Where's the Beef

BeefCAMPus 2007 has been really great so far

We launched the first BeefCAMPus in Mallorca in April 2007. 15 participants solved 9 real cases. Great stuff. You can read some of the testimonials at our new BeefCAMPus website . From Jacob Bar's and my perspective the most interesting challenge is the balance between SOLVING THE CASES and LEARNING methodology. Using real cases in real-time exercises is extremely complex both for us as trainers and certainly for the trainees. But using pre-studdied cases takes some of the authenticity out of the workshop.

In Cyprus (at the TII Summer School) we got the opportunity to work two days with 23 participants from 15 countries and started out by giving priority to methodology: guess what the trainees wanted?? Real case! So we worked with a case of mushroom culture and disinfectant technology. Really interesting. Jacob has tuned his fabulous search engine and it is now a power tool in the hands of the trained driver !!

The second Mallorca event takes place in late October 2007 and here we have reduced the number of cases and participants to be able to use real cases but also have time to work with methodology. We have universities from 3 countries and two startup companies, one of which is a gazelle with an exceptional growth over the latest 5 years.

We have agreed to deliver 3 more workshops in 2007: one in Canarias where we will be focusing on 7 startup companies; one in Portugal (with a mixed group of university tech transfer officers and startup companies) and finally one in Mallorca in December. 2008 promises to be even more interesting.

Stay tuned/come back and find out what we learnt.

Biotechnology explained

More often than not, the Tech Transfer officer meets a biotechnology invention. It can be difficult for us non-scientists to really understand all the science involved.

The National Health Center (US) has created an interesting Graphics Gallery and a wider overview of issues in biotechnology and human health related issues.

Very useful to quickly get up-to-date on terms such as Retrovirus or details of Microscopy.

Where's the Beef CAMPus?

Well, in Mallorca, of course!
This weblog covers most of the topics of my "Where's the Beef" course - mainly a one-day course. More than 200 professionals have participated in one of these courses over the last 18 months. Here's the announcement of a new version: a week-long training camp:Click here to read more

Commercialisation CAMPus Workshops: 5 days of practical work in Mallorca in March and April 2006

“Where's the Beef” – the course and methodology on Evaluation of Commercial Potential in Inventions and Innovation projects - has been offered to many groups over the latest five-six years. The format is a one-day course covering cases, background theory and methodology, but little time for real exercises and discussion.

Based on feedback, I have developed the concept of Beef CAMPus, a whole week concerned with building your own clear-cut action plans about how to commercialise a portfolio of concrete cases. How to build the business case of your own Technology Opportunities, and, as usual, a lot of learning.

Beef CAMPus will be offered on the island of Mallorca, which, apart from its natural beauty and friendliness, is easy and cheap to reach from almost anywhere in Europe. Together with local partners we offer the best training facilities.

The course is developed and managed together with Jacob Bar, the creator of the JBEngine.

NEW: Since Spring 2007 we have re-designed the format - have a look at our new BeefCAMPus website

Do Universities sell their IP at too low a price?

Imprimatur Capital (IC) started a new line of business around 2005, namely to source IP from universities, fund proof-of-concept work and forward-license inventions to next stage investors. IC has recruited universities in Russia, Ukraine, Baltic States, Singapore and Spain. I met their name in Spain recently and tried to find out more because I see IC as a new trend which is already moving fast in the US (eg-. Bridgehead Group)(their web site doesn't always work), who bought a new Danish start-up company recently. Formerly, I have described how Cancer Research Technology in London works. Also you might wish to study a BioTech group with Danish founders but now based in London: Bridge Bioresearch .

I found (used JBEngine) some documents about IC's mode of work in the east. I note that they get a first right of refusal to commercialise against infusing proof-of concept funding for project in the order of 2-5k....and maybe also larger sums (<10k) (maybe this reflects the "eastern" prices??). First impression: universities pay a high price to commercialise....?

I then went to Companies House in the UK to see their ownership and financial background. The company is controlled by two persons who seemingly won a lot of money in the IT Bubble economy and then decided to invest in new ventures. They must have seen how lucky they were to get out of their individual ventures before the bubble burst?? And saw that portfolio management is better. The two invested 2,5 million € in 2005 and convinced Barclay's Bank and a few other minority investors to drop another 1 million (so it seems from the accounts).

With that money and an option programme they hire some good professionals to go on a "fishing expedition" in universities around the world, assuming that expert due diligence will do the rest (pick winners). Good luck: IC may find itself in another bubble experience soon and/or must attract even more capital to survive.

The model is great, but there is a point of warning to universities who sign up: the money you get for giving away your inventions may just be too small....But there is another even more alarming signals for the many new "Knowledge Transfer Offices" or tech transfer services in universities: for 5-10 years you have now tried to commercialise your universities' inventions but most of you have a low score on actual hits - and consequently spend more money than you cost etc. There is a danger that dismayed rectors will conclude that this business cannot be done inside universities - and, if it's outside, why not sell to companies such as IC.

I have downloaded the Background documents on my BeefBlog (for participants in my Where's the Beef Course).

Commercial is Commercial is Commercial

We (me included, until now) often talk as if there is only a dichotomy between university and industry. Commercial means anything, which has left the university side. But is "commercial" really commercial?

Michael Kenward commented on my article on the "survey" of university commercialisation performance by writing:

A couple of points, do not lump all "European universities" together. In the UK at least it is not true that they have "only recently turned their focus on patents and licensing". You also miss another commercialisation route, the spin-out company. If anything, in the UK at least, this has been an overused option. Licensing can be a better bet. But it doesn't do to ignore spin outs.

Many spin outs, however, are not "commercial" at all! They have been "capitalized" by patient investors, but they don't make a profit. Recently I had an opportunity to review Geron Corp's Annual Reports: the company has "burnt" up to 30 million $ per year for more than 10 years. Look up any seed or venture capital fund and you will see the same picture. In my Danish home town, Østjysk Innovation in its 2005 annual report recorded losses in almost all of its portfolio companies. The same does the largest Danish innovation fund. These companies are recorded as "hits" or successes in the survey statistics.

Add to this that many of these funds are initially or substantially publicly funded.

Commercial is not - always - commercial. One more reason to be extremely careful in the use of university commercialisation performance comparisons.

EU beats US Universities on Commercialization Performance?

Two researchers from UNU Merit have made a report with the title: Developing internationally comparable indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded research. Their basis for the report is that they have also conducted a survey for ASTP of ASTP members and their commercialization of research results and now they compare the survey and the use of indicators with four other surveys (AUTM in North America, one UK; a Canadian and an Australian survey).

The report got most attention because it concludes that European public research institutes outperform their US competitors on "licences executed" and start-ups created.

Arundel and Bordoy mention the ProTon Europe Survey (led by my good collaborator from Valencia, Fernando Conesa and his team) but dismisses it because it uses a wrong denominator (academics per institution). It's a pity because that survey and the work behind it tell us that Europe hardly can be compared with the US. A&B see only two ways of how industry can gain from public research: either through formal arrangements involved in patenting and licensing or the "open science" of publications, seminars etc.

European universities have only recently turned their focus on patents and licensing, whereas collaborative and contract research contracts have accounted for the majority of activity and income for many years.

A&B mention insights into this point gained from their reading of research from the Uni of Sussex SPRU. Professor Sodi and before him Keth Pavitt recommended the UK government to be careful about focusing too much on the formal and technology routes of the impact of oublic research on the economy in a wonderful set of articles and lectures: Talent, Not Technology.

Conclusions: PROs should support creation of standardised indicators as is being produced by ProTon Europe and others, but policy makers should remember to take a balanced view on the results. And each PRO could find a group of peers with which to keep close relations in order to monitor their own performance, but be sure to keep their findings a secret! Use it for developing new strategy!

(XVIII) Patent Class Analysis

Patent Class Analysis
A special set of sources is patent databases. Sources such as esp@cenet, WIPO, USPTO are really useful. I use a method of quickly browsing these databases in regard to a given invention or company and then collect information about the competition, “prior art” etc. This involves using your internet browser, a good spreadsheet, a good database and how to jump around in these applications to quickly get you the overview which is so critical for “Where’s the Beef”.

It's amazing how much information there is in such files. The key to using them in practice is to employ methods which will allow you to quickly form an opinion. Once you have spotted a Patent Class or a Search Pattern which suits your needs and clients, then you should try to subscribe to these saved searches. There are many ways. WIPO allows you to subscribe to RSS which is a really useful method.

I generally believe Microsoft's products are not very useful. The Office series is of great help for patent mining, if you do it right. I show some tricks.

Once you have spotted patents, classes or other patterns in your findings, you'll find references to important persons, companies, prior art links etc. This information is really important for quick-and-dirty judgements.

(VII) Where's the Beef? Copy Cats -Taxol

Ernst Max Nielsen continues his series on "Where's the Beef?" (Click the Category on your right hand side: "Where's the Beef". The articles are numbered in Roman numbers: I, II, III etc. If you scroll down this site, you'll get the articles in reverse order)

This is an annex to the seventh article in the series "Where's the Beef": quick-and-dirty methods to make a go or no-go decision regarding whether or not and how to try to commercialize an invention. This article starts a new category of articles, namely reviews of good Tech Transfer organizations.

Frank Stephenson  tells the fantastic story of how Holton invented the anti-cancer blockbuster drug at Florida State University's Tech Transfer Office site CLICK TO READ  

The tortured trail of the best-selling cancer drug in history began 40 years ago this summer. A thunder-clap of uncommon science and luck, it's a grand story still in the telling.

Also a story of how collaboration between industry and university may turn foul when big money enters. This is a "must read" for all tech transfer office staff.