Innovation in Tech Transfer S&T Stakeholders Conference- Washington DC May 21, 2007

Innovation in Tech Transfer S&T Stakeholders Conference- Washington DC May 21, 2007

Innovation in Tech Transfer Traditional University tech transfer office Incubators Innovative Clusters Rapid Prototyping Tech Scouting Portals

Globalization of Technology Investment in R&D is a lead indicator of a nations intent to compete globally R&D investment over the past decade: China: doubled from.06% to 1.2% Israel: increased from 2.7% to 4.7% Finland: 3.5% Germany: 3.0% by 2010 Gregory Tassey, The Technology Imperative, 2007

How Do We Compare on the International Level? R&D as Percent of GDP 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 U.S. Federal R&D Support as Percentage of GDP (1953 2006) Reduced from 2% to.75%

Globalization of Technology Investment in R&D is a lead indicator of a nations intent to compete globally R&D investment over the past decade: China: doubled from.06% to 1.2% Israel: increased from 2.7% to 4.7% Finland: 3.5% Germany: 3.0% by 2010 United States: 2% to.75% (1953 2006) Gregory Tassey, The Technology Imperative, 2007

Asia s World Class Campuses Vedanta India - 52 m sf New Songdo City South Korea 60 m sf Biopolis Singapore 12 m sf Guangzhou China 100 m sf

National Competition

Research Funds by Region (2000, 2004) Virginia 27.8% increase $4.8 $6.2 Texas $2.7 88.1% increase $5.0 North Carolina $1.1 57.8% + $1.7 Massachusetts 28.4% increase $4.1 $5.3 Maryland 40% increase $8.7 $12.2 California 28.1% increase $14.1 $18.0 $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 $16.0 $18.0 $20.0 2004 2000 Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development, Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002 (Table C-83); Fiscal Years 2004-06, Table 90

2006 Research Revenue Rankings University Only State Revenue Ranking Patents to Revenue Ranking Start ups to Revenue Ranking California 1 3 16 Massachusetts 2 10 20 Chesapeake Crescent 3 19 37 Texas 5 14 33 North Carolina 9 13 19 Source: AUTM Licensing Survey Results by State, 2006

Patents per Capita by State (2002, 2006) Virginia 11.1 +45.3% 16.1 Texas +36.0% 21.1 28.7 North Carolina 16.2 +55.4% 25.2 Massachusetts +35.3% 50.2 67.9 Maryland +64.6% 16.9 27.8 District of Columbia -86.6% 11.8 88.1 California +29.4% change 53.4 69.1 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Per 100,000 population (2006) Per 100,000 population (2002) Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark office; U.S. Census Bureau

Technology Licenses Executed per $10M in R&D Funding, by Region (2001, 2006) Washington-Baltimore 0.9 3.8 San Jose-San Francisco* 1.5 5.7 San Diego 2.2 20.4 Raleigh-Durham 1.4 25.7 Boston 1.6 8.3 Austin 1.1 3.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Source: AUTM Licensing Survey FY 2001, 2006 * University of California system reported out of San Jose-San Francisco License fees per research dollar (2006) License fees per research dollar (2001)

US Entrepreneur Stats 92% Bachelor s Degree 31% Master s Degree 10% PhDs Nearly half of all degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) One third in business, accounting and finance Kauffman Foundation Research: 502 companies established 1995 2005

Age at time of company founding

US Entrepreneur Stats Founder average and median age 39 years old Founders w/ MBA 13 years to startup Founders w. PhD 21 years to startup Location 45% in same state as degree California 69% Texas 53% Massachusetts 29% Virginia 30% Maryland 15%

High Tech Jobs Cyberstates 2008: A Complete State-by-State Overview of the High-Technology Industry

Venture Capital Investment in Seed/Startups 2007 Venture Capital (millions) 2004 R&D funding (millions) VC Seed + startup investments (millions) % of National VC investment in seed/startups Ratio of VC capital to R&D Funding Ratio of VC seed + startup investment to CCR California $ 12,055 $ 18,041 $ 535 45.4% 67% 12 Chesapeake Crescent Region $ 1,242 $ 18,454 $ 46 3.9% 7% 1 Massachusetts $ 3,489 $ 5,324 $ 115 9.8% 66% 9 North Carolina $ 577 $ 1,677 $ 48 4.1% 34% 11 Texas $ 1,416 $ 5,025 $ 31 2.6% 28% 2 Source: MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association

Traditional Tech Transfer

Clusters

Clusters UMB BioPark Johns Hopkins S&T Park FDA White Oaks Village

Rapid Prototyping Identify scope Identify pain Technology needs and requirements Test data Success metrics Scout Broadcast needs Shadow scenario Use TechBridge to collect Filter Second phase screen with customer Final four

Rapid Prototyping Examples Data mining and visualization Graph database

Innovation Platform Chesapeake Crescent Technologists Entrepreneurs Early Stage $$ Large Scale Initiatives IP Bundling and Auction Sales Next Gen SECs and Serial Entrepreneurs Independent Angels Centers of Excellence & MURI s Top 100 Research Rock Stars University Fellows (Next Gen SECs) Leverage Angel Clubs (CIT, TEDCO, NVP, CAN) Clusters & Mini Villages Embedded Entrepreneurs in Residence Alumni Angel PINs (JHU, UMD, UVA, VT) Applied Energy Research Programs Visible IP Inventory (Fed, Univ, Incu, Ind) X-Prize Challenges Chesapeake Crescent Portal Supporting Tactics: ---- Leverage existing networks, organizations and events ---- Execute a branding communications plan ------ Outreach campaigns ----- Frequent market research

Tech Scouting

Client X Tech Scouting

Shopping List Informatics data fusion data mining info assurance visualization authentication Advanced Tech C4ISR hi-speed computing CBRNE-WMD-IED energy/power systems self organizing networks

Technology sources University Labs VC s and Angels Incubators Federal Labs NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TRUE REPRESENTATION

Screening

Tech Scouting Shopping List LBT Biometrics CBRNE UAV CPA s Embassies Incubators VC s University Labs Media Fed Labs Angels ESQ s Customer Early Stage $$ Financial or Development Status

Thank You Roger London Innovation Economy Program Director Chesapeake Crescent 410-224-2030 RLondonMD@gmail.com