Author: Marie Powers

A researcher at Israel’s Hebrew University has developed an antiviral hand sanitizer to be marketed as “EtoClean” that has been found highly effective against the swine flu virus, according to the Yissum Research Development Company Ltd., the university’s TTO. Developed by Prof. Elka Touitou of the HU School of Pharmacy, the product is being commercialized by Novel Therapeutic Technologies, a Yissum spinoff company. Results of tests conducted on clinically isolated H1N1 virus from patients demonstrated that the composition inactivates the swine flu virus within 15 seconds of exposure, according to Yissum. The tests were carried out according to the American Society for Testing and Materials protocol in an FDA-certified laboratory in the U.S. The product is claimed to have microbicidal and antiviral properties effective for sanitizing a variety of surfaces, foods, and skin using ingredients that are generally regarded as safe and environmentally friendly. In addition, the product inactivates many non-enveloped viruses, such as the hepatitis and noroviruses, which are not susceptible to regular alcohol-based sanitizers.

Source: The Jerusalem Post

Politics and tech transfer make strange bedfellows, but with jobs and revenues evaporating in many states, it’s increasingly difficult for TTOs to avoid turf wars in the halls of their own statehouses. And some of the battles are getting ugly. Perhaps nowhere in the U.S. have more shots been fired across bordering states in recent months than in the upper Midwest, where the longstanding rivalry between Minnesota and Wisconsin has spilled over into tech transfer. Under the direction of VP for Research R. Timothy Mulcahy, PhD, the University of Minnesota has boosted licensing income and spun off six companies since 2006, and the school is constructing a $292 million Biomedical Discovery District to speed the commercialization of university medical research. However, rancor between the university and the administration of Governor Tim Pawlenty has stalled the development of a unified strategy that could nurture medical technology start-ups — and neighboring Wisconsin is all too happy to capitalize on that disarray. Last year, U-MN start-up Rapid Diagnostek moved across the state line, lured by Wisconsin’s generous tax breaks for angel investors that allowed it to secure a better financing deal. And a planned biotech start-up by world-renowned researcher Doris Taylor, PhD, director of U-MN’s Stem Cell Institute, threatens to do the same. Mulcahy — a former vice chancellor of research policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison — often finds himself in the thankless position of trying to educate state officials about the challenges of transferring technology into the marketplace. He works doggedly to highlight the need to bridge the funding gap for start-up companies that have exhausted federal research grants but have not yet fully commercialized emerging technologies.

“We try to emphasize in the legislature that the state needs to find creative ways to encourage financing for companies if university-based technologies are going to have a chance in start-up development and the job creation associated with that,” he says. “Many elected officials are unaware of the hurdles and the financing history of ideas from the discovery stage to the application stage.” Mulcahy tries to convince lawmakers that the state could play a supporting role in tech transfer by having mechanisms to fund start-up opportunities, policies to encourage angel investment, and matching grant programs to help companies accelerate early-stage research. Elected officials often fail to grasp the potential benefits to a state, however, when university technologies are licensed to companies elsewhere, Mulcahy adds. In a weak economy, TTOs face enormous pressure to license technologies to in-state companies. “We try to do that every chance we get,” he says. “But you go with the companies that can best ensure translation from idea to product.” A detailed article on pushing for political change to support tech transfer efforts appears in the December 2009 issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. To get the complete article and become a subscriber, including access to the entire archive of back issues, CLICK HERE.

The University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) in Worcester has been granted European Patent EP 1,309,726 in the Tuschl I patent series by the European Patent Office (EPO). The newly granted patent is based on one of the earliest applications in a UMMS portfolio covering the research of Phillip D. Zamore, PhD, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and the Gretchen Stone Cook chair of biomedical sciences and professor of biochemistry and molecular pharmacology at UMMS. The patent grant extends the scope and breadth of UMMS’s fundamental IP estate, which comprises numerous issued or granted patents and many pending patent applications that together broadly cover RNAi therapeutics, including small interfering RNAs, or siRNAs — the molecules that mediate RNAi. The patent, “RNA sequence-specific mediators of RNA interference,” is considered the fundamental patent on siRNAs, describing the design and use of duplex RNAs that are too short to induce an interferon response, thereby allowing RNA interference in mammalian cells. The patent is based on a discovery by Zamore; Thomas Tuschl, PhD, now of Rockefeller University; Nobel Laureate Phillip A. Sharp, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and David P. Bartel, PhD, of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research.

The Tuschl I patent consists of 19 claims broadly covering RNAi methods, including methods of reducing the expression of a gene — including those of mammalian or viral origin — with double-stranded RNA (dsRNAs) between 21 and 23 nucleotides in length. The patent also includes claims covering methods of examining the function of a gene, as well as the use of both unmodified and chemically modified dsRNAs. “The issuance of this patent is an important step in securing the pathway to the clinic for siRNA-based therapeutics,” says Terence R. Flotte, MD, dean, provost, and executive deputy chancellor of UMMS. “Appropriate patent protection will encourage future investment in innovative siRNA therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, infectious diseases, and other conditions for which current therapies are inadequate.”

Source: PharmaLive

In his blog (Startup Professionals Musings), Martin Zwilling, CEO and founder of Startup Professionals, Inc., and board member and executive in residence at Callaman Ventures, warns entrepreneurs to validate the character and reputation of prospective angel investors. “The entrepreneur’s tendency to be in a huge hurry to obtain funding can end up being disastrous, and play into the hands of less scrupulous investors,” he writes. “In fact, most angels are pure, but there are some exceptions that may cost you more than an investment.” He cites these as angels to avoid:

• Shark angels. The ultimate bad guy gets involved in early-stage investing only to take advantage of an entrepreneur’s lack of financial and deal-making experience. “If the term sheet process turns to pure torture, it may be time to respectfully bow out,” Zwilling says.
• Litigious angels. These investors look for almost any excuse to take entrepreneurs to court, seeking to make money by intimidation, threats, and lawsuits. They know start-ups won’t have the resources to fight and count on them “caving.” Keep your attorney close by your side, Zwilling advises.
• Superior angels. A number of successful business people believe they possess clear superiority over others, and some of these become angels. Usually, they are overbearing, negative people who are hypercritical of an entrepreneur’s every decision. Don’t be intimidated into bad decisions.
• Control freak angels. These angels start out looking like a start-up’s new best friend. Once the venture is funded, however, they wait until it hits the first pothole and then point out “gotcha” clauses in the agreement that give them more control — ultimately seeking to step in and run the company. Only a board can save a start-up in this situation.
• Tutorial angels. This type of investor is not after control but wants to hold your hand on every issue. The mentoring offer sounds good up front. But once they write the check, the desire to be helpful 24 hours a day becomes a nuisance that eventually wears you down. “Keeping your distance is the best solution,” Zwilling writes.
• Has-been angels. These high-flyers have a liquidity problem. They’re still at the country club every day but running up a tab. They’ll meet with you and ask a thousand questions but never get around to closing the deal. Avoid them by learning to ask the closing questions.
• Dumb angels. Wealth is not synonymous with business savvy, Zwilling points out. When angels ask superficial questions or don’t understand business, a successful long-term relationship is not likely. But don’t forget that people with wealth usually have some savvy friends.
• Brokers posing as angels. Some individuals, often posing as lawyers and accountants, have no intent to invest in your company but eventually solicit you to sign a fee agreement to pay them to introduce you to actual investors. Brokers are often worth the fee, but don’t be misled into thinking they are actually angels.

Source: Startup Professionals Musings

A decade-long lawsuit pitting the tiny company Convolve and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against giant Seagate Technology has taken an unexpected turn after a whistle-blower claimed that Seagate appropriated Convolve technology and later destroyed evidence in the case. The whistle-blower, a former Seagate employee named Paul A. Galloway, has provided what is described as “an eyewitness account” accusing Seagate of taking hard-drive technology from Convolve and incorporating it into its own products, according to documents filed recently with a federal court in Manhattan. The court filings include claims by Galloway that Scotts Valley, CA-based Seagate, the world’s largest producer of computer hard drives, tampered with evidence tied to Convolve’s nearly 10-year-old patent infringement case against the company. The allegations are detailed in an affidavit filed by one of Convolve’s lawyers as part of an effort to reopen the voluminous court record to include testimony from Galloway. A conference on the case has been scheduled for Jan. 20, though it’s not clear whether Convolve’s motion will be considered at that session.

The patent infringement case between Convolve and Seagate dates to 2000, when Convolve and MIT sued Seagate and Compaq Computer seeking $800 million over technology that reduced the noise and vibration generated by hard-disk drives. MIT researchers had developed techniques to reduce the noise of a hard drive without significantly impairing its performance. Convolve was formed to help market and sell this and related technology. According to court and regulatory filings, representatives from Convolve and Seagate met in 1998 and 1999 to discuss some of Convolve’s work, subject to an agreement that Seagate would not make improper use of what it learned in those discussions. In 2000, Convolve sued Seagate and one of its customers, Compaq, claiming that the “sound barrier” technology Seagate introduced in 2000 relied on Convolve’s sound reduction innovations. In the nine ensuing years, Convolve and Seagate have exchanged hundreds of documents under court-ordered discovery and filed myriad legal motions against each other.

The affidavit detailing Galloway’s allegations was quietly filed last month. The motion, filed by an attorney representing MIT and Convolve, says Galloway disclosed that Seagate’s engineers zeroed in on improving the company’s sound reduction features only after seeing Convolve’s technology. However, these engineers were not aware that Seagate had a nondisclosure agreement in place that should have protected Convolve’s innovations. “I was deceived by my management’s failure to tell me that the Convolve technology discussed within Seagate was NDA protected,” Galloway states in one section of the affidavit. According to the filing, Galloway also alleges that Seagate appears to have intentionally destroyed some software blueprints linked to products using the sound reduction technology. According to court documents, Galloway previously was a witness for Seagate in the protracted litigation. Convolve has also sued Dell, Hitachi, and Western Digital in regard to similar technology. That case is pending in a federal district court in Marshall, TX.

Source: The New York Times

Tech transfer professionals charged with the task of marketing their IP to licensees have a tough challenge, often operating without a dedicated marketing professionals or even a formal marketing budget. Getting the word out, and generating high-quality leads and ultimately deals, requires creative tactics and resourceful determination. To help you meet that challenge and tap into existing or low-cost tools and strategies, our Distance Learning Division has recruited three tech transfer marketing veterans who have been in the same boat – and made it float. They’ve learned how to do more with less, using “guerrilla” techniques that bring in licensees without spending a fortune on glitzy marketing bells and whistles. They’ll share those techniques in a practical, how-to audioconference: Tech Transfer Marketing on a Shoestring: Guerilla Tactics in a Budget-Cut World, scheduled for Tuesday, March 9 from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm. The session also includes an optional 30-minute add-on web forum for idea-sharing, which is free to the first 20 registrants. You’ll join Melba Kurman (Cornell Center for Technology Enterprise and Commercialization), Jamie Hall (University of British Columbia) and Brandon Reynolds (University of Texas at Tyler) for an invigorating 90-minute presentation featuring a treasure trove of inventive, clever, out-of-the-box ideas to move your innovations to market without busting your budget. CLICK HERE for complete details and to enroll.

And don’t miss these upcoming events – click on the titles for more information:

• Successful Outsourcing for Tech Transfer Organizations – TOMORROW, January 6.
• “Shrink Wrap” Your University’s Technologies for Industry: Packaging Your Innovations to Minimize Corporate Risk and Extract Optimum Licensing Value – Wednesday, January 27
• Patent Prosecution: Best Practices for Reducing Costs While Improving Patent Quality – Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Shawn Lesser, president and founder of Atlanta-based Sustainable World Capital, which raises funds for private equity cleantech funds and private cleantech companies, peeked inside U.S. university labs and reports the best examples of collaboration among academics, businesses, and investors focused on clean technologies. “While many dotcom companies were started by students out of their dorm rooms or basements, don’t look for a similar trend in the cleantech world,” Lesser says. He ranks the top 10 U.S. cleantech universities in 2010 as follows:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is home to the MIT Clean Energy Prize, which has helped launch several energy ventures, including FloDesign, FastCap Systems, Levant Power, Husk Insulation, and Covalent Solar. In addition, the MIT Energy Initiative, launched in September 2006, is an institute-wide initiative to help meet the energy needs of the future by improving existing systems. Notable MIT cleantech spinouts include A123 Systems, FastCap Systems, Levant Power, Trophos Energy, Promethean Power, 1366 Technologies, Sun Catalytix, and Agrivida.

University of California at Berkeley. Berkeley is home to several partnerships with big industry players. The Energy and Biosciences Institute is a partnership of UC Berkeley, Berkeley Lab, and the University of Illinois that is receiving $500 million from BP over 10 years. The Bio Energy Institute is a partnership of three national labs and three research universities in the San Francisco Bay area that is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with $125 million over five years. And Berkeley’s proximity to Silicon Valley and the East Bay Cleantech Corridor provides visibility with the entrepreneurs, VCs, and consulting companies driving the growth of new energy. Notable cleantech spinoffs include Amyris Biotechnologies, Adura Technologies, Seeo, Aurora Biofuels, and Progressive Cooling Solutions.

The University of Texas in Austin. A historical leader in energy innovation, R&D, and teaching, UT-Austin has abundant oil and gas on its own lands and deep connections to the energy industry. UT is using its leadership in conventional energy as a launch pad for leadership in cleantech. The inventor of the lithium-ion battery, John Goodenough, is a professor of mechanical engineering at UT, and the university is a leader in algae-based biofuels. UT is a part of a multimillion dollar DARPA-sponsored project to produce jet fuels from algae. The DOE also awarded UT-Austin $35 million for research on carbon sequestration. Its notable cleantech spinouts include ActaCell, Advanced Hydro, Graphene Energy, Organic Fuels, and Inspired Solar.

Stanford University. Stanford has developed a long-range, $250-million initiative to reduce its energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The university also established a $100 million research institute, the Precourt Institute for Energy, to focus on energy issues. In fact, the university spends more than $30 million annually on energy research. In addition, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP), the entrepreneurship center at Stanford’s School of Engineering, is dedicated to accelerating high-tech entrepreneurship education and creating scholarly research on technology-based firms. Notable cleantech spinouts include Amprius, Nanostellar, Rolith, D.light Design, Driptech, and Veranda Solar.

University of Michigan. Driven by the Zell Lurie Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies in the Business School, the Center for Entrepreneurship in the College of Engineering, and the student organization MPowered, U-M students are highly engaged in cleantech entrepreneurship. The student-led Wolverine Venture Fund and the Frankel Commercialization Fund have invested in Environmental Operating Systems and Accio Energy, and the Universities TechArb program is poised to leverage U-M’s entrepreneurial ecosystem and stake out a leadership position in the green economy. Notable cleantech spinouts include T/J Technologies (acquired), Sensicore (acquired), Sakti3, and Flexsys Wind Energy.

University of Colorado at Boulder. Viewed as being at the forefront of the sustainability and cleantech revolution, CU-Boulder has created a joint energy institute with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI) partners leading researchers from CU-Boulder and NREL on cross-disciplinary research. Currently, 19 major corporations sit on the RASEI leadership council, including Xcel Energy, ConocoPhilips, Toyota, SAIC, Good Energies, Wells Fargo, and Vestas. In addition, the university leads the Rocky Mountain region in funded research, which exceeds $350 million annually. Notable cleantech spinouts include Ion Engineering and OPX Biotechnologies.

University of Wisconsin at Madison. UW’s Solar Energy Lab, founded in 1954, is the oldest of its kind. More recently, the university has become a focal point for research in bio-energy. To coordinate energy-related research and education, a group of professors came together in 2006 to create the Energy Institute, which is focused on sustainability opportunities through “real world” design and engineering practices. Since then, U-W has become home to one of three DOE-funded Bioenergy Research Centers — the only one based at an academic institution. In 2009, U-W’s College of Engineering entered into a long-term partnership with Vestas, and last May, the university snagged 10 of 71 DOE funding awards for advanced nuclear research, totaling more than $5 million. Notable cleantech spinouts include Virent Energy Systems and AquaMost.

Cornell University. With world-class research in the physical sciences, engineering, and nanotechnology, Cornell is leading New York State’s task force to promote high-tech development through industry-higher education partnerships. Its campus-wide Center for a Sustainable Future fosters multidisciplinary research into new energy sources, environmental and biodiversity initiatives, and economic development projects to implement these programs globally. Notable cleantech spinouts include Novomer and iFyber.

Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia Tech boasts more than $500 million in sponsored research, and its Advanced Technology Development Center is a nationally recognized science and technology incubator that helps Georgia entrepreneurs launch and build successful companies. Its VentureLab program also helps to move innovations out of university labs and into the marketplace by assessing their commercial potential and assisting in the development of new companies. VentureLab is currently advising a number of cleantech startup companies. Notable cleantech spinouts include Suniva, RideCell, and CoolClouds.

Washington State University. With its legacy in agriculture, power, and applied engineering, WSU’s Clean Technology program is growing rapidly in the ecology-minded Pacific Northwest. Plant science is the engine behind the opening of the Bioproducts Science and Engineering Laboratory, Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, and the recently funded Washington State Algae Alliance. One of WSU’s main objectives is the commercialization of aviation biofuels with partner Boeing Commercial Airlines. Notable cleantech spinouts include GoNano, Ajuga Biosciences, BioGasol, Schweitzer Engineering Labs, and Integrated Engineering Solutions.

Source: Cleantech Group

A pair of unrelated developments across two continents illustrate the continues steady movement of nanotech innovations toward commercialization. The U.K.’s Oxford Nanopore University Technologies Ltd inked an exclusive license agreement to develop technology developed at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the labs of David Deamer, PhD, professor emeritus of chemistry, and Mark Akeson, PhD, adjunct associate professor of biomolecular engineering and co-director of UCSC’s Biophysics Laboratory. The technology uses protein nanopores to analyze DNA molecules. Applications of the platform include single-molecule DNA sequencing and molecular sensing. The license follows a similar agreement between Oxford Nanopore and Harvard University to in-license a broad range of nanopore technologies that include additional discoveries from UCSC. The company also holds agreements covering nanopore science with the University of Oxford, U.K., Texas A&M, the University of Massachusetts Medical School, and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Advancement of the technology is expected to benefit basic medical research and further the field of personalized medicine. The company’s first generation of nanopore sequencing, using its proprietary BASE technology, is poised to be the first label-free DNA sequencing system. BASE sequencing combines a biological nanopore with a processive enzyme arrayed on a silicon chip. Future generations of nanopore sequencing technologies may use solid-state nanopores or may analyze single stranded nucleic acids. Avoiding the use of chemical labels and optical equipment to provide a direct electrical readout that identifies DNA bases is expected to offer a dramatic improvement in sequencing speed while reducing cost. “A label-free approach to DNA sequencing would facilitate a transformation in genomics that could be likened to the broadband revolution,” says Dr. Gordon Sanghera, the company’s CEO.

In the second nano-related development, Johns Hopkins University researchers created biodegradable nano-sized particles that can easily slip through the body’s sticky and viscous mucus secretions to deliver a sustained-release medication cargo. The researchers say these nanoparticles, which degrade over time into harmless components, could one day carry life-saving drugs to patients suffering from dozens of health conditions, including diseases of the eye, lung, gut, or female reproductive tract. The mucus-penetrating biodegradable nanoparticles were developed by an interdisciplinary team led by Justin Hanes, PhD, formerly a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering in JHU’s Whiting School of Engineering and now a professor in the department of ophthalmology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. The biodegradable particles comprise two parts made of molecules routinely used in existing medications. An inner core, composed largely of polysebacic acid, or PSA, traps therapeutic agents inside. A particularly dense outer coating of polyethylene glycol, or PEG, molecules, which are linked to PSA, allows a particle to move through mucus nearly as easily as if it were moving through water and also permits the drug to remain in contact with affected tissues for an extended period of time.

The nanoparticles could be an ideal means of delivering drugs to people with cystic fibrosis, a disease that kills children and adults by altering the mucus barriers in the lung and gut, according to the researchers. The nanoparticles also could be used to help treat disorders such as lung and cervical cancer and inflammation of the sinuses, eyes, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. In proof-of-concept experiments, previous research teams led by Hanes demonstrated that latex particles coated with polyethylene glycol could slip past mucus coatings. In a new study, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers describe how they took an important step forward in developing particles that biodegrade into harmless components while delivering their drug payload over time. The technology is protected by patents managed by the Johns Hopkins Technology Transfer Office and is licensed exclusively by Kala Pharmaceuticals, a start-up company in which Justin Hanes is a paid consultant and board member.

Sources: Nanotechwire.com and The JHU Gazette

Last may, the Seattle start-up Nanocel won the University of Washington’s annual business plan competition. Now the company — founded by UW mechanical engineering PhD student Dustin Miller and recent UW MBA grad Daniel Rossi — is gearing up for a big 2010. Their planned first products — affordable fluid-based cooling systems for computer chips — will fill a large void in the market, the inventors say. Nanocel’s technology uses a combination of microfluidics and novel plastic materials to cool devices more cheaply than other liquid-based systems and more efficiently than cooling fans. The products use thousands to millions of very thin (between one and 100 micrometers wide) vessels to circulate tiny amounts of liquid in close contact with the computer chips or other device components prone to overheating. Nanocel is not the first to think of replacing fans with liquid, but its technology is the first to combine plastics with microfluidics to create a heat sink, Miller says.

Nanocel is eco-friendly, he adds, in that it could save vast amounts of energy over current air-based cooling methods. Two of the biggest problems in the computer industry are keeping large server farms from overheating and extending battery life in laptops and other portable electronics. “We are currently using over 3% of the nation’s energy on cooling the Internet,” Miller says. Industry calculations say that fluid-based cooling could cut that energy use in half. “That’s a staggering number,” he points out. Potential partners and customers mainly include computer chip manufacturers and designers, but the inventors also are talking with companies that make gaming consoles, servers, and hardware. “There are tons of shelf-ready products that can’t go to market because they’re too hot,” Rossi says. Fans aren’t powerful enough to cool them down, and liquid technologies are too pricey. On an individual scale, a cooling technology that uses less energy will lead to longer battery life, reducing energy usage and keeping more batteries out of landfills. “This can have a real impact, not only at the country level but also at the consumer level,” Miller says. Nanocel is working out a licensing deal with UW’s TTO. “We’re excited about this technology,” says Jim Roberts, UW TechTransfer’s business development officer. “We think it has many applications. They’ve got all the right ingredients to be a successful company.”

Source: Xconomy

Inventors at the University of Michigan have secured $11 million to launch Ann Arbor-based HistoSonics, Inc., which will develop a medical device that uses tightly focused ultrasound pulses to treat prostate disease. The company’s histotripsy technology, licensed from U-M and developed by scientists in the departments of biomedical engineering and urology, is a noninvasive, image-guided system that ablates tissue with robotic precision. While most ultrasound products currently on the market use heat to destroy unwanted tissue, histotripsy co-inventor and HistoSonics co-founder Charles Cain, PhD, and colleagues used cavitation — the production of tiny energetic bubbles — to create a surgical scalpel that liquefies tissues without heat. “The conventional wisdom was that cavitation should be avoided, but no one could tell me why,” says Cain. “I decided to study it as a possible mechanism for non-invasive surgery. It works far beyond our expectations, and many people will tell you it’s probably going to revolutionize the way ultrasound therapy is done.” The first clinical application will be treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a condition that affects more than two million men in the U.S. and results in surgery for some 400,000 BPH patients.

Source: University of Michigan News Service

Early-stage in vitro diagnostics company Martell Biosystems is seeking approximately $3 million in venture capital to help set up shop in downtown Rochester, MN, to develop a noninvasive, DNA amplification-based blood test to diagnose breast and other types of cancer. Martell needs the funding to finalize a licensing deal for the core technology with the University of Pennsylvania, where it was developed, according to Phil Messina, the company’s president and COO. “We’ve signed a definitive term sheet with [UPenn],” Messina says. “The final licenses will be signed when we secure the capital for the company.” Martell’s core technology — fluorescent amplification catalyzed by T7 polymerase technique, or FACTT — was developed by Mark Greene, MD, PhD, John W. Eckman professor of medical science at UPenn, and Hongtao Zhang, a research assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine.

In FACTT, a capture antibody binds to an antigen of interest in a sample. A biotinylated detection antibody then binds to a non-overlapping epitope on the antigen, and streptavidin is used to link this detection antibody to a biotinylated, double-stranded DNA molecule that serves as the amplification module. Next, the amplification module is transcribed by T7 RNA polymerase, producing multiple copies of RNA from the DNA template and amplifying the signal in a linear fashion. Finally, a fluorescent dye is used to detect the amount of RNA, which is directly proportional to the amount of antigen in the original sample. Martell is billing FACTT as a more sensitive version of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, which still represent the gold standard of immunoassay-based clinical testing but are limited to nanomolar concentrations of antigen, according to the company. FACTT can detect sub-femtomolar concentrations of antigen — about 100,000 times as sensitive as ELISA, Messina says. Consequently, the technique can be used to detect exceedingly small amounts of protein in a sample and serve as the basis for noninvasive blood tests for various diseases.

“We’re starting with the HER-2 biomarker [for breast cancer], which is measured on the surface of the tumor cell but is also present in very small amounts in the blood,” Messina says. The company believes that noninvasive diagnostic tests based on FACTT will dramatically enhance the ability to detect tumors early, when treatment can be most effective. Because the presence of HER-2 is indicative of tumors that may respond to treatment with Herceptin, early and accurate detection of the biomarker could help identify HER-2-positive tumors earlier than mammography, reduce the need for invasive biopsies, improve selection of patients for Herceptin therapy, and help monitor therapeutic response to the treatment, according to Messina.

UPenn owns one published patent and several patent applications surrounding FACTT. Once the licensing deal is finalized, Martell hopes to begin developing and validating the breast cancer test, with the ultimate goal of obtaining reference lab certification from Minnesota and 510(k) clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Messina says. Martell’s license with UPenn also is expected to cover veterinary applications, “so that’s a possibility,” Messina adds. “But right now we are focused on breast cancer with ovarian cancer to come next.”

Source: GenomeWeb

Finding licensees for your IP is a challenge in any environment, but in a recession it can seem more like waiting for lightning to strike — and about as likely. The key to sniffing out deals in a down economy, according to one IP consultant, is taking a proactive approach and increasing your odds by employing patent analytics. Matt Troyer, vice president of innovation at the full-service IP firm TAEUS International Corp., based in Colorado Springs, CO, says leveraging patent data is a key way for TTOs to identify licensing prospects for their IP portfolios. But patent analytics do have certain limitations, he acknowledges. “No. 1, they’re only going to target licensees who have patents in the particular area of your target patent. For example, you’re not going to find small start-ups that don’t have patent portfolios” but which might be interested in the IP you’re working with. “You’re also not going to find larger companies that may have patent portfolios but are conducting a ‘black hat’ or a ‘skunk works’ project” in an area they have not yet exploited. However, patent analytics are “the best place to start generating leads,” Troyer insists, because the processes are automated or semi-automated and “relatively fast.” A detailed article on effectively using patent analytics to identify prospects and target IP marketing efforts appears in the December issue of Technology Transfer Tactics. To get access to this complete article and become a subscriber, including access to the entire archive of back issues, CLICK HERE.

A molecular imaging technology aimed at rapid diagnosis of cell death in organs such as the brain and heart has been licensed by The Medical College of Wisconsin to GE Healthcare. The license allows GE to further evaluate and develop the invention and provides an option to commercialize the technology, which uses imaging probes with a radiopharmaceutical compound. The probes bind to dead and dying cells, making them useful for detecting acute cell injury and cell death. When the active component of this molecule is attached to a radioactive tracer, it can be used in nuclear medicine imaging techniques, such as PET (positron emission tomography) or SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography), to produce three-dimensional images of where this cell death is occurring. “Imaging agent discovery and development is an important aspect in molecular and medical imaging research,” says Ming Zhao, PhD, assistant professor of biophysics at the Medical College and inventor of the technology. “The process is critical for the improvement of existing imaging technologies and for early detection of acute cell death, cancerous tissue growth, and major vessel diseases.”

The ability to image dead and dying cells could allow oncologists to rapidly monitor tumor response to a specific therapy, Zhao points out. Another potential application is for rapid diagnosis of myocardial infarction, since patients who come to the ER complaining of chest pain often require an expensive overnight hospital stay so they can be monitored while their lab results are being processed. The new compound could allow clinicians to image the heart noninvasively and determine within a few hours if the patient had a heart attack or something else. Zhao’s research was supported by a proof-of-concept grant administered by the Medical College’s Office of Technology Development (OTD), which has filed several patent applications on the technology. “Working with the market leader in medical imaging allows this technology to be quickly moved from the research laboratory into patient care,” says Dennis Devitt, director of marketing and licensing for the OTD.

Source: EurekAlert!

The Johns Hopkins University Montgomery County campus in Rockville, MD, is starting a technology commercialization and entrepreneurship program based on a similar initiative at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, which has led to the formation of more than 25 companies since its inception in 2005. Called “Innovate!”, the one-year program will take 15 business executives and 15 postdoctoral entrepreneurs through the process of evaluating a technology’s commercial potential and starting a business around that product. Products will come from the National Institutes of Health, Hopkins, and other research institutions and federal agencies. The university’s Carey Business School will launch the program in February, funded through a National Science Foundation grant. The University of Maryland’s “Activate” program has helped launch companies such as Foligo Therapeutics, a Rockville biopharmaceutical company developing products to treat ovarian cancer. That program was also supported by grants from the NSF as well as from the Maryland Technology Development Corp.

Source: The Gazette

Technology Transfer Tactics offers a simple, targeted way to advertise positions available in technology transfer and related fields — and be sure you’re reaching only the professionals with the experience and background you need! Current listings include openings at the University of Illinois-Chicago, Battelle Energy Alliance, Michigan State University, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the University of Virginia. Job seekers can CLICK HERE to view the listings. To learn how to advertise an open position in your organization, CLICK HERE for details of contact Sara Henderson at (877) 729-0959, extension 105, or by e-mail at [email protected].

The number of cutting-edge British technology companies created from universities has collapsed in the last year, and many start-ups that did form were forced to turn to foreign investors, according to a report in the British newspaper The Telegraph. Between 2005 and 2008, on average 210 start-ups were formed each year based on academic research in university labs. However, the rate likely dropped to fewer than 50 new firms in 2009 — the lowest level since the U.K.’s Higher Education Statistics Agency began tracking spinoff activity. An increasing number of companies that raised capital sourced it from overseas investors, as domestic venture firms and private investors focused on keeping existing ventures afloat during the recession.

University TTOs around the U.K. report that their commercialization efforts have been affected by the financial crisis. Tom Hockaday, managing director of ISIS Innovation — Oxford University’s technology transfer arm — says only three new companies were formed this year, and two — Zyoxel and Oxford Yasa Motors — had to tap investors from overseas. “There’s no shortage of money in the world,” Hockaday says. “It’s just a reflection of things locally.” Tony Raven, director of research & enterprise services at Southampton University, confirms the trend. Southampton, which normally would fund two to five start-ups each year, did not fund any new companies this year. Nevertheless, “in good times and bad times the good companies will get funding,” Raven says. “The quality threshold has gone up.”

Source: The Telegraph

The IPO window for biotech companies remains mostly shut. VC firms are so busy propping up — or weeding out — existing portfolio companies during the recession that they have little energy and cash to fund new start-ups. And the so-called “patent cliff” facing big pharma is approaching fast: One third of approved drugs will go off patent by 2012. All of this adds up to an environment in which academia is positioned to play a key role in refilling pharmaceutical companies’ pipelines. “We are incubating a deal with pharma now,” says Dale Larson, director of biomedical systems at the Cambridge-based nonprofit research institute Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Inc. “In the past, they wouldn’t have looked at this technology until three years later.”

Both the technology that is the subject of the impending deal, and a second collaboration with Pfizer, Inc., are based on life sciences tools that can help pharma companies find flaws in their drug targets earlier so they can minimize the number of dollars spent on a candidate that will ultimately fail. Partnering with a pharmaceutical company is attractive for academic and nonprofit researchers, Larson and others say, because those drug makers have deep enough pockets and a mature enough infrastructure to keep promising technologies from being left on the research shelf. “If this drug gets approved, we will get a percentage of sales in the low-single digits. If it’s a billion-dollar drug, that gets very interesting,” says Todd Keiller, director of technology commercialization at the University of Vermont. Keller is referring to the school’s licensing deal with Seattle-based Cell Therapeutics for a drug target that has completed clinical trials and is awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Jon Soderstrom, the head of the TTO at Yale University, says a big uptick in pharma collaborations is just around the corner. “We actually had a surge of interest two years ago, because a lot of the later-stage drug targets out there in industry had just gotten so expensive for pharma and they were looking for cheaper alternatives.” When the market crashed and biotech companies’ valuations took a nosedive, pharma went hunting for bargains in the marketplace instead. Soderstrom thinks the big drugmakers have picked through the available later-stage assets and will seek more partnerships with academia. One phenomenon that has made academic labs increasingly attractive is that universities are reclaiming “distressed assets” — drug targets formerly licensed to small biotechs that were dropped to conserve cash. “These drug candidates often have large investments already from venture capital firms, so they are somewhat de-risked,” Soderstrom says. Yale has received calls from big drugmakers inquiring about those valuable returned products, he adds.

Source: Mass High Tech Business News

Calculating Lost Profits in IP and Patent Infringement Cases, a 690-page hardcover reference and companion online resource center, brings together the comprehensive body of knowledge on lost profits damages and delivers a definitive resource for IP professionals, tech transfer execs, financial experts, and attorneys. Written by Nancy Fannon, owner of Fannon Valuation Group, and other industry leading experts, Calculating Lost Profits delivers a thorough analysis of current case law and valuation methodology that form the basis of damage awards in IP and patent infringement cases. This must-have resource and comes with 24/7 access to the online edition, which includes the full text of relevant court opinions, a searchable PDF version of the book, plus bonus content and updates as they are released. It’s your go-to resource center for everything on lost profits damages, and is available from 2Market Information with a $50-off discount. CLICK HERE for full details.

Biophysicists at the University at Buffalo (NY) have found a protein in tarantula venom that shows promise as a therapy for muscular dystrophy (MD) and have formed a start-up to advance the drug to clinical trials. Fredrick Sachs, PhD, professor of physiology and biophysics at UB, and colleagues discovered the peptide, called GsMTx4. Because therapies for MD are classed as orphan drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, allowing a shorter testing period than normal drugs, Sachs anticipates that Buffalo-based Rose Pharmaceuticals may obtain FDA approval of the peptide for human use within two years. In addition to MD, the peptide has potential as a therapy for several other conditions, including neuropathic pain and atrial fibrillation.

In collaboration with the Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Center at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, DC, Sachs’ team tested the effect of GsMTx4 on mice with MD. Results showed that the drug increased muscle strength and caused no mortality, morbidity, or toxicity. Rose Pharmaceuticals now is developing methods to administer the drug. The peptide and its mirror image are covered by U.S. patents obtained by UB’s Office of Science, Technology Transfer, and Economic Outreach (STOR) and licensed to the start-up. No other drugs are known to act specifically on mechanosensitive ion channels — the target of GsMTx4, according to Sachs.

Source: UB News Center

Arrayit Diagnostics, Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary of Arrayit Corporation, has signed an exclusive license agreement with Wayne State University in Detroit, MI, for IP covering newly discovered biomarkers of ovarian cancer. The agreement grants Arrayit exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize a novel microarray-based diagnostic test using biomarkers developed by Wayne State researchers. The test aims to effectively screen for early-stage ovarian cancer in women who are not yet symptomatic. According to the National Cancer Institute, ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of death among U.S. women, yet no adequate screening or diagnostic test for early-stage detection exists. As a result, most ovarian cancers are diagnosed only when later stage symptoms manifest and the disease has metastasized to other parts of the body. In the near future, Arrayit plans to file a premarket approval application for its pre-symptomatic ovarian cancer diagnostic test with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Source: Clinical Lab Products