© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Technology Transfer on the Ochota

Research Campus

Marcin Szumowski

AcknowledgementsGabor Lamm, EMBLEM, GmbH

Antonella Calvia – EBI / JASPERS, CoWI TeamAndrzej Białkowski – Miler, IBD PAN

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Background Centre for Preclinical and Technological Research (CePT) 100 M

Euro investment project : contract signed with Ministry of Science and Higher Education in September 2009 (approved by MRD)

As a large-scale project CePT needs European Commission approval to assure funding – requires response to EC comments following review

Major criticism regarding lack of Technology Transfer (TT) and commercialisation strategy – approval decision pending development of acceptable strategy for CePT TT platform

CePT TT programme developed jointly with JASPERS and approved by EC

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Innovation in industry and research

Poland among the worst countries in the EU in terms of Innovation Index (industry): 2006 summary analysis for IE OP

Technology Transfer from R&D institutions to industry is very weak

Very low level of research funding produces relatively high level and high quality of scientific output (next slide)

Creativity driven research lacks the component of innovation cycle

Identification of several significant barriers to effective TT in Poland

© EMBLEM 2009

Source: Presentation of Prof. Jerzy DuszyńskiPrague summit, March 25, 2009

© EMBLEM 2009

Circle of curiosity driven research Circle of innovation

This circle can take months to decades

but also relies on high quality research !

Tax Payer

Results

Products Science

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Main barriers to effective TT in Poland Very low and too dispersed financing of research

Non efficient use of European Funds to promote innovation through technology transfer and science – industry cooperation

Frequently incorrect approach to Technology Transfer (TT)

Political (short-term) rather than economical and sustainable (long-term) approach to increasing innovation and stimulating TT

Low awareness in research community and lack of proper incentives

Low level of cooperation between research institutions of similar profiles

Legal and tax barriers and lack of proper incentives at the national level

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Best practice examples

Germany: European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBLEM) and Max Planck Society

UK: Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College

Israel: Weizmann Institute

France (ISERM), Denmark (CoWI), Finland, Sweeden, Norway …

United States: MIT, Harvard, Standford, Berkley and other California Universities, Yale, John Hopkins University, University of Texas, NIH, etc.

All work well – which one is the best benchmark?

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures

IBD UW PW IBB IMDiK 35 753 655 zł 68 700 883 zł 39 675 914 zł 38 555 000 zł 23 678 427 zł

9 286 663 € 17 844 385 € 10 305 432 € 10 014 285 € 6 150 240 € MIBMiK IPPT IWC IBIB WUM

12 450 800 zł 41 312 648 zł 9 812 521 zł 10 582 000 zł 23 034 521 zł 3 233 974 € 10 730 557 € 2 548 706 € 2 748 571 € 5 982 992 €

CePT TOTAL 303 556 369 zł

78 845 810,31 €

CePT Consortium 2008 R&D budget

© EMBLEM 2009

Knowledge Creation & Transfer – EMBL Model

Discovery ProtectIdea

Start UpCompany

EMBL* EMBLEM**

ETF***

Licensing

* European Molecular Biology Laboratory (http://www.embl.org)** EMBLEM Technology Transfer GmbH (http://www.embl-em.de)*** EMBL Technology Fund (http://www.embl-ventures.com)

1,400 StaffExpenditure

€ 156 M(2008)

8 FTEs; >300 IPR >400 lic.

agrm. 12 spin-outs

VC FundFund Size

€ 26M from international VCs

© EMBLEM 2009

EMBLEM Technology TransferMission

Commercialisation of basic research-derived IP for fair return

Spread benefits of basic research derived IP to the EMBL Member States

Contribute to improving Human Health

Help secure EMBL research excellence and renown by

- Accessing new technologies

- Attracting scientific staff

© EMBLEM 2009

EMBLEMFacts and Figures (as of 30.06.2009)

est. 1999, wholly owned Ltd. (GmbH) of EMBL

a partner of

- University of Heidelberg Clinics & Medical Faculty

8 FTEs

Income 07/2008-06/2009: 4.4 Mio. €

more than 250 licensees including all the major players in the biotech/pharmaceutical/instrumentation market(s)

over 400 active license contracts in place

ca. 40 invention disclosures/annum

ca. 250 MTAs, 100 CDAs and 30 IIAs per year

Current IPR Portfolio: >250 granted patents and patent applications 71 © (software/database)

19 ® trademarks

12 spin-out companies

© EMBLEM 2009

Name Field Founding Year VC Fin. Phase

Lion Bioscience Bioinformatics 1997 Post IPO

Cenix Bioscience RNAi 1999 2nd round

Cellzome Chem. Proteomics 2000 4th round

Anadys Inc. Anti Viral 2000 Post IPO

Gene Bridges Genetic Eng. 2000 -

EVP Inc. Neuronal Disorders 2001 3rd round

SLS Software 2002 -

Hybricore HT mAb Prod 2002 seed

Triskel Oncology 2006 seed

Elara Pharma Oncology 2006 1st round

BioBytes Bioinformatics 2008 Seed

Savira Pharma Influenza 2009 Seed

EMBL Spin-Out CompaniesPortfolio Overview

© EMBLEM 2009

EMBLEMActivities

Proactively identify, develop and protect IP

Commercialisation (license-, collaboration-,grant-, & consultancy- agreements)

License

Collaboration

GrantConsultancy

© EMBLEM 2009

EMBLEMActivities cont.

NDAs/CDAs, MTAs, IPR Issues

IP portfolio management

Market potential and value assessment

Structuring of EMBL spin-outs (IP portfolio, management, infrastructure)

Training and Education

© EMBLEM 2009

Biotechnology

e.g.

• Enabling Technologies

• Therapeutics

• Diagnostics

Software

e.g.

• Bio-Informatics

• Databases

• LIMS

Nanotechnology

e.g.

• Chip- Technology

• Nanotubes

Devices

e.g.

• Microscopy

• Robotics

EMBLEMTechnology Focus

© EMBLEM 2009

Technology FocusBig Pharma is reliant on externally sourced products

Source: MedTrack 2008

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

In-Licensed Productsin TOP 100

% In-Licensedrevenues from TOP100

In-Licensed products are amongst top sellers & contribute significantly to revenue

© EMBLEM 2009

EMBLEM LicenseesGeographic Distribution

56%

37%

7%

Europe

USA

Rest of World

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Effective TT Platform set-up tasks Improved communication and interaction between public and

private sector

Procedures and incentive schemes to disseminate and effectively exploit research results to translate them into new products and services

Proper management of intellectual property (i.e. The Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations)

Increased engagement in academia-industry collaborations

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Effective TT Platform set-up tasks Licensing research results to industry

Bridging the gap within the translational process („Proof-of-concept” phase funding)

Development of an entrepreneurial culture

Creating spin-offs

Easy, right?

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Status of the CePT TT structures

Incubation

policy

POC fundTTO

guidelines

VC

© EMBLEM 2009

Status of the CePT TT structures Summary:Technology Transfer Success Factors

Factors: 3S

Scale (achieving critical mass – R&D funding and „deal flow”)

Structure (effective organizational structure and business model suitable to the low “deal flow”)

Support (hiring the right people to execute and develop the business, holding them accountable for the results)

Measures to achieve success:

EMS (Education, Motivation, Support)

just do it