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks Precision Biopsy

Patent Text Clustering Maps of ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains

Optio Labs SoundCureCryoExtract

Biotectix Cephalogics

ProGDerm (Novare) RF Biocidics

2223

12

6

0

2

4

6

The average ALM subsidiary technology is pre-prototype phase; still

years of capital investment needed for de minimis return upside

37

Subsidiaries

TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9

Development Stage

as Reported by ALM

in its 2015 Annual

Report

Basic principles

observed

Technology

concept

formulated

Experimental

proof of

concept

Technology

validated in lab

Technology

validated in

relevant

environment

Technology

demonstrated

in relevant

environment

System

prototype

demonstration

in operational

environment

System

complete and

qualified

Actual system

proven in

operational

environment

ABLS I X Early Stage

ABLS II X Early Stage

ABLS III X Early Stage

Biotectix X Commercial Stage

BridgeSat X Early Stage

Cephalogics X Early Stage

CryoXtract X Commercial Stage

Federated Wireless X Early Stage

HawkEye 360 X Early Stage

Lux Cath X Early Stage

Optio Labs X Early Stage

Percipient Network X Early Stage

Precision Biopsy X Early Stage

ProGDerm (Novare) X Early Stage

RF Biocidics X Commercial Stage

SciFluor X Early Stage

Seamless Devices X Early Stage

Sound Cure X Commercial Stage

Spin Transfer Tech X Early Stage

Whitewood X Early Stage

TRL Average

Across

Subsidiaries

= 5.15

ALM’s Subsidiaries Tagged by Technology Readiness Levels (As Defined by the European Commission)

FDA Drug Development

Cycle Phase 1 (of 5)



2223

12

6

0

2

4

6

On April 7th, ALM terminated ventures that DRG evaluated to be the most mature, commercial technologies, setting the clock back by years

38

Subsidiaries

TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9

Development Stage

as Reported by ALM

in its 2015 Annual

Report

Basic principles

observed

Technology

concept

formulated

Experimental

proof of

concept

Technology

validated in lab

Technology

validated in

relevant

environment

Technology

demonstrated

in relevant

environment

System

prototype

demonstration

in operational

environment

System

complete and

qualified

Actual system

proven in

operational

environment

ABLS I X Early Stage

ABLS II X Early Stage

ABLS III X Early Stage

Biotectix X Commercial Stage

BridgeSat X Early Stage

Cephalogics X Early Stage

CryoXtract X Commercial Stage

Federated Wireless X Early Stage

HawkEye 360 X Early Stage

Lux Cath X Early Stage

Optio Labs X Early Stage

Percipient Network X Early Stage

Precision Biopsy X Early Stage

ProGDerm (Novare) X Early Stage

RF Biocidics X Commercial Stage

SciFluor X Early Stage

Seamless Devices X Early Stage

Sound Cure X Commercial Stage

Spin Transfer Tech X Early Stage

Whitewood X Early Stage

TRL Average

Across

Subsidiaries

= 5.15

ALM’s Subsidiaries Tagged by Technology Readiness Levels (As Defined by the European Commission)





Spin Transfer is developing technology that will not be adopted for at least seven years, while facing competition from other tech

39

• Spin Transfer Technologies (STT) was founded in 2007 from patents owned by New York University

• Headquartered in Silicon Valley, California

• 50 FTE employees, including 23 PhD’s

• Product development stage

• STT is developing a form of MRAM computer memory

▪ Spin Transfer MRAM in and of itself is an improvement over current

Negative-AND (NAND) technology by passing current through a thick

magnetic layer so that it has more spin-up electrons than spin-down

Orthogonal Spin Transfer (OST): Magnetoresistive Random Access

Memory (MRAM) supposedly provides better performance / scalability

improvements over current

spin transfer MRAM

▪ OST-MRAM utilizes an

orthogonal orientation

between the polarizing

and free magnetic vectors

resulting in alternation of

magnetic orientations

▪ $107.3 million in total invested capital from Allied Minds, Invesco Asset

Mgmt and Woodford Investment Mgmt as of Dec 2015

▪ Allied Minds – 48.40% ownership interest

– Invested capital: $28.4 million

▪ STT’s portfolio contains an estimated 18 US granted patents

▪ Most of these patents have been granted in the past 5 years

▪ PTO cancelled several claims on US Patent No. 6,980,469 due to an IPR initiated by

a competitor

▪ Industry leaders do not anticipate this technology will be needed for memory

upgrades until 2023 [1]

▪ Industry leaders (such as Samsung and Toshiba) are pursing similar avenues of

research, and have larger R&D budgets to spend

▪ STT is developing one of many types of technology that could potentially address this

market

▪ STT, despite the R&D dollars invested, still lacks the infrastructure needed to

compete in this industry; other players have deeper wallets, fully functioning

fabrication facilities, and larger teams

OST-MRAM

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

Est. Profit S-Curve TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

7-10

Years

7(System prototype

demonstration in

operational

environment)

$50M

[1] Estimate made by Jim Handy from Objective Analysis, which specializes in coverage of the memory industry

Despite claiming to have a robust IP portfolio, Spin Transfer trails others in the MRAM industry in patenting volume

40

With an estimated 3 US granted patents, Spin Transfer does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

20

20

21

24

23

24

26

30

34

35

33

43

63

63

65

75

77

87

98

98

109

183

165

220

246

Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MICRON TECH 0 0 0 0 1 18 42 36 32 26 20 10 7 10 0 3 14 5 3 8 11

IBM 2 2 9 1 7 3 12 21 17 9 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 24 6 13 34

SAMSUNG ELECT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 10 3 11 10 7 11 4 19 21 13 29 20

QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 15 23 10 8 21 12 14 38

HEWLETT PACKARD 0 0 0 0 3 7 41 37 16 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

INFINEON 0 0 0 1 1 28 16 17 9 8 5 1 1 0 2 1 4 3 0 0 1

AVALANCHE TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 14 36 26 1 5

MAGIC TECHNOLOGIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 12 15 9 15 13 7 0 6 0 0 0

TOSHIBA EK 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 4 2 3 1 8 6 7 10 10 6 6 3 0

TAIWAN SEMICOND. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8 10 6 6 1 3 4 9 10 5 2 2 4

MOTOROLA INC 6 7 11 7 7 8 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FREESCALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 8 11 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

HEADWAY TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 6 2 1 9 5 5 10 5 1 0 4

EVERSPIN TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 1 0 2 3 6 6 6 1 7

NEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 7 7 6 2 1 2 0 0 0

KANG SEUNG H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 11 3 4 0 0 2 0

CROCUS TECHNOLOGY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 7 3 9 3 1 0 5

APPLIED SPINTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEAGATE 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 5 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 0

HEWLETT PACKARD 0 0 1 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GRANDIS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 4 2 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0

HYNIX SEMIC. 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

HONEYWELL INT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 1 0 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 0

KULA WITOLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 5 8 0 0 0 0

IND TECH RES INST 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Spin Transfer competes in a crowded space; there are many others positioned to benefit in the event of a market shift to MRAM

41

STT’s patents cover just one portion of the broader MRAM domain; there is a possibility that its portfolio is rendered valueless long term

42Note: Includes text fields from 2,209 US grant patents

Semantic Text Clustering Map of STT’s Patents in the Context of the Broader

MRAM Domain

Denote Spin Transfer’s patents

Spin Transfer’s technology is just one of many competing early stage non-volatile random access memory technologies

Zoom Level

1Type of

Memory

2Memory

Family

3 Technology

Class

ROMNVRAM

Non-Volatile

nvSRAMCBRAM FeRAMMRAM 3D XPointSONOSDWMRRAM NRAM Millipede

Memory

FJG RAMFLASH SSD PRAM

Given the competition in NVRAM and STT’s small IP portfolio, it is highly unlikely that STT becomes the sole proprietor of the next universal memory system

4Technology

Version

Late Stage Early Stage

STT-RAM TAS-RAM VMRAM

Memory Types

43

Estimated Subsidiary Valuation

(in millions USD) Reasoning

ALM’s implied valuation of Spin Transfer is $250M: our optimistic estimate is that it is worth closer to $100M

44

ALM’s Implied

Valuation

($250M)*

Estimated Valuation

($95M, assuming equal

weighting across models)

*ALM states that it owns 48.4%, or a $121M stake, in Spin Transfer. Therefore the

implied valuation of Spin Transfer is $250M (or $121M / 0.484).

$0 $75 $150 $225 $300 $375

$150M+

Difference

NPV of

Future

Earnings

Liquidation

of Subsidiary

Assets

Comps

Analysis

STT has stated assets of $83M.

If it were to liquidate all of

these assets, even at a 20%

premium, it would generate

$100M

Samsung acquired Grandis, a

maker of MRAM with 62 patents,

for $76.6M in 2011 [2]; Rambus

acquired Unity Semiconductor, a

maker of non-volatile solid state

memory devices with 147 US

patents, for $35M 2012

STT has not generated any

revenues to date; but assuming it

generates a profit of $15M / yr.

[1] for the next 10 yrs. at a 3%

discount rate, the NPV of those

earnings is only $128M

[1] Earnings of $15M is based off an assumption that STT has a 10% chance

of generating $150M in profit / year

[2] Samsung mentions its purchase price of Grandis in its 2011 annual report

SciFluor uses fluorination to improve drug profiles - a method neither novel nor scalable to its “potential” billion dollar market

45

• SciFluor was founded in 2011 with technology licensed from Harvard University

• Headquartered in Cambridge, MA

• About 10 FTE employees

• A drug discovery company that develops and uses fluorination technologies to improve drug profiles; product development stage

▪ Idea of fluorine enhanced new chemical entities (NCEs) is neither novel nor practical

for commercialization according to industry experts and a paper written by Scifluor’s

founder in 2015

▪ SciFluor lacks the ability to quickly commercialize its technology at the scale it would

need to make a market impact

▪ Ongoing regulatory hurdles will be expensive

▪ SciFluor has limited IP in the space and faces extreme competition from other

pharma companies

▪ Creates new chemical entities (NCEs), which are fluorine-enhanced

improvements to existing chemical compounds

▪ SF0166: first lead development compound, designed to distribute Age-

related Macular Degeneration (AMD) treatment to the retina in high

concentrations; improvement in distribution on non-fluorinated version

▪ SF0034: an activator to suppress neuronal hyperexcitability that may be

a superior anti-epileptic drug. May also show benefits in treating other

diseases associated with hyperexcitability such as ALS

▪ Host of early stage development

in ophthalmology, neurology

fibrosis and inflammation

▪ $44.8 million in invested capital as of April 2015


– Invested Capital: $19.6 million

Fluorine Binding

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ SciFluor has an estimated 9 US granted patents

▪ These patents are not heavily cited by other industry players; citations are

typically an indicator of value

IP Strength

Value Metrics


Estimated Time

to Profit

5-10

Years

3(System prototype

demonstration in

operational

environment)

$20M

SciFluor is attempting to enter a technology space that is already well established

46

With an estimated 13 US granted patents, SciFluor does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

40

40

45

45

49

53

58

58

59

62

63

64

65

72

83

83

91

230

183

151

131

134

139

113

101

Patent Trend | Total Counts

ASSIGNEE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 39 16 12 9 11 22 40 19 18 6 20 3

BAYER AG 19 27 11 14 19 23 21 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 34

PFIZER 3 8 10 22 15 24 14 12 10 11 3 4 2 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 4

HOFFMANN LA ROCHE 7 6 7 4 3 13 5 12 10 15 11 12 5 13 4 0 3 3 2 4 10

SANOFI SA 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 7 19 18 34 10 16 22 9

MERCK SHARP & DOHME 2 10 8 7 2 4 5 4 4 6 5 11 14 14 11 5 4 3 5 7 7BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM

PHARMA 2 1 3 13 14 15 16 29 5 7 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

ASTRAZENECA AB 0 2 1 2 11 7 12 7 14 14 3 7 5 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 0

BAYER IP GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 14 17 11 24 9 0 0

AVENTIS PHARMA GMBH 0 2 4 8 22 19 20 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DAIKIN IND LTD 1 0 3 1 2 6 10 6 5 6 5 6 6 3 6 5 3 3 0 6 6

SANOFI AVENTIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 8 9 11 13 15 8 0 2 0 0 0 0

MERCK & CO INC 0 6 2 4 6 1 3 4 6 8 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8

SCHERING AG 2 7 5 5 10 4 9 8 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP 6 11 2 4 4 4 13 5 3 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GLAXO GROUP LTD 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 8 6 8 9 7 3 7 1 3 0 1 0 1

GALDERMA RES & DEV 0 1 0 3 1 5 5 3 2 6 5 3 1 5 5 5 3 0 3 3 5SANOFI AVENTIS

DEUTSCHLAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 17 1 12 8 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

CANON KK 12 7 4 7 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY

LAB 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 7 1 4 3 7 1 1 8 6

APPLIED MATERIALS INC 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 4 5

WARNER LAMBERT CO 3 5 3 5 8 2 5 6 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO

LTD 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 6 3

SANKYO CO 6 8 7 6 4 2 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HOECHST AG 11 15 3 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SciFluor’s patents fall outside of the core patenting networks, signaling a lack of portfolio value

47

SciFluor is on the periphery in its technology domain; market penetration expectations should be adjusted accordingly


Semantic Text Clustering Map of SciFluor Life Sciences’ Patents in the Context of

the Broader Fluorinated Drug Domain

Denote SciFluor patents

Precision Biopsy has not been able to commercialize after eight years of operation

49

• Precision Biopsy was founded in 2008 in collaboration with professors from the University of Colorado

• Headquartered in Boston, MA

• At least 12 FTE employees with 2 PhDs

• Developing a medical device platform to diagnose prostate cancer faster and more accurately than existing solutions; clinical trial phase

▪ Precision Biopsy claims to have a ‘strong IP portfolio’, but has just one patent despite

several applications since its founding in 2008

▪ Precision Biopsy commercialized a single product for 8 years of its operation

▪ The company completed product development, verification and validation testing of

ClariCore system in 2015, but has not made any material sales reported on ALMs

income statements

▪ Precision Biopsy will face strong competition in the medical device arena

▪ The company lacks the staffing to scale this product

▪ ClariCore System: a medical device platform that applies spectral

analysis during a biopsy, together with a proprietary algorithm, to

classify abnormalities in the prostate tissue

▪ Consists of a hand piece and console with integrated fiber optics that

enables real-time tissue classification, unlike the multiple

day histopathological analysis

▪ Intends to use only one or two core prostate tissue samples

(compared to the norm of 12 samples) by only sampling

tissue that is classified as suspicious




ClariCore

ConsoleClariCore Hand Piece

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Precision Biopsy has an estimated 2 US granted patents

▪ The amount of patenting strongly trails competitors in this space

▪ The US granted patent is not strongly cited, compared to industry norms

IP Strength

Value Metrics


Estimated Time

to Profit

7-10

Years

7(System prototype

demonstration in

operational

environment)

$10M

Precision Biopsy is one of many players in the tissue classification via spectroscopy domain

50

With an estimated 2 US granted patents, Precision Biopsy does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

7

8

14


CHEMIMAGE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 0

UNIV TEXAS 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

MOMENTA

PHARMACEUTICALS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1

LUMIDIGM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV PITTSBURGH 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WILSON ROBERT H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

UNIV OHIO STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

UNIV MICHIGAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

STELLA JUDI L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

SIMEONE DIANE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

SCHEIMAN JAMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

RUBIO-DIAZ DANIEL EMILIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

RODRIGUEZ-SAONA LUIS E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

MYCEK MARY-ANN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

MCKENNA BARBARA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

US ARMY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0

UNIV ILLINOIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

SPECTRASCIENCE INC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CORNELL RES FOUNDATION

INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CHANDRA MALAVIKA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

CA NAT RESEARCH COUNCIL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BUFFINGTON CHARLES A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

UNIV PENNSYLVANIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

ZHU XIANGPING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US HEALTH 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Precision Biopsy does not have a highly central IP portfolio in its technology area, much less in other tissue classification domains

51

Precision Biopsy’s market penetration expectations should be tempered given its lack of control in this space

52Note: Includes text fields from 130 US grant patents

Semantic Text Clustering Map of Precision Biopsy’s Patents in the Context of the

Broader Spectroscopic Device Domain

Denote Precision Biopsy patents

Federated Wireless focuses on 3.5Ghz wireless infrastructure, an industry with not much to show today, and long time to profit

53

• Federated Wireless was founded in 2012 with scientists from Virginia Tech

• Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia

• At least 15 FTE employees, 6 of whom have Ph.Ds

• Develops cloud based wireless infrastructure for spectrum allocation, sharing and extension of access; pilot stage

▪ Focus on 3.5Ghz spectrum sharing may be overplayed since:

– Compatible devices are far from mass-marketable

– Cheaper options like Wifi exist for corporations

– Unclear whether bandwidth of focus will have reasonable mass adoption rates

▪ Raised $22 million in both internal and external equity financing 2015 to conclude

development and begin commercialization of product platform; still has not seen

material sales

▪ Awarded a piece of a grant with the Department of Defense, far outweighing ALM’s

valuation increase

▪ Joined CBRS Alliance to promote trials and attract potential pilot funding

▪ CINQ XP: A cloud based platform that provides access to shared

spectrum and allows real-time planning of wireless networks through

densification, extension, and cost reduction of field engineering

▪ SAS: proprietary Spectrum Access System (SAS) to allow licensed

sharing of spectrum through lower impact of exclusion zones during

network optimization




CINQ XP Interface SAS Spectrum Graphic

Company description

Technology overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Federated Wireless has an estimated 1 US granted patent

▪ This is limited IP coverage, especially in a technology domain that will be driven by

standards bodies

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10 Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$10M

Est. Profit S-Curve

Federated Wireless lack the IP necessary to compete in an industry driven standards bodies

54

Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ERICSSON TELEFON AB 1 3 7 3 3 6 2 2 3 4 1 9 8 6 19 19 33 27 10 0 0

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 6 2 13 11 8 10 12 6 11 7 1 0 0

NOKIA CORP 0 0 1 1 5 6 3 6 8 2 12 11 1 4 7 0 2 1 0 0 0

QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 4 7 11 9 9 7 8 3 0 0

LG ELECTRONICS INC 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 2 8 6 7 9 9 11 4 1 0

HUAWEI TECH CO LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 7 12 14 7 2 0

KOREA ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 5 5 2 7 9 4 5 5 1 0 0

INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 5 16 12 0 0 0

NTT DOCOMO INC 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 7 4 1 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 0 0 0

SONY CORP 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 3 7 0 0 0

INTERDIGITAL TECH 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 7 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 4 1 4 6 2 0 0 0

AT & T MOBILITY II LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 2 1 5 4 3 0 0

FUJITSU LTD 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 4 2 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 0

ALCATEL LUCENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 5 2 4 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 0

ZTE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 6 7 3 2 1 0

MOTOROLA INC 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BLACKBERRY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 5 7 2 0 0

NEC CORP 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0

SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 0

NORTEL NETWORKS LTD 0 0 0 5 2 1 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SPECTRUM BRIDGE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 2 2 0 1 0 0

MICROSOFT CORP 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

HITACHI LTD 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 0

PANASONIC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Federated Wireless does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

15

16

16

16

17

17

19

21

22

23

26

26

27

28

28

29

34

50

51

52

69

69

70

94

166


Federated Wireless’ portfolio is not heavily cited by others in the industry; it remains isolated from core tech companies

55

Federated Wireless lacks the IP breadth to have a commanding presence in this space


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Federated Wireless’ Patents in the Context of the

Broader Spectrum Wifi Domain

Denote Federated Wireless patents

ABLS I is another bet on potentially novel biotechnology, in which management has a track record of disappointments

57

• ABLS I was founded in 2014 with Yale University patents


• Pre-clinical stage

• Using ARMs as a treatment for various types of cancer.

▪ Antibody Recruiting Molecules (ARMs): technology developed by Yale

University professor that attaches to a cancer, attracts the body’s innate

antibodies to it and hence destroys the target.

▪ Intended to replace or substitute therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies

(mAbs), which are large proteins and hence have greater difficulty

penetrating into tumor tissue.

▪ Promised ARM advantages over mAbs:

– Inexpensive to produce on a large scale

– Stable at elevated temperatures

– Unlikely to cause allergic responses

▪ Allied Minds – 74 % ownership interest

▪ ABLS I owns an estimated 9 patents

▪ Its technology remains unproven in a commercial setting, placing less value on the IP

owned

▪ ABLS I is invested early in a promising technology that ALM has not stated a

commercialization target for thus far – may take 5-10 years for any commercialization

▪ Allied Minds management track record in biopharma is below par -

ProGDerm/Novare have failed to commercialize in 10 years despite promising

“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS I

▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped found

and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock fell

drastically in September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below

80% of its IPO price ever since

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$10M

Est. Profit S-Curve

ABLS I does not have much IP in a domain that is highly IP-driven

58

With an estimated 9 US granted patents, ABLS I does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

10

11

11

11

11

14

15

16

16

17

19

20

20

21

21

23

26

27

32

37

38

45

75

82

83


AGENSYS INC 0 0 0 2 5 4 6 1 11 3 10 4 4 9 5 4 8 3 2 2 0

GENENTECH INC 0 0 2 0 3 2 1 2 5 3 7 3 8 3 9 6 5 10 8 3 2

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 4 5 1 3 5 0 3 2 3 3 5 0 5 4 4 5 7 7 8

IMMUNOMEDICS INC 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 4 4 2 5 3 7 4 8

US HEALTH 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 3 1 1 2 4 0 3 1 1 4 2 1 7

IMMUNOGEN INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 9 2 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 2

UNIV TEXAS 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 1 2 3 3 1 1

ABBOTT LAB 2 2 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 5 2 0 0

MACROGENICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 0 6 2 3 2 2

UNIV MICHIGAN 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2

XENCOR INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 1 4 5 3 0

ONCOMED PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 3 3 5 2

MEDAREX INC 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 0

PFIZER 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 4 3

PF MEDICAMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 4 1 4 0 2

CORNELL RES FOUNDATION INC 0 2 0 5 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 2

BRIGHAM & WOMENS HOSPITAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 3

RAITANO ARTHUR B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 2 4 0 0 0 0 0

JAKOBOVITS AYA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0

ONCOLYTICS BIOTECH INC 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

KARKI SHER BAHADUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0

CHALLITA-EID PIA M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0

HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES INC 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

LAZAR GREGORY ALAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0

ABLS I’s patent portfolio is not heavily cited by the industry, suggesting the portfolio is weaker

59

ABLS I does not have much domain coverage, and it stands to face competition from other small molecule therapeutics


Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS I’s Patents in the Context of the Broader

Small Molecule Therapeutics for Prostate Cancer Domain

Denote ABLS I patents

ABLS II is building on patents much older than itself in an attempt to revive ALM’s flailing biopharma track record

61

• ABLS II was founded in 2014 with Harvard University based molecules



• Preclinical development and discovery of halofuginone analogues to treat fibrotic diseases

▪ Halofuginone (HF): a small molecule derived from febrifugine, a

natural product, that could potentially inhibit fibrosis, angiogenesis,

and chronic inflammation

▪ HF selectively blocks the differentiation of Th17 cells, which is a

common inflammatory cell implicated in autoimmune diseases

▪ ABLS II is developing analogues of HF against a specific target

(Prolyl tRNA Synthetas)


▪ Lacks a strong track record of consistent patenting (an estimated 7 US patents

granted in total, one in 1998 and the other in 2011)

▪ Niche technology area

▪ Time-scattered patenting implies another attempt to commercialize long-existing

academic research, a project with high uncertainties in both success and timing



“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS II

▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped

found and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock

tanked in September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below

80% of its IPO price ever since

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

HF Molecular Structure

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$10M

Est. Profit S-Curve

ABLS II faces strong competition from a wide range of players in small molecule therapeutics for fibrotic

62

With an estimated 7 US granted patents, ABLS II does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

25

26

30

30

31

32

34

35

38

47

47

52

52

52

53

55

55

56

58

61

68

69

74

82

108


SQUIBB BRISTOL MYERS CO 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 4 2 4 0 8 2 6 7 7 9 19 15 17 12

PFIZER 0 3 0 11 7 4 8 18 6 5 3 4 1 2 0 0 5 1 3 1 1

NOVARTIS AG 2 2 3 3 3 5 0 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 1 6 6 6 7 13 10

MERCK & CO INC 8 2 1 7 0 2 1 0 2 6 10 2 1 0 0 0 9 8 4 6 5

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 3 2 2 3 6 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 4 6 4 1 5 9 9 4

IMMUNOMEDICS INC 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 3 5 2 7 10 6 9 12

VERTEX PHARMA 2 5 2 5 3 12 8 6 1 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0

PHARMACYCLICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 3 8 4 8 12 14 5

ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO 2 0 2 4 8 2 5 5 4 3 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 3 3 0 0

AMGEN INC 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 3 4 1 5 7 8 6 9 2 2

BIOGEN IDEC INC 0 0 1 1 2 0 7 1 2 4 7 6 1 1 2 2 2 5 6 3 3

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 9 5 1 3 4 1 9 11 4 10

MERCK SHARP & DOHME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 5 5 5 3 7 7 3 6 5

MERCK SERONO SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 10 4 2 5 4 7 5 3 5 0

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM

PHARMA 0 1 0 2 7 10 11 6 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RES FOUND 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 7 0 10 14 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0

HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES INC 1 4 2 4 5 1 6 2 4 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0


ALLERGAN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 5 14 5 9

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 3 4 0 2 0 4 3 3 3 2

MERCK PATENT GMBH 1 0 0 1 2 1 4 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 3 1

HOECHST AG 8 15 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4

WARNER LAMBERT CO 0 1 0 4 4 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUGEN INC 6 1 9 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The assignee network for this domain consists of multiple citation groups, suggesting many competing therapy solutions

63

ABLS II’s patents sit on the periphery of the domain; unlikely that it will dominate the market long term

64

Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS II’s Patents in the Context of the Broader

Small Molecule Therapeutics for Fibrotic Domain

Denote ABLS II patents

Note: Includes text fields from 4,255 US grant patents

ABLS III completes ALM’s undiversified consortium of university lab based biopharma ventures in an attempt to cure cancer

65

• ABLS III was founded in 2016 from NYU patents



• Using proprietary compounds from NYU to develop oncological

solutions

▪ Proprietary compounds are Inhibitors of β-Catenin Responsive

Transcription (iCRTs); they are able to reduce tumor growth by

inhibiting the Wnt signaling pathway that functions abnormally in

tumorous cells

▪ Wnt signaling pathways regulate certain aspects of cell migration,

polarity, patterning etc. during cell growth; the compounds promise to

interfere with this process through inhibitor compounds while sparing its

non-oncogenic activities


▪ ABLS III has an estimated 6 US patents granted, one in 2009 and the other in 2012

▪ It has a small IP positioning in the domain in which it participates

▪ As an early stage oncological venture, ABLS III faces risks of time uncertainty,

commercial viability and cash burn



“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS III

▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped found

and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock tanked in

September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below 80% of its IPO

price ever since

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

β-Catenin structure

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$10M

Est. Profit S-Curve

ABLS III lacks the necessary IP to compete effectively against other market players

66

With an estimated 6 US granted patents, ABLS III is tied for 14th most assignees for this technology area

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

8

9

9

9

9

11

11

12

13

14

14

17

23


SAMUMED LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 8 4 6

NOVARTIS AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 6

GENENTECH INC 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 0 0

ONCOMED PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 5

CHOONGWAE PHARMA CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 1

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1

CONG FENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 4

US HEALTH 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

DEUTSCHES KREBSFORSCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1

KC SUNIL KUMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 0

HOOD JOHN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 0

ALNYLAM PHARMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2

ABLS III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1

KAHN MICHAEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

EGUCHI MASAKATSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RAJEEV KALLANTHOTTATHIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

NGUYEN CU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

MOON SUNG HWAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

MANOHARAN MUTHIAH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

LEE SUNG CHAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

JEONG KWANG WON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

JASCO PHARMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0

CHUNG JAE UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

ABLS III falls outside core assignees patenting in this domain, characteristic of a “moon shot” company

67

ABLS III’s patents are on the periphery of the patent landscape; chances of long term success are slim


Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS III’s Patents in the Context of the Wnt

Signaling Pathways Domain

Denote ABLS III patents

BridgeSat’s optical system is backed by an external IP portfolio, whose cost of licensing will further fuel Allied Minds’ cash burn

69

• BridgeSat, Inc. was formed in 2015 based on technology developed at Partner Federally Funded Research and Development Centre

• Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts

• Development Stage

• Provides optical connectivity system as a mode of transmission from LEO Satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, and terrestrial infrastructure

▪ Provides optical connectivity system that helps increase data

transmission efficiency at an amplified speed up to 10 Gbps.

▪ Collect more accurate and frequent downlink data from LEO Satellites

compared to that with RF transmission

▪ Produces wider spectrum and higher bandwidth with smaller

transmitter payload by avoiding traditional RF communication

infrastructures

▪ Allied Minds – 100% ownership interest

▪ BridgeSat has an estimated 1 US granted patent to date – BridgeSat has opted to buy

licenses and options for licensing technologies from Draper Labs in Massachusetts

▪ Intending to displace traditional Radio Frequency (RF) solutions, BridgeSat is

exposing itself to a wide array of issues, like sunlight interference, beam dispersion

and atmospheric absorption

▪ That a network of satellites is needed to build a system implies a huge capital

investment throughout the development stage with revenues many years away

▪ With an empty IP portfolio due to its choice to license rather than buy/invent:

▪ BridgeSat’s novelty can be bought out by any of the other established players in

the LEO market

▪ Licensing rather than owning raises questions about the commitment of ALM’s

management, whose companies are primarily marketed as “novel”

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$3M

Est. Profit S-Curve

BridgeSat will face competition as it looks to commercialize its optical connectivity system

70

With an estimated 1 US granted patent, BridgeSat does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

10

10

10

17


BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 2

HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORP 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRIPP ROBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0

MEDAPPS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0

NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LTD 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US NAVY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 0

INVENTION SCIENCE FUND I

LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

HEWLETT PACKARD

DEVELOPMENT CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

AVANTE INTERNATIONAL

TECH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

AT & T IP I LP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

ELWHA LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2

KENT RALPH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

CROSLEY THOMAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

BARTLETT TERRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOTOROLA INC 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TECHRADIUM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SELMAN THOMAS H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0

SELMAN AND ASSOCIATES

LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0

JENNINGS MATTHEW J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0

DICKS KENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

CONTRAVES SPACE AG 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WAHOO COMM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SYNCHRODYNE NETWORKS

INC 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SENSORIA CORP 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The patent assignee network in this area is complex; without core IP, BridgeSat has limited upside

71

BridgeSat will need to develop a strong patent position if it intends to win contracts long term


Semantic Text Clustering Map of BridgeSat’s Patents in the Context of the Ground

Station Network Domain

Denote BridgeSat patents

HawkEye 360’s capital intensive launch should be met with concern given ALM’s track record in this space

73

• HawkEye 360 was formed in 2015

• Headquartered in Hemdon, VA


• Increases monitoring and geolocation capabilities through a

constellation of form-flying small satellites in LEO.

▪ Provides signals to track transportation networks, detect distressed

alerts, conduct government missions and assist emergencies by

providing a wide maritime domain.

▪ Establish spectrum inventory for commercial carriers and wireless

regulators for RF monitoring

▪ Proprietary processing and analytics engines promises to own these

operations for the government and other customers


▪ HawkEye360 has an estimated 0 US patents granted to date

▪ It will need IP to compete effectively in market

▪ As ALM’s second investment into a long-term space based communications system,

HawkEye 360 has potential to earn revenue but promises to burn lots of cash, and

not return value in the near future

▪ The rationales behind investing in BridgeSat and HawkEye 360 are somewhat

contradictory – the former bets on the decline of RF in favor of optical bands whereas

the latter bets on RF analytics; hedging a business with another business could prove

extremely costly for ALM’s investors

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years2

(Technology concept

formulated)

$3M

Est. Profit S-Curve

HawkEye360 lacks the IP necessary to compete in signal tracking technology

74

With an estimated 0 US granted patents, HawkEye360 does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

6

6

9

9

9

23

Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignees 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1

INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0

BOEING CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

HARRIS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 0

VIASAT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

SAVI TECHN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

TRUEPOSITION INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

ATC TECH LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

THESLING WILLIAM H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SIRF TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SENSORIA CORP 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOTOROLA INC 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HALGREN DONALD N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

CROWLEY ROBERT J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

CHESTER HOLDINGS LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

ZMRZLI ROBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ZIARNO JAMES J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

WARD MATTHEW L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

WAHOO COMM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TABE JOSEPH AKWO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMITH MARK JEFFREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

SCALISI JOSEPH F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

NIMON MATTHEW D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NARDELLI ALBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MIM REINER G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The patent assignee network in signal tracking is complex; without core IP, HawkEye360 has limited upside

75

HawkEye360 will need to develop a strong patent position if it intends fend off competitors


Semantic Text Clustering Map of HawkEye360’s Patents in the Context of the

Radio Frequency Mapping and Analytics Domain

Denote HawkEye360 patents

LuxCath is ushering in a real-time monitoring medical technology that has alternatives and no self-stated advantage over them

77

• LuxCath was formed in 2012


• At least 3 FTE employees


• Developing a medical instrument for cardiac ablation procedures

▪ Enables real-time visualization of lesions during cardiac ablation

procedures through fluorescence and optics; controls quality of catheter

lesions during procedure, as they are made

▪ Investigational Solution: delivers illumination via optical fiber to enable:

– Assessment of contact with tissue before and during procedure

– Assessment of catheter stability

– Direct lesion visualization while monitoring progress


▪ LuxCath owns an estimated 10 US granted patents in an innovation pipeline that has

been ongoing since 2005

▪ ALM and LuxCath claim advantages such as improved speed and optimized

outcomes of procedures but it is not clear whether improvements are relative to other

real-time monitoring methods or merely over not monitoring in real time at all

▪ “Inability to monitor tissue response in real time” in cardiac ablation surgeries is

certainly a challenge but not an unaddressed one – there are plenty of methods

currently available, from MRI to other RF optical spectroscopy methods

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

Current investigational device

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5+ Years4

(Technology validated

in lab)

$5M

Est. Profit S-Curve

LuxCath is a not a central player in this technology domain according to the patenting data

78

With an estimated 7 US granted patents, LuxCath ties for the 10th largest assignee in this technology area

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

9

16

17

18

21

24


MEDTRONIC INC 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 5 2 1 1

ST JUDE MEDICAL ATRIAL

FIBRILL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 3 0

IRVINE BIOMEDICAL INC 2 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MEDTRONIC CRYOCATH LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0

CARDIOFOCUS INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0

CARDIAC PACEMAKERS INC 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOSTON SCIENT SCIMED INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

EP TECHNOLOGIES 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ARNOLD JEFFREY M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

LUXCATH LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3

MELSKY GERALD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

SIEMENS AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0

BARD INC C R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

FARR NORMAN E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

AVITALL; BOAZ 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BAXTER LINCOLN S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

SINOFSKY EDWARD L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS MED 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0

ABBOUD MARWAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BIOSENSE INC 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DAIG CORP 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MEDISPECTRA INC 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RES

FOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

LuxCath’s patents are not especially well cited, and its technology stands on the periphery of other existing markets

79

There are many other technologies that could address cardiac ablation monitoring; LuxCath is reaching for a limited value niche


Semantic Text Clustering Map of LuxCath’s Patents in the Context of the Catheter

Domain

Denote LuxCath’s patents

Percipient Networks is trying to usher cloud-based malware into a cloud-skeptical market dominated 80% by its top 10 players

81

• Percipient Networks was formed in 2014 based on technology developed by The MITRE Corp and Whitewood Encryption Systems

• Headquartered in Wakefield, Massachusetts

• At least a __ FTE employees

• Commercial Stage

• Provides cloud-based cyber security technology

▪ Provides cyber security technology that utilizes automated threat

blockers, cloud-based intelligence platforms, remediation techniques

giving solutions for business network defenses.

▪ Strongarm: A cloud based technology built on ‘blackholing’ traffic and

monitoring outbound communications

▪ Currently in the early process of curating the Threat Intelligence to

combat increasing number of malware (Ransomware) and other

advanced attacks that infiltrated into the company


▪ Percipient Networks has an estimated 0 US granted patents to date, which raises

questions about the novelty of its software solution

▪ At its essence, Percipient Networks is a provider of anti-Malware protection - a

market dominated by players like Microsoft and Avast

▪ It is not even in the top 30 by market share in an industry where the top 10 dominate

over 80% of the market

▪ While a cloud-only based malware protection system may provide auto updating and

higher speed, it is highly data dependent; relying only on an external server opens up

a whole new range of security risks, which is why businesses are skeptical of this

approach

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5+ Years6

(Technology

demonstrated in

relevant environment)

$2M

Est. Profit S-Curve

Percipient Networks faces a long, uphill battle to carve out market share from existing players in the industry

82

With an estimated 0 US granted patents, Percipient Networks does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

13

14

14

15

17

18

20

21

24

24

26

27

28

29

34

36

39

39

45

88

156

185

313

220

356


SYMANTEC CORP 3 6 2 2 1 0 9 7 8 9 12 9 36 33 35 20 38 48 44 34 27

MCAFEE INC 0 0 0 1 5 52 22 7 9 12 16 19 11 10 11 26 25 35 27 25 19

MICROSOFT CORP 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 20 37 16 16 12 6 14 13 19 19 23 17 11

TREND MICRO INC 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 7 7 11 15 5 17 12 7 10 18 21 32 14 6

IBM 3 4 2 6 7 5 4 5 7 8 8 11 12 3 7 13 12 13 11 15 8

KASPERSKY LAB ZAO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 12 6 7 7 14 14 16 9

FORTINET INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 3 1 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4

NETWORKS ASSOC TECH 0 0 0 1 19 10 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EMC CORP 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 5 1 0 2 4 2 5 2 4 8 3

INTEL CORP 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 4 7 4 2 0 0

RAYTHEON CO 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 5 8 5 1

F SECURE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 9 8 4

MICROSOFT TECH

LICENSING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 3 5 2 11 11

HP DEVELOPMENT CO 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 0

SATISH SOURABH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 6 8 3 1 0 0 0 0

LENOVO SINGAPORE PTE 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 2

INVENTION SCIENCE

FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 1 1

COMPUTER ASSOC THINK 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

GOOGLE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 0

CISCO TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 4

SALLAM AHMED SAID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0

HITACHI LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

FIREEYE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 3 6 15

BITDEFENDER IPR MAN

LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 5 3 0 0

NACHENBERG CAREY S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0

The technology domain is dominated by much larger players with robust IP portfolios

83

Percipient has little hopes of controlling even a small niche in this market


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Percipient Network’s Patents in the Context of

the DNS Blackholing Domain

Denote Percipient Network’s patents

Despite having at least 9 US granted patents, Seamless Devices’ IP portfolio is dwarfed by other semiconductor players

85

• Seamless Devices was founded in 2014 with technology developed by a Columbia University professor

• Headquartered in Silicon Valley, California

• At least 3 FTE employees with 2 holding Ph.Ds

• Commercialization stage

• Provides signal processing solutions for wireless connectivity

▪ Switched-Mode Operational Amplifier (SMOA): a technology that

provides a novel class of feedback amplifiers in semiconductor

production to enable higher performance with the same power

▪ Applies patented switched-mode signal processing algorithms to fix

issues identified by the feedback amplifiers

▪ Provides a 40/80 MHz Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), a high

dynamic range, low-voltage Analog Filter and a Programmable Gain

Amplifier (PGA).


▪ Seamless Devices own an estimated 0 US granted patents

▪ The portfolio has been in development since the mid-2000s

▪ Slowed pace of innovation as majority of patenting done by Columbia professors

prior to ALM founding the company

▪ The average small cap company in the US semiconductor industry owns over 200

patents. Seamless Devices owns only 9, which means that:

– Its IP portfolio is weak relative to the larger semiconductor industry despite

an innovation pipeline of almost 10 years

– The market scope of applying Seamless’ SMOA technology to a wide variety

of semiconductor applications is far from “on the horizon”

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

Seamless Devices Analog Blocks

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5+ Years6

(Technology

demonstrated in


$2M

Est. Profit S-Curve

Even in a narrowly defined SMOA domain, Seamless Devices has a middling portfolio

86

With an estimated 0 US granted patents, Seamless Devices does not make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

9

9

10

11

11

11

13

13

14

15

17

24

29

40


TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC 0 2 2 3 3 2 3 5 3 1 1 3 3 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 0

BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 2

ANALOG DEVICES INC 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 4 2 2

FUJITSU LTD 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 1 0

NAT SEMICONDUCTOR CORP 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

FREESCALE

SEMICONDUCTOR INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO

LTD 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

ST MICROELECTRONICS SRL 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 2

MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

CANON KK 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR

MFG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 3 1 2

RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 0

IBM 0 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES

AG 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

CIRRUS LOGIC INC 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

MAXIM INTEGRATED

PRODUCTS 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2

MARVELL INT LTD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

HONEYWELL INT INC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1

TOSHIBA KK 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

MOTOROLA INC 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RAYTHEON CO 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

YAMAHA CORP 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCKHEED CORP 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Seamless Devices’ IP lacks both patenting volume and centrality compared to other players

87

Seamless Devices needs much broader coverage if it intends to be dominant in this industry


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Seamless Device’s Patents in the Context of the

Analog Front End (AFE) Domain

Denote Seamless Devices patents

Whitewood is attempting to compete with established hardware RNG producers that have much larger capital sources

89

• Whitewood Encryption Systems was formed in 2014 based on technology developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory




• Produces physical Random Number Generator (RNG) devices

▪ Entropy Engine: a hardware based Random Number Generator in PCI

Express form factor capable of 200Mbit/s of random number; uses

physical measurements on a quantum optical field to generate digital

bits

▪ netRandom: products that standardize access to random numbers using

a server, client application and API access; incorporates the Entropy

Engine on the server.

▪ These random numbers are used

by the OS and other local

applications that rely on

cryptography.


▪ Whitewood has an estimated 10 US granted patents in an innovation pipeline that

has been ongoing since 2011

▪ The technology is not well cited

▪ Whitewood Encryption Systems is operating in an industry (hardware RNGs) with

over 18 established players, including Intel

▪ Although it promises ‘truly random number’ generation due to its use of quantum

mechanics, there are a number of other companies using quantum methods

▪ One of its largest direct competitors, ID Quantique, stands to benefit from a huge

chunk of a >$1 billion EU quantum computing project in 2018, an amount that

Allied Minds hasn’t invested in a single subsidiary, let alone Whitewood, which isn’t

even among its top 10 investments

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

netRandom

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5+ Years7

(System prototype in

operational

environment)

$0.5M

Est. Profit S-Curve

Although Whitewood promises “truly random number” generation, there are other companies using similar methods

90

With an estimated 10 US granted patents, Whitewood has the 25th most assignees for this technology area

10

12

16

16

17

19

20

20

21

21

25

25

30

32

42

42

48

52

54

60

62

71

71

72

94


SONY CORP 0 5 3 1 3 1 3 6 7 7 7 3 1 6 4 10 5 8 9 3 2

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 6 10 11 7 0 2 1 9 9 1 5 4 1

TOSHIBA KK 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 4 4 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 14 14 13

IBM 3 4 1 2 3 2 3 6 3 1 3 3 7 2 2 4 4 4 7 4 6

SILVERBROOK RES PTY LTD 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 3 2 15 0 10 7 1 3 8 4 0 0 0 0

PANASONIC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 6 12 5 2 4 9 7 5 2 2 1

NEC CORP 0 0 2 2 4 3 1 0 2 2 3 6 1 4 2 7 3 8 2 1 1

MICROSOFT CORP 1 1 1 0 6 3 1 0 3 5 3 0 4 2 4 5 2 6 3 2 1

INTEL CORP 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 4 3 4 3 7

FUJITSU LTD 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 3 5 4

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC IND CO LTD 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 9 7 5 2 2 1

HEWLETT PACKARD DEVELOPMENT

CO 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 2 4 3 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 2

HITACHI LTD 0 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 1 1

BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 1

QUALCOMM INC 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2

DIEBOLD SELF SERVICE SYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 6 3 1 1 2

UNIV KING FAHD PET & MINERALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 4 4 0 2 1

KATO TAKU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 3 0 0 0

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 4 2

NAGAI YUJI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 0

FUJI XEROX CO LTD 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1

MATSUSHITA TATSUYUKI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0

KOREA ELECTRONICS TELECOMM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 0 0 0

KOOLSPAN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

WHITEWOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 3

Whitewood is neither a central nor influential assignee in the encryption domain

91

Whitewood’s patents are on the periphery of the domain; its long term upside should be tempered


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Whitewood’s Patents in the Context of the

Quantum Number Generator Encryption Domain

Denote Whitewood patents

Appendix

93

The ALM Subsidiary Graveyard

Biotectix, a producer of polymer coating tech, has failed to show how it will scale commercially

94

• Biotectix was founded in 2007 with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor through a patent option agreement

• Headquartered in Richmond, CA

• At least 8 FTE employees, 2 of whom are Ph.Ds.

• Develops and manufactures a new class of conductive polymer coatings for electrodes on implantable medical devices

▪ Biotectix has a strong IP portfolio in polymer coatings

▪ Polymer coating of medical devices is an extensively researched field

▪ Biotectix faces strong competition from other players in the industry that offer

substitutes

▪ The company has failed to scale commercially to date

▪ Despite strong IP portfolio, experienced only a moderate increase in valuation of

$500,000 from 2014 to 2015, hinting at unprofitability and potentially a lack of

commercial options

▪ BT DOT: polymer electrode material with a soft, functional surface for

connecting hard, eclectically conducive devices to wet tissue

▪ BT GelDOT: three-dimensional polymer-hydrogel material useful as a

coating or solid construct for gentle interfacing to minimize scarring

▪ BT DOT Sleeve: technology for coating lead conductors using a

polymer composition to increase flexibility and prevent cracking




Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Biotectix has an estimated 9 US granted patents

▪ It has a stronger IP portfolio than other companies in the ALM’s portfolio

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5-7 Years8

(System complete and

qualified)

$5M

Est. Profit S-Curve

Terminated on April 7th, 2017

Biotectix has a large portfolio, but still faces competition from others in the market

95

With an estimated 9 US granted patents, Biotectix owns enough patents to make the “Top 10” list for this technology area

6

6

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

9

11

11

12

12

13

15

16

16

25

26

26

27

27

45


MEDTRONIC INC 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 7 7 7 5 2

BOSTON SCIENT SCIMED INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 3 3 6

COVIDIEN LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 4 5 6 4 1

CARDIAC PACEMAKERS INC 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

ST JUDE MEDICAL ATRIAL

FIBRILL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 1 2 0 2 4 3 2 3 0

SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL

PROD INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 1 4 5 3 4 3

GREATBATCH LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 6 2 0

TALBOT NEIL HAMILTON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 1

ETHICON ENDO SURGERY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 6 0 1 1

BOSTON SCIENT

NEUROMODULATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 4

SONITUS MEDICAL INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0

COVIDIEN AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 0

PACESETTER INC 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

ETHICON INC 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0

BIOTECTIX LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 0

MASSACHUSETTS INST

TECHNOLOGY 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1

ATANASOSKA LILIANA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 0

NEYSMITH JORDAN

MATTHEW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0


GREENBERG ROBERT J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

CALIFORNIA INST OF TECHN 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAUL SAURAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LITTLE JAMES SINGLETON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

BIOPHAN TECHNOLOGIES INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Biotectix’s IP portfolio is less central than would be expected, given the patenting volume; this indicates weaker patents

96


Biotectix’s patents are on the periphery of the patent domain; the technology is still emergent


Denote Biotectix patents

Semantic Text Clustering Map of Biotectix’s Patents in the Context of the Broader

Conducting Polymer Medical Materials Domain


Cephalogics is developing noninvasive cerebral imaging technology but has not commercialized a single version of its product in ten years

98

• Cephalogics was founded in 2006 in partnership with a WUSTL Professor of Radiology

• Headquartered in Cambridge, MA

• At least 8 FTE employees, with 4 Ph.Ds

• Developing a noninvasive bedside neuroimaging system to provide real time cerebral monitoring; product development stage

▪ Cephalogics hasn’t commercialized a single version of the product nor submitted a

510(k) premarket submission to the FDA for over 10 years since its inception

▪ The company as still in R&D mode for last 9 years with plans to submit a premarket

to the FDA having only been formulated in 2015

▪ Only one granted patent – less than exceptional IP portfolio for the cash and time

burn

▪ Successfully completed third generation system in 2015, the prototype testing of

which achieved its performance targets; however, no material sales (at least as

reported in ALM’s annual report)

▪ Utilizes Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT)

technology to provide portable, patient bedside

imaging of cerebral vascular regions

▪ A high-density arrangement of near-infrared light

sources and detectors provide the measurements

through each sensor array

▪ Proprietary algorithms are then used to visualize the

measurements and hence provide insights into

cerebral tissue oxygen levels and other such metrics.




DOT device

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Cephalogics has an estimated 8 US granted patents

▪ This level of protection does not bode well for the company given the high patenting

rates of its competitors

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5-7 Years6

(Technology

demonstrated in


$5M

Est. Profit S-Curve


Cephalogics lacks the requisite IP to compete effectively in the market

99

With an estimated 8 US granted patents, Cephalogics does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

15

15

15

15

16

17

18

19

21

21

22

22

24

24

25

27

28

29

30

33

35

37

45

60

67


Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MEDTRONIC INC 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 6 12 1 4 3 0 14 4 7 6 3

GEN ELECTRIC 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 4 7 2 6 2 0 2 4 4 5 9 9

INVENTION SCIENCE FUND I LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 3 3 1 6 5 1 5 2

SIEMENS AG 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 6 10 5 1 1 1 2 1 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 2 2 4

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 2 5 4 7 5

UNIV TEXAS 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 3 2 0 0 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1

UNIV LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 6

GEN HOSPITAL CORP 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 4 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 2 3

YEDA RES & DEV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 5 4

MAYO FOUNDATION 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 3


UNIV NEW YORK 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 3 3 4 3 1 2 1

SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 5 1 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 0


WOOD JR LOWELL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV ILLINOIS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 0 2 0 3 2 1 3 1

UNIV WASHINGTON 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0

LEUTHARDT ERIC C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

GE MED SYS GLOBAL TECH CO LLC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

AGENCY SCIENCE TECH & RES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

MALAMUD MARK A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

LORD ROBERT W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

LEVIEN ROYCE A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

KONINKL PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0


Cephalogics has a fairly central patenting position, but lacks the sheer patenting volume characteristic of market winners

100


Cephalogics faces heavy competition in other imaging and diagnostics systems


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Cephalogics’ Patents in the Context of the

Broader Brain Imaging Domain

Denote Cephalogics patents


CryoXtract, a laboratory equipment producer, suffers from weak market penetration and management that lacks a strong track record

102

• CryoXtract was founded in 2008




• Delivers laboratory automation and solutions to store, dispense and utilize frozen human biospecimens

▪ Slower than anticipated sales led to a decrease in valuation from $17.8 million to

$12.6 million from 2014 to 2015, indicating -30% return on investment

▪ Weak management, as evidenced by

– COO Jorge de Dios – held executive positions at Teligent (1999-2002),

which filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and at Fibertower (2002-2008), whose

loss quadrupled under his leadership

– Ex-CEO John McCarthy – ex-CFO of Verenium whose stock dropped 90%

under his leadership and was absorbed by BASF

▪ CXT 750: An automated frozen aliquotter that enables storage and

hands-free management of blood, feces, urine and other biofluids to

improve analytical reproducibility, quality of studies and enable use of

smaller sample volumes.

▪ CXT 350/353: Benchtop frozen aliquotters to extract multiple frozen

cores or aliquots from a sample.




CXT 350 CXT 750

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ CryoXtract has an estimated 5 US granted patents

▪ It faces strong competition from other market players and arguably delivers a

negligible tech advantage, if at all

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5-7 Years9

(Actual system proven

in operational

environment)

$5M

Est. Profit S-Curve


CryoXtract is competing against a wide range of other players; market share goals should be adjusted accordingly

103

With an estimated 5 US granted patents, CryoXtract does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

6

6

7

7

8

8

8

9

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

15

15

16

20

20

23

26

27


DU PONT 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 7 0 2 0 4 1 5 3 1

BECKMAN COULTER INC 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 5

UOP LLC 1 1 3 4 4 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

MEDTRONIC INC 1 2 1 5 0 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 4 1

VASOGEN IRELAND LTD 0 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SYSMEX CORP 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS

OPERATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 4 4

BAYER AG 6 4 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

BECTON DICKINSON CO 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0

APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 1

GYROS PATENT AB 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

WYATT TECHNOLOGY 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0

ABBOTT LAB 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0

SIEMENS HEALTHCARE

DIAGNOSTICS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0

PIONEER HI BRED INT 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1

HENKEL CORP 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DADE BEHRING INC 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CALLIDA GENOMICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0

ESCREEN INC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

UNIV NORTHEASTERN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0

COULTER INT CORP 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TEARLAB RES INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

IDEXX LAB INC 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


CryoXtract is not core to the broader industry patent citation network, indicating a weaker IP positioning

104


CryoXtract’s patents sit on the periphery of the domain; unlikely to command significant market share in the near term


Semantic Text Clustering Map of CryoExtract’s Patents in the Context of the

Broader Biostorage Domain

Denote CryoExtract patents


OptioLabs sells mobile security apps for the Android OEM niche, which has established, diversified players and limited market size

106

• OptioLabs was founded in 2012

• Headquartered in Baltimore, MD

• At least 33 FTE employees with 3 Ph.Ds

• Commercial stage

• Develops mobile malware protection and security applications for Android OEMs

▪ Narrow focus on Android devices limits high-end market potential in the iOS sphere

▪ Operating in an industry with established leaders providing cybersecurity solutions

such as anti-virus software and firewalls

▪ By packaging extremely similar, non-novel security solutions as separate products, the

current business model is neither friendly nor switch-incentivizing for customers

▪ Optio Labs acquired Oculis Labs in 2015 to expand product portfolio into

specialized data privacy software tools and internal network threat protection; the

benefits of this merger remain limited

▪ OptioCore: context-based security platform for Android Original

Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that can monitor, block or modify

attempts to call individual methods on the OS

▪ OptioInsight: context-aware visibility for security reporting and analytics,

cybersecurity teams to manage policies and provide access via the cloud

▪ OptioServices: security assessments/penetration testing, securing

applications, and other service-based solutions for Android

▪ Optioaware: protection from physical intrusion through securing of

unattended workstations, eavesdropper and intruder detection




Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Optio Labs has an estimated 1 US granted patent

▪ It lacks the IP necessary to compete in the mobile security market, which is highly

innovative

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

5-7 Years7

(System prototype

demonstration in

operational

environment)

$3M

Est. Profit S-Curve


OptioLabs is operating in an industry with established leaders providing cybersecurity solutions

107

Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

RESEARCH IN MOTION 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11 7 4 7 5 4 5 4 3 4 0 0 0

SAMSUNG 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 7 5 4 1 6 6 0 1 8 0

BLACKBERRY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 11 5 11 8 2 1 0

NOKIA CORP 0 0 0 2 1 5 7 4 8 6 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 5 4 6 2 5 5 2 6 1 0 0

ERICSSON TELEFON 0 1 2 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 7 1 2 0 1 0 0

SPRINT

COMMUNICATIONS CO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 3 12 13 4 0 0

INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 5 2 3 4 2 8 2 2 0 0


IBM 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 6 5 6 1 0

MICROSOFT CORP 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 1 4 5 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0

CISCO TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 8 5 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0

NTT DOCOMO INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 5 1 2 5 4 1 0 0 0

AT & T MOBILITY II LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 5 4 0 1 5 3 3 0 0

LOOKOUT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 6 9 3 0 0

AT & T IP I LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 5 2 0 0

ALCATEL LUCENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 0 0

APPLE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 1 3 4 1 0 0

BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 2 0 0

ZTE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 0 1 0 0

VERIZON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 7 1 3 0 0

SYMANTEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 1 0 0

KOREA ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 0

NEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

MCAFEE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0

ICONTROL NETWORKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Optio Labs does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

13

13

14

14

17

17

18

19

22

24

26

27

27

30

31

33

33

37

42

43

45

46

47

56

59



OptioLabs’ IP is not cited heavily by other established players in the space

108


OptioLabs’ IP portfolio occupies a niche in the overall technology domain; market penetration upside is limited


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Federated Wireless’ Patents in the Context of the

Broader Mobile Malware Security Domain

Denote Optio Labs patents


Novare (ProGDerm) is not close to commercializing its technology and the company faces competition from other therapeutic products

110

• Novare Pharmaceuticals launched in 2012 as an expansion to Allied Minds subsidiary ProGDerm, which was launched in 2006


• Under 10 LTE employees

• Product development/research stage

• Develops therapeutic products through the modulation of RHAMM, a natural protein that alters cell behavior

▪ Like its sister subsidiaries, it has not reached commercial stage despite 10 years of research

▪ Novare is a spinoff of research initially conducted by ProGDerm, whose intended applications were deemed unsuccessful; it therefore runs the risk of failure due to reliance on the same RHAMM-based solutions

▪ Only biotech company committed to treating disease using RHAMM-based responses

▪ Faces competition from other therapeutic options; at best, it hopes to secure a small niche (notwithstanding years of continued investment)

▪ RHAMM: Receptor for Hyaluronan-Mediated Motility, a protein that regulates cell movement and stem cell differentiation

▪ Novare research indicates that blocking RHAMM can safely and efficaciously destroy inflammation, reduce fibrosis and stimulate fat growth

▪ The technology can thus treat many inflammatory conditions BPD (found in infants and caused with arthritis), fibrotic diseases like IPF and post-surgical wounds by reducing or eliminating scarring.

▪ Could potentially improve outcomes of breast cancer treatments and tissue generation post mastectomy




Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

▪ Novare has an estimated 2 US granted patents

▪ Novare is a key player in RHAMM modulation research, but the domain itself is very

small

IP Strength

Value Metrics

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10 Years1

(Basic principles

observed)

$10M

Est. Profit S-Curve


Novare is competing against many other players with much larger R&D budgets

111

With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Novare does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

10

12

12

14

14

15

15

16

18

23

25

28

32

33

36

40

Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ELAN PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0 4 2 5 4 6 3 2 2 0 0 0

PFIZER 0 0 1 4 10 5 5 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WYETH CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 1 1 0 0 0

MERCK & CO INC 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 0 1 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMGEN INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 8 2 2 1 1 0 0 0

WARNER LAMBERT CO 0 0 0 3 4 5 5 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 0 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DARWIN DISCOVERY LTD 0 0 0 5 4 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP 0 0 0 3 1 3 4 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


AMERICAN HOME PROD 0 0 0 1 2 1 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOVARTIS AG 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1

GENENTECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 4 1 2 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

AMERICAN CYANAMID CO 0 0 0 3 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

QUADRA LOGIC TECH INC 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV NEW YORK 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 2

UNIV MICHIGAN 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0

ICOS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BOEHRINGER PHARMA 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VERTEX PHARMA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0

CYTOVIA INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AVENTIS PHARMA GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0



Novare’s patenting volume is low; more established players like Pfizer and Elan Pharma seek to gain in the long term

112


Novare’s IP occupies a small niche in the broader domain; market share goals should be tempered


Semantic Text Clustering Map of Novare’s Patents in the Context of the Broader

RHAMM modulation Domain

Denote Novare patents


RF Biocidics has developed a disinfection system that has been cast into a niche market – it is facing ongoing regulatory delays

114

• RF Biocidics was founded in 2008 from patents owned by University of California, Davis

• Headquartered in Sacramento, California


• Commercial stage

• RF Biocidics provides organic, non-chemical food disinfectant

▪ RF Biocidics generated $6.5M in revenue in 2014 and less than $1M in 2015;

this is an alarming downward trend

▪ Tiny market, as evidenced by low sales

▪ Equipment has a long life and therefore multiple sales to existing clients is unlikely in

the near future

▪ RF Biocidics has a few partnerships (limited to the date and almond industry)

▪ Regulatory delays could continue long-term

▪ Total comprehensive loss of $7.2 million in 2015, up from $4.5 million in 2015

▪ Utilizes radio frequency photons at specific frequencies to activate specific

target molecules, inducing well-controlled thermal and electronic effects

that lead to disinfection, disinfestation, enzyme inactivation and drying

▪ APEX system: Main product; few moving parts (i.e. long product life);

includes PLC systems with precision fabrication and assembly

▪ Sentinel system:

Specifically

designed for

high moisture

and high salinity

commodities

▪ Stems from a group of related patents issued to Manual Lagunas-Solar, owned by

University of California, Davis

▪ With only 4 granted patents, RF Biocidics lags competitors in this space

▪ $38.4 million in total invested capital as of Dec 2015


– Invested capital: $30.4 million

APEX unit

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment


Estimated Time

to Profit

5-7

Years

9(Actual system in

operational

environment)

$2M


RF Biocidics is facing massive competition against other companies in the food sterilization space

115

With an estimated 7 US granted patents, RF Biocidics is tied with the last of the Top 25 in RF sterilization (and severely lags in the broad sterilization domain)

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

8

10

8

10

10

38

64

44

55


PROCTER & GAMBLE 3 12 3 10 4 8 5 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

NESTEC SA 3 3 5 2 3 2 5 2 4 1 0 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 0

ECOLAB INC 1 3 0 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 5 9 6 9 3 5 0 1

TETRA LAVAL 4 5 1 4 4 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1

WHIRLPOOL CO 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0


MEDICAL INSTILL

TECH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

LYCO MFG INC 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

CARGILL INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOYO SEIKAN KAISHA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

NALCO CHEMICAL CO 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CJ CHEILJEDANG CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0

BASF AG 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3M 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

SOLUTIONS BIOMED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SAMSUNG 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COLGATE PALMOLIVE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

BASF SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

NOVO NORDISK AS 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NALCO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KURARAY CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

KIMBERLY CLARK CO 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUELS CHEMISCHE AG 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GEN MILLS INC 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


RF Biocidics’ portfolio is not well cited by others in the food sterilization space

116


RF Biocidics’ patents are on the periphery of the RF sterilization domain


Semantic Text Clustering Map of RF Biocidics’ Patents in the Context of the

Broader RF Sterilization Domain

Denote RF Biocidics patents


Estimated Subsidiary Valuation

(in millions USD) Reasoning

ALM’s implied valuation of RF Biocidics is $59.6M: our optimistic estimate is that it is less than $10M

118

~50M+

Difference

NPV of

Future

Earnings

Liquidation

of Subsidiary

Assets

Comps

Analysis

RFB generated less than $1M in

revenue in 2015 with a net loss of

$7.2M; assuming it generates a

profit of $1M / yr. [1] for the next

10 yrs. at a 3% discount rate, the

NPV is $8.5M

RFB has stated assets of

$7.8M. If it were to liquidate

all of these assets at a 20%

premium, it may hope to

generate $10M

If all 4 US granted RFB patents

were successfully litigated, one

could expect RFB to generate

~$3.5M (or 883k x 4); if it were

to sell its portfolio to a

competitor at a 200% premium,

it could generate $10.5M

*ALM states that it owns 67.14 % of RF Biocidics, Inc., or a $40M stake. Therefore the implied valuation of RF Biocides is $59.6M (or $40M / 0.6714).

$0 $15 $30 $45 $60 $75

ALM’s Implied

Valuation

($59.6M)*

DRG Estimated

Valuation

($9.7M)


Facing stagnant sales, SoundCure relies on a sister company, which also sells competing products, to develop its market

119

• SoundCure was formed in 2009

• Headquartered in San Jose, CA

• At least a __ FTE employees


• Provides FDA-cleared consumer medical device for tinnitus therapy through acoustic technology and online audiology-based telehealth

▪ Incorporates Provides Tinnitus care tool and S-Tone sound therapy, a

patterned sound treatment at frequencies near tinnitus pitch, patented

in Canada and Europe.

▪ Tinnitus Treatment Solutions (TTS): An online tinnitus therapy source

that provides telemedicine channel and sells serenade devices, tinnitus

accessories and hearing aids from “Big 6” hearing aid manufacturers.

▪ Partnered with HearUSA and AARP in creating the tinnitus care

affiliation, soliciting 4000+ providers and a subsidiary in Canada.


▪ SoundCure has an estimated 6 US granted patents

▪ The portfolio is small in the context of tinnitus treatment

▪ Reviews of this technology by users in the market have been strongly negative,

indicating a fundamental and potentially irreparable problem with the underlying

technology

▪ SoundCure is focusing on market development through a sister company, TTS, an

online tinnitus therapy source; a questionable decision because TTS also sells hearing

aids from, as ALM’s annual report calls them, the Big 6 hearing aid manufacturers

IP Strength

Value Metrics

Company Description

Technology Overview

Key Investors

Assessment

TRL Level

Estimated Time

to Profit

10+ Years8

(System complete and

qualified)

$0.5M

Est. Profit S-Curve


There are many other players thinking about tinnitus treatment; SoundCure is not alone

120

With an estimated 6 US granted patents, Sound Cure ties for 17th most assignees for this technology area

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

10

14

19

19


GRUENENTHAL GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0

UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 4 5 1 2

ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION

SYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0

OTONOMY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 0

MICROTRANSPONDER INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0

SEPRACOR INC 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MERCK PATENT GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 8

GN RESOUND AS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 1

LEBEL CARL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

LICHTER JAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

NEUROMONICS PTY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

PIU FABRICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

TRAMMEL ANDREW M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

DELLAMARY LUIS A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

HARRIS JEFFREY P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

PFIZER 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SOUNDCURE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1

UNIV IOWA RES FOUND 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

YE QIANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

EURO CELTIQUE SA 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VOLLRATH BENEDIKT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

GEMINI MARKETING CORP 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


SoundCure is not the most influential assignee in the patent assignee network

121


SoundCure will need to change problems with its commercialized products and continue patenting if it hopes to succeed in the market


Semantic Text Clustering Map of SoundCure’s Patents in the Context of the

Tinnitus Treatment Domain

Denote SoundCure patents


On confronting the inevitable

123

Life asked Death, “Why do people love me and

hate you?”

Death replied, “Because you are a beautiful lie

and I’m a painful Truth.”

- Unknown

Thank you

For more information, please contact Devonshire Research Group, LLC on Bloomberg: DRGTEAM

devonshire research group, llc · alm’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not...

Documents