1

HI 4 – Background

International tech transfer throughput is extremely low

Some technology transfers are not flowing because of natural barriers and lack of feasibility

We are trying to address the missed opportunities i.e., technology transfers that offer a return for both Part I and II entities

No Enabling Platform for International Tech Transfer

Communication

Capacity

Economics

Addressing the problem is based on solutions that have found to be “functional”

NO OVERARCHING ENABLING MECHANISM FOR GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

2

HI 4 – Key ChallengesThere are key hurdles to cross-border transfers today including:

Shortage of Resources:

o Companies and Universities do not have the resources to scour the world for possible licensing deals. Also complicated by the number of potential technologies that they are dealing with and their inability to provide IP solutions as a single point.

Gap in Developmental / Upstream Capabilities:

o Part II countries can typically only handle “ready-to-go / last mile” technologies and often the technology available needs some “translation” to make it work within their regions

o Also capability gaps in technology transfer, contracts, IP, protection, etc.

o Public sector engagement in Product development and delivery in Part II countries.

Lack of Trust and Communication:

o Difficult to establish trust between Part I and II stakeholders with regards to IP protection

No Platform to Enable Tech Transfer

o No trusted third party platform, either educational, developmental, or commercial to address the hurdles

“Tech transfers are uncommon and often by accident… corporations and universities in Part I don’t understand how to do business with Part I, let

alone Part II organizations”

3

HI 4 – Some Observed Key Enablers to Success

COMPETENT IN-COUNTRY PARTNER

Local partner who understands tech transfer, the needs and interests of universities and corporations, has specific industry/domain expertise, and can identify legitimate local enterprises

TRUST BASED CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

Leveraging a trusted partner to serve as a “Hub” for the region

PUBLIC BENEFIT AND

COMMERCIALIZATION

Especially true for Part I universities to serve a need to achieve wide dissemination and greater good as well as royalty revenue e.g., royalty-free for the public sector

COST EFFICIENCYLower cost commercialization option in Part II drives Part I organizations to the region, promotes cross-border exchange of technologies and know-how, and enhances potential commercialization potential

Not all Part II countries are the same. Some are at Mezzanine level.

4

HI 4 –An International Commercialization Platform

• Universities• Public Research Institutions

• Corporations

COMMERCIALIZATION PLATFORMUS Parent with Regional Satellites

CLEARING HOUSE

CONSULTING & LEGAL

SERVICESCONVENING

TRAINING CAPACITY BUILDING

LARGE ENT. SME UNIVERSITIES GOVT. LABS

SME FundsVCLocal Banks

• Pooling of IP & know how

• Listing fees

• Subscriptions• Revenue share of royalty

• Fee for services e.g., consulting, training, capacity building, etc.

PART II

PART I

• Inflow / Outflow of IP • Revenue

Regional brokers (E.g., India, Turkey)

Direct to client

Investors & funders

• IFC (30%)• Multilaterals/ bilaterals

• Foundations• Corporations

Board of Directors •Start up capital

5

HI 4 – Proposed organizational model

Organizational structure – initial lean team supported by outsourced functions

Regional Hub

U.S. based parent

Regional Hub Regional Hub

Start up model: 8 FTEs

• CEO, veteran with deep IP and licensing experience

• Senior technology developer to develop/manage database

• 4 IP and business development professionals (~1 in the US, 1 in UK, 1 in EU, 1 in Hong Kong)

• Administration: 1 accountant, 1 general admin

Outsourced functions

- Technology

- Legal regulatory / IP

- HR, etc

Start up model: 1 FTEs

• 1 Regional BD lead (sales side)

• Consultants to support specific transactions

Start up model: 1 FTEs

• 1 Regional BD lead (sales side)

• Consultants to support specific transactions

Start up model: 1 FTEs

• 1 Regional BD lead (sales side)

• Consultants to support specific transactions

Option: create a side-by-side non profit entity facility

- Receive funds for capacity building/TA

- Operate development oriented programs (E.g., training for countries with lower capacity)

Why should IFC be involved in this?

• IFC brand brings the required credibility to created the trusted third party

• Leverages expertise that has been acquired through existing programs and operations

• Potential to serve as a deal origination platform for IFC investment

• Potential linkages to SME strategy

6

7

HI 4 – Back up: Details on the concept elements

Concept elements: “Develop an Institutional Commercialization Platform to Serve as a “Clearing House” for Technologies

•Serve as a “Capacity Enabler” and “Market Maker”

• Focus on Early/Embryonic Stage as well as Proven Concepts

• Customers include Universities, Corporations and Development-focused Investors

• Enabler for I-II and II-II transfers

• Role:

o Validation of technologies

o Getting people and ideas together / face to face “match making”

o Actively match needs and solutions

o Enabling bundling and pooling of technologies

o Providing the platform for the transformational customization required between Part I and II

o Technology searching

oServe as a low cost technology validation medium for Part I countries which can then enable Part II countries to also be exposed to the technology

8

HI 4 – Back up details on the model

IINSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIALIZATION PLATFORM

Organizational Model Revenue ModelResources & Skills

required

Separate legal entity, for profit parent in Part I, satellite offices/subsidiaries that are also for profit, possible side entities that can handle non-profit activities

Clear business line / technology area

Regional “Hubs” serving neighboring countries, some central coordination

Leverage InfoDev infrastructure

Funded up to 30% by IFC and other co-investors

Investors decisions can be driven by structuring around their areas of interest

• Technology Manager(s)

• Private Industry Members (for different platforms)

• National research Agency

• Licensing, IP and Tech Transfer, Technology Management, Translational Management, Domain Experts, Business Development, Contracts and Legal, Negotiations, Local Knowledge and Networks, Government Management, Marketing and Pricing,

Self sustaining

Not an investment fund

Fee for service

Listing fee

Licensing fee

Milestone payments

Consulting services such as technology searches, market reports

Attract development oriented investors and possibly VCs

Eco-System of Partners

Potential funders:

•IFC (up to 30%)

•Donors/Foundations

Potential providers of in-kind support or linkages

•Universities (TTOs)

•National Innovation Funding / Research Organizations

•InfoDev

•Private sector Corporations’ Research Labs

•Industrial and Trade Associations

•International Research Organization

9

HI 4 – Qualitative and Quantitative Metrics

Move Mezzanine level Part II countries to Part I framework

Move Part II countries to Mezzanine level ability

Accelerate global technology transfer through a two-way process

Accomplish public good and private sector delivery success

10

HI 4 – Key Assumptions to be ValidatedValue proposition to Part 1 universities / public research institutions

Is there an adequate supply of IP?

Will universities and public research institutions trust the platform and share their critical technologies?

Value proposition to Part 2 companies

Is there a large enough market opportunity in Part II countries?

Would companies/SMEs use this platform?

Financial sustainability

Would royalty shares from IP that flow from innovations create sufficient revenue share?

Would there be willingness to pay for services (Part 1 Universities, Part 2 companies/licensees)?

If the model does not break even, are there donors who would be willing to subsidize costs?

Would donors be willing to fund the start up costs?

Does striving for financial sustainability have implications for the degree of social impact / address critical global issues that are inline with IFC’s mission?