It's been 2000… since 2014 that I, uh, with CTL, the Center for Technology Licensing.

And my team, particularly, that I lead is, uh, basically in charge, responsible of the tax funding program, but also an internship program, the educational programming, and also support to our staff ecosystem. Different… that is different from the incubator, I should mention that.

Uh, in my background, I have a background in biotech, uh, biochemistry, and also, uh, in, um.

Tech Council has been 10 years now, more than 10 years, yeah.

Well, thanks, Doug and Linda. Well, hi everyone. My name is Jacob Johnson, the founder of Innovosaurus.

We are a consulting firm and community builder around Gaplan Accelerator programs at universities, broadly defined as proof-of-concept programs, startup accelerators, and venture funds.

Been looking at this for about 15 years, and just doing a lot to try to bolster the community and make some connections, uh, corporate investment connections to these programs.

So today, I thought we would just go through the four session… or four sections here in the next hour. I'm going to give a little bit of an overview of the Gapfund Accelerator Continuum.

And where that sits, I'm gonna pull some numbers from the upcoming Mind the Gap report release. We've done 4 or 5 of these.

Through the years, and we'll have some fresh numbers here later this fall.

And then Doug and Linda are going to do a quick model review at their programs at Cornell and Purdue to give you real-life examples of these gap-fund programs, and we'll have some time at the end for discussion.

We do have the chat and the Q&A feature open. I will be moderating and monitoring those.

So, if any questions come up during either Doug and Linda's presentations, I'll field those to them if they make sense at that time. Otherwise, we'll have some time for Q&A at the end, too, as well.

So I thought I'd start by laying out a continuum that might align well with how we think of moving basic research into startups in the case of startup commercialization.

Proving for basic research to prove a concept, to early-stage startup formation, formal or informal.

And then into advanced investment into scaling the startup. And the sort of goal here is to reduce the technology and business risk.

And then also address the different costs to both advance that technology, but then to participate in that technology.

From our next stage downstream Venture, uh, and corporate partners. So some of the traditional forms of commercial and investment partnership, these will ring true to most of you, but on the basic research side, historically, we've had good support from public research funding.

And then also corporate and private, uh, research. Competitions and funding from foundations. And in the case of spin-out companies, early-stage investment from angels.

Pre-cvc, uh, and accelerators, private accelerators. But also, uh, increasingly connections to corporate venture groups, family offices, and Seed Plus venture capital firms.

In recent years, we've seen other groups starting to form, both inside and outside of our institutions. We've seen in this space between proof of concept and early-stage startup formation.

We've seen things like Venture Studios in recent years, corporate accelerators, thematic corporate accelerators that come in and support institutional programs around.

Particular technology areas. Venture philanthropy is coming on right now as another source for small, medium-sized foundations.

You're seeing state and regional programs. A lot of your states have programs that are working in partnership with your research institutions.

To support this proof-of-concept startup formation and scaling stage. And then also affiliated VC funds with our institutions. So these might be sidecar funds, these might be partnered funds.

These might be… might be loosely affiliated funds, but funds that will place an emphasis on the startups and spin-outs that are coming out of your research institutions.

So, what we're talking about today is a tech and startup gap. There's many gaps, uh, and depending on your perspective, that gap might be all, you know, all over the place. But this particular gap that we're going to talk about today.

It's typically from the applied research. All the way to when a spin-out company gets some decent-sized investment from a follow-on investor.

And typically, these, uh, these assets, both technologies and spin-outs in this space.

Might be high opportunity, but they're stalled typically due to a lack of available capital, talent, or other support.

And the goal here is to lower the real or even perceived risk for partners, so they'll reach into their pockets, pull out their money, and move the technology asset forward.

So, we've seen these sorts of technology types evolve. Uh, and each of them addresses particular stages along this larger gap. And I'll go through these in more detail on the next slide, but think of this as really two major things.

It's the funding, so it's the dilutive and non-dilutive capital funds that most of these programs have in place.

And it's also the support programs we put in place around them.

Both of those are vitally important. To, again, de-risk the technology, get it more commercially ready, and move it ideally, to.

A downstream partner. So, moving forward, and I'll spend a little bit of time on each of these, we can ask some more questions in the Q&A.

But, uh, pre-disclosure, institutions are putting applied research grants to larger research grants to do more application. This has been around for a while.

Uh, this is to typically stimulate more interdisciplinary, diverse projects that are coming in.

Or encourage research collaborations with corporate partners around applied research areas.

In recent years, too, we've seen more onboarding grants, so think, like, 30 to 50K.

That is going at… postdocs, faculty, and others that maybe haven't disclosed the technology before, trying to get them more engaged with the commercialization process.

At this stage, many institutions have technology ambassador programs, scouts, they're using AI increasingly to identify high research opportunities.

And pull those into the tech transfer office for further evaluation and protection.

And then also additional programming, innovation programming to let these innovators know about the commercialization process and get them engaged.

Proof of concept program, probably the shallowest but widest part of the gap, and many institutions have these programs in place. The goal here is to de-risk technologies.

By addressing particular milestones. Um, usually with commercial input.

Uh, to get these technologies to a place where a commercialization decision, be it a startup or a license to an existing company, can take place.

A lot of industrial collaboration opportunities, I think, are unrealized here, and more institutions are looking into that.

Typically, you'll have mentorship programs, innovation fellow programs, and other corporate outreach staffing associated with these POC programs.

Once the decision to license the technology to a spin-out company has made decisions, or.

The Plan 2 license to the formation of a new spin-out.

Many institutions have startup accelerator programs. So goal here is to wrap that technology with the talent needed to.

Get it pitch-ready, get it to a place where it can go out to an outside investor, a strategic investor, to get some investment. Typically, this would be a state where the university could take some equity participation.

A lot of times there's founders and entrepreneurship and residence programs associated with this, more business development strategy talent inside the office, and then also entrepreneurship programs like pitches.

Are put in place typically here. In recent years, institutions have started to do university venture funds.

My differentiation here between what some might call SARP accelerators also a venture fund is that, in my mind, university venture funds.

Are there to… provide ROI to the institution and participate in the scaling of a spin-out company through equity participation and investment.

The goal here, too, is to have sizable enough checks where you can attract co-investment.

To support the technologies. Typically, institutions will have hired groups like, uh.

Investment or portfolio managers to reach out to spin-out companies in their portfolio. They're running different early-stage investment partnership models.

And in the case of therapeutic programs, bringing in more clinical expertise at the stage to advise.

The spin-out development. Today, with Doug and Linda, we're going to be focused specifically on this middle, widest part of the gap.

Uh, both of their programs have, I think, this would be fair to say, addressing both of these stages, and I think they're going to hint on those in their model reviews.

So before we get into the model reviews, I wanted to just pull some basic numbers out of the most recent Mind the Gap report. This is preliminary data. We're going to release the report at our Covergence conference in later October this fall.

But you'll get a big snapshot. There's about 170 different programs that have supplied information.

To this effort. Think of this as a benchmarking impact best practice review of the state of GAAP funding.

Uh, typically across these programs, we've seen about $804 million of GAAP money invested.

And conservatively, about $22 billion in direct follow-on.

One big question that always comes up is, where does the money come from to support these programs? I've broken down them by fund type, proof of concept, startup accelerator in the bottom left here, but typically you're seeing a breakdown between inside and outside investment.

Investment from the institution is the predominant form, be it reinvestment of.

Royalties or equity returns, direct strategic investment from the institution. Or philanthropic sources.

Uh, about 80%. Of these funds, dollar for dollar, supported by institutional programming. So institutions are still providing the major support for Gap Fund Accelerator programs.

What I'll call out there is in recent years, this has become strategic priorities for institutions.

A lot of times it's coming from the presidential level. They're putting serious money behind that, both from strategic investment from the central budget.

But also looking potentially at how endowments. In the future can look at these as long-term investments and support these programs, too, as well.

We're seeing philanthropy on the rise. This has been a trend that's increasing and is going to continue to increase, but this is a… think of this as a very unique avenue to engage new donors.

Your development office and advancement offices should be very excited about this. This is not competitive to existing campaigns, this is a new avenue.

Philanthropy at your institutions, because the people that will put money into these programs are innovation and entrepreneurship interested.

And both in, uh, supporting the student programming. But also, student faculty programming in terms of the educational component, and graduating.

And, uh, supporting community innovation development, but also in staying involved with innovation and startups that are coming from institutions.

I will pull out that. We're seeing an unrealized opportunity in corporate investment interactions, especially at the proof-of-concept stage. You're seeing more.

Corporations, especially in biopharma, interested in getting involved maybe upstream? And that's kind of funny to say out loud, because it's not true in every case, but in our recent experience, looking to see how they can.

Engage both in funding research, but also in providing, maybe, relationship or mentorship.

Currency to support projects. So, I think that's an opportunity for the proof-of-concept accelerated space, is growing.

That section of the pie in support. Next question. How much…

Funding is going into these projects. Uh, this is nuanced. But when you look at the programs, this has proven pretty true. It's increased a little bit in recent years, but about 60 to 70K as an initial.

Typically a grant into a proof of concept projects, 8 projects on average per cycle.

Are being funded. In the startup accelerators are getting a little bit closer to Angel.

Level, accelerator-level competition money. Around the 140 to $150K.

Many times investment, SafeNote, direct equity, convertible. Into this stage, about 6 spin-outs on average here.

Call out a couple things. Seeing more, uh, let's call them staged funding approaches, especially at the proof of concept level. So throwing.

60… 60K at an initial milestone or validation test. If that proves true, many institutions, 50% here, reporting.

Have follow-on funding available to fund a POC2, a POC3. Uh, adding value.

In some cases, de-risking the technology to get it to a place, again, the commercial investment partnership.

Last bullet point here on the right. We're seeing and have hosted affinity groups throughout the year on this, about 30 to 40 institutions are involved with that affinity group.

On therapeutic and med tech maturation programs. More institutions, because they want to or have to.

Are funding med tech and therapeutics later stage. So bringing on real preclinical and regulatory support.

To invest in advanced technologies and startups along those tracks. And we're talking big money.

Uh, here, and that's… we're seeing it more and more. Finally, impact.

Roi, sustainability, evergreen. Words that always come up with these sorts of programs, uh, but I like to look at maybe a little bit more of a comprehensive approach, because typically those ROI returns are long-term.

You're not going to probably get a hit on Day 2, it's probably gonna be 5 to 10 years after that. So, in order to increase engagement and buy-in from your leadership.

It's important to paint a holistic view of what impact means.

And so, looking at that, in the near term, you can expect Gap Fund Accelerator programs to catalyze your commercialization process. They can increase the commercialization rate.

They can de-risk the technologies, they can improve, they can engage partners, they can do all those things that help move technology assets forward at our institutions. Secondly, they're magnets. I think Doug's really gonna hit on this, Linda, too.

But providing a central location where events. Community engagement, bringing together community can occur, and then all those sorts of random, chaotic.

Hits that occur that can support not only your gap fund accelerator program, but your broader technology commercialization.

Effort at your institution. Medium term, 3 to 5 years, uh…

Creating new spin-out companies, jobs created associated with those, hopefully retaining many of those within your own communities and states.

Um, and regions to… to grow and to hire more people and to create other opportunities, both in attracting and retaining talent, too, as well.

Attracting follow-on, this is my favorite one. Putting a little bit of money in from these gap fund accelerator programs.

Can encourage that follow-on investment from commercial. Investment, corporate, and in some cases, government, follow on, too.

And then finally, financial ROI, too, repayments, multiple repayments, royalties or equity are typically the avenues for that within these programs.

So one quick, uh, overview, and one of those sections looking at commercialization investment on the left side here, this is a rolled-out portfolio mix from these programs, as you'd suspect.

It's primarily life science. But we're seeing an increase more in, especially with the AI and the software, and.

And argumentatively, they're overlapping too many times into some of those life science areas as well. Agtech, energy.

Seeing those, um, and very excited about that as well. In terms of numbers, commercialization rate, I alluded to that on the last slide, about a 35% commercialization rate out of these programs, so decently high.

In terms of creating, uh, exclusive licenses. Or options agreements with companies.

We're also spinning our companies. In the case of the proof of concept programs, 2 out of 3 of the assets that are commercialized through those programs are ultimately spun out.

So you can look at proof-of-concept programs, potentially, as a spin-out generator.

But also as a de-risker for those spin-outs, or maybe a value added for those spin-outs. So when you're doing more specific activities around spin-out formation and development.

You can, you know, work with your POC program to do those. Investable assets, about $32 of outside direct follow-on capital per $1 of GAAP funding.

Across these two programs. I think Linda and Doug might have those numbers, too, in their decks.

But that's conservative. Uh, that's self-reported, and I, you know, knowing enough about these programs and looking around, the numbers are typically higher than that. It's exciting, right? Because the goal is.

Can we do something to engage commercial investment partners and get them, again, dig into their pockets.

Pull out some money, pull out some support, and move these technology assets forward.

And then finally, outside of traditional tech hubs, so these are… these gap-fund Accelerator programs are occurring all over the place.

It's a way to maybe end. Ecosystems that aren't as capital-heavy.

To do that sort of early-stage work that can attract the coastal.

Or, uh, you know, whoever it might be, VCs in, or corporations in, to take a look at both your institution and the assets.

And then finally, I'm just going to hit on a couple quick trends. I can go into these in the Q&A, so I'm just going to highlight them. These are things I'm kind of interested in right now and watching.

What Doug and Linda's programs are doing, and what everybody else is doing, too, as well.

But, big thing right now is talent when you need it for the right thing, so how are we establishing.

Kol and Mentor Networks, founder Networks, and keeping them engaged so that when the right opportunity comes along.

We can plug them in, and they can help from a talent perspective in supporting the development of the technology or the spin-out company.

And I think that engagement piece and maintaining motivation is something I'm very interested in looking at.

Second is how to use these programs to attract in new technical, scientific, business talent.

And retain them in your area. I mentioned the magnet piece earlier. What can we do as programs.

To use these to… to bolster our own research institutions in those areas.

The evolving capital mix right now, I'm especially interested in venture philanthropy and family offices.

And the role that maybe some of these small, medium-sized foundations have played in the past in… supporting basic research grants.

And getting them involved in their donors involved in more proof-of-concept and startup work.

I'm very excited about that. Moving from the view of… not moving from, let's say, expanding from, evolving.

Expanding from more of a holistic corporate relations or investment strategic look.

To providing opportunities for more project-based organic partnerships. So, project to project, growing projects of mutual value, and then expanding those into more strategic relationships with corporates and investors.

Opening our programs up to community, alumni, and others, and how we can use that to increase the quality, potentially, of the pipelines.

Uh, that are entering these programs. And then again, going back to the therapeutic MedTech maturation, it's an exciting area for institutions, it's a big part of the portfolio.

Um, yes, there's serious resources involved with it, but what does that mean, and how does that change the early stage, especially therapeutic and biopharma?

Landscape. And then finally, what's the impact of AI on all of this? Looking at all those things. So.

Happy again to talk about this, any one of these, in the Q&A, but I think it's time to get onto the model reviews.

And so, with that, I'm going to bring in Linda, and she's going to talk a little bit about what they got going on at Cornell.

So thank you, everyone. Again, just before we jump on. I'll be monitoring the chat and the Q&A, if anything should come up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob. Do you see my slide? Perfect.

Okay, perfect. So, uh, I will present here as, um. Check or saved. I would present an example of proof of concept. The one at Cornell is called Unite Innovation Acceleration.

Uh, I mentioned earlier, I joined the tech transfer office 10 years ago, in 2014. It was a very year that CTL has created its GAAP funding program. At the time, it's what's called CTAM. Ctam is Cornell Technology and Acceleration, Maturation Fund.

And in 2020, I took the leadership of a small team, and when I say small, it's not just me, and a communication person.

Uh, and we were responsible of the OneGap funding program at the time.

In an internship programs, educational programming, communication as well for the office. And my task when I, uh, took over this, uh.

Small program, uh, because it was a small program, uh, in 2000… in 2020, my task was to expand CTAM into what is called now ENITE.

And to implement new tracks, new programs within the GAAP funding series.

Um, and one include in Knight Fellow for InVenture, InITE Intern, and over… but here, I will present.

Shortly to approval in 9th program series, but I will spend most of my time talking about the POCs, the proof of concept, the Night Innovation Acceleration.

In the design of the program, and also the impact of this program. And I will end, I think, where what is the most important for this discussion about the lesson blur from Cornell perspective.

So, the tech control fee CTL is part of CONR research. It's a big research operation, uh, enterprise of $1.6 billion.

And from that, we are part of this research ecosystem, and that.

Within that ecosystem, we are part of catalyzing commercialization, technology commercialization, and also promoting new venture.

I'm saying that because it's important on the design, and also different programs.

And given the research activity, uh, that is tremendous at Corner.

We have a lot of assets, and each year, every year, we have approximately between 300 and 500 disclosures.

That the team, the BD team, and the IP team have to assess, and overall CTL is filed between 200, 100, and 200 provisional patent applications.

Um, and one of the responses we receive often. Uh, when the markets of technology to the industry is… is too early.

So it is why, at some point, it was Alice Lee, who's the executive director of the office.

Decided to implement CTAM, Corona Technology and Activation Maturation Fund. To enable to close that gap, where we are able to, um, the researchers are able to continue de-risking, uh, and validating their technology to.

Attract more interest from the industry. Let me give you a quick story about our corner, uh, gap funding program, because it has changed over time, which is important here because, um, at some point.

Gad funding program has to adapt. To the need. First, we had Cornell Technology Acceleration Demetration Farm.

Uh, it was launched in 2014, and then when I joined, it was, uh, differentiate into two in-nite research acceleration and in-knife Startup.

And to give you an idea, I see time at the time, we were awarding both.

Lab, and also starter. But again, this was a small fund, we were not awarding a lot of starter, because it was a small amount, uh, number of projects that we can… we could award.

Here, we decided to differentiate to the OTMs, the targeted audience.

So we created those, uh, logo other times, or watermark at the time.

Uh, and then we moved to… because at some point we receive a donor, and Jacob mentioned that, the importance of donor, we see an influx of funding to a donor, in addition to the support, expanded support from the provo.

To expand the program, because they saw the value of the program. We expanded this program, and we move.

To, uh, to redesign the program, and to. Expanded to a new program in Icelo, in Night ENTER.

Um, and we had a series of four programs under the Inai, Cornell Research Lab to Market.

To give you a quick idea of the. Three main programs within the series before moving forward with such a inite innovation acceleration. This is the grant.

We have three main. The programming is a series of in-gap funding.

First, we have innovation acceleration, which is a grant of 50K. Sorry, Jacob, we are… we are still at 50K, not 60.

Uh, so we are providing a grant up to $50K to lab… to the lab.

Uh, and we have two cycles, and I will go through the details, uh, after that. And then we have, uh, we have implemented back in 2022, we have launched.

The fellow program, the Knights Fellow for New Venture, which is a program I won't, uh, talk about it, uh, today, uh, but it's important to show that.

So leadership saw that the value of supporting creating a new venture, using, leveraging this, uh, this gap funding to support a new venture creation. So basically, we are recruiting within CTL.

We are recruiting master degree students, PhD students, when I see students, they need to graduate first to be able to be recruited by Cornell, uh, to be able to create a technology, co-create, co-found a company with the faculty.

And, uh, basically it's an activator program. We provide a package of 120K, so it's pretty significant, for 12 months.

And, uh, at the end of the program, they have to form the company, sign the license with us, and run the company. And we provide during the 12 months.

Of these accelerator program, we are providing the training. To support them, we are pairing them with an incubator director, because everything that we do, we do in collaboration with other groups, and particularly this program. It's with the two incubator on campus.

And this program, it's on an annually basis, so it means our equipment is, uh, every year.

And in our startup, uh, that is another program that is focused to.

Existing startup, uh, based on the IP of Cornell, or the startup that are client of the incubator, and we are providing, and we increase that amount from 50 to, recently, to 75K.

And we are providing this funding before it was through a safe note, we moved to, uh.

This was a C note, sorry, a convertible note, and we moved to a safe note back four years ago.

Uh, and the application on… era is on a rolling basis. So, depending on the audience, we have created a different program, uh, because we have.

We have seen the importance of creating dedicated programs based on the audience, and because the need was different.

And also, the timing was different. Startups, they need, uh, funding, uh, different staff that need funding at different times. So, which was not a good fit, for example, to have two cycles per year.

Um, but this takes some time to focus mainly on in-light innovation acceleration.

It's our POC program, proof of concept program, a constitutional program, and we are providing grant to researchers, up to 50K.

At the time I recalled when it was still Sitans, a small, uh, a small, uh, funding.

Program. They were submitting some time, uh, application of. 2k, 30K, now they're asking is a full amount, 50K. So, uh…

Potentially because, um, now, uh, there is a request to receive more funding.

And to support more, they're risking their innovation as well.

What is the objectives in the ENITE Innovation Acceleration? So basically, it is to provide and check out, you touched upon that, to provide critical funding.

To advance technology for commercialization and venture creation. It is also to help reach the next inflection point. Basically, the risking the technology and the innovation.

And to increase the licensability by attracting interest from the industry and also entrepreneurs and investor.

And what is important here, and so… and in light innovation activation is a grant, initially, I remind that to some of the startups when they come to apply to Ignite Startup, they say it's a grant, and usually I differentiate Innovation Acceleration integrand in a startup is not a grant. We are providing the funding to a safe note.

But either it's so grand. And… Innovation Acceleration, uh, has… basically is a researcher, they need to have an invention disclosure with our office.

Uh, and usually we, uh, we, yeah, we select particularly those with, uh, provisional patent application. We accept sometimes those who have not, where there is no filing.

Uh, but we prefer with a provisional patent filing. And they need to be faculty researchers in general, the audience that is relevant to the tech consulties, grad student.

And, uh, the period of the proposal need to be a 12-month period.

Not more than that, because 50K, uh, it's… when we look, it's a small funding.

And also, we want to have the risk project, uh, have project completed within 12 months, because.

At some point, we want those projects to move forward, and not to start over the year.

Um, and we accept only one application per faculty per cycle, because, of course, you can only apply on other disclosures they have.

But per cycle, they have to apply just once. It means they have to pick one project they want to move forward, because some researcher has multiple invention disclosure with us and several technology with us.

And, uh, we accept previously funded, uh, tech, uh. Innovation and technology can we apply once for funding, we call that prime.

Um, and we access to technology because. Call now is funding any type of technology. It can be engineering, it can be agriculture, it can be biotech.

And that's some technology we know that we will need more funding of, uh.

The next couple of years. Particularly when it comes to biomedical.

So, we expect some of them to… come back to us, it will apply again for the prime, and what we say, usually, it's, uh, it's not… it's not mandatory that we'll be providing to them the primes. They have to justify.

Wise in need is additional funding, and for that, they need to complete certain milestones and show that they are more interest because of the milestone completed, and they are not more to do to finalize and validate either the discussion with an entrepreneur.

All the discussion with a corporate partner.

What is the process of the Ignite Innovation Acceleration? We start with the call for proposal.

We have two cycles per year. Spring cycle and fourth cycle.

We are marketing across a different campus, uh, at Cornell. We have 5 compasses, and then we have, uh, infotation, because that part is very important.

Doing the outreach is very important. Uh, and we… we usually have this…

Two-month period for faculty to apply to the application, to the proposal, to propose and to submit their proposal.

Um, usually it's either in April or in November that we launch each cycle.

The second, uh, step of the program is getting, when we close.

The application cycle to receive external advisor review. So, usually, if it's not confidential, because we ask them if, whether it's confidential or not, it is not confidential, we provide an input from external technology advisor.

And we have, uh, I didn't share that here, but we have a list of 15 technology advisors, and we try to select those who fit the technology, and so they can provide their feedback.

And the feedback will be shared, we'll create a packet that will be shared with the committee member.

And what that changed over the year, uh, because this program has changed a lot in terms of process.

Uh, we have implemented… we have implemented creation of video. That we asked the faculty, the researcher and the applicant, to submit. It's a 5-minute video, because before we're doing, uh, each cycle, we receive approximately 21 applications, uh, and we do our due diligence, and we narrow down to 15, so it means we have to have.

15 presentations for a committee to review, which make it a full day of overview, which is long.

So, we decided to narrow down to have only a half day of presentation, and basically it's why we asked for the findings video, so the committee member can always view at their pace.

And to yourself update, it will be just 10 minutes. Per applicant to just respond to question form from the committee. And as a third step is exactly that committee that will meet during this half day, and will view and ask questions to the applicant, and at the end of the morning or afternoon, they will decide. We'll have a spreadsheet.

With the different applicants, and they will be ranking, at least they will be ranking. I'm not involved in the decision, but they will be ranking, uh, and decide and discuss the top 5 and 7, and the number, Jacob, you provide is exactly that. It's between 5 to 8.

Awadi per cycle. Um, what… what is your composition of this committee? That part is important. It's a committee we are… the incubator director involved, the executive director, but we have also external experts involved. Investor.

We have also serial entrepreneur. That part is important because we rely a lot on them for the decision.

Uh, it makes, uh, it makes a decision more reliable and also more market-levant.

So, and… and we try for innovation acceleration because the process is different for in a startup.

We try to have the same, uh, we have the same committee member for this program. It means it's a group that they know each other well now, they bring each their expertise, uh, and… and we… each cycle, they know that they will be solicited.

To have this community to review 15 application forms in IT Innovation Activation Program.

And the last part is, of course, when we award between 5 to 8.

Uh, project is to transfer the funding, and then to follow up with them.

Uh, because at some point, we need some reporting, so we ask for a midterm report, and a completion report, and what we have done recently is change the midterm report to an in-person or virtual meeting instead of just.

I sent you a report into a link, fill out this form.

We saw that it didn't work, we didn't have a lot of response, so we implemented, and Jacob is based from one presentation from your group that we… I took that idea where they were meeting with the awardee, and I was like, it's interesting to implement, because basically.

He brings this human touch, and also this accountability on… in terms of.

I… I have received some funding, I need to meet with the funder, and I need to provide some input to the funder. So we implemented that.

Because… and in fact, it's very valuable. We receive it, and when doing those discussions.

My team member received a lot of input in terms of, oh, we have a new invention disclosure related to this award, this innovation. We have also a good discussion with a company, so we get.

More important than just a paper report, or, you know, a form that is completed online.

To give you an idea of what it looks like, we have the online form that we use… we use N4AD. I won't go through the details.

It can be done and off on Airtable as well. Airtable is a great tool as well.

The good part with N4AD, you can create automation. In terms of sending automated email.

Uh, and you have a template ready, uh, email, so it's easy to… it's easier to use.

As compared to El Table, where you don't have this template and automation, email automation.

That we move sometimes… we move time. And, uh, I will share that with you, I won't go through too much as a committee selection criteria. I think it's similar from, uh, all the, uh, all the…

Gap funding program. So here I want to share, because we want to talk about the impact as well.

I want to share the start of resulting from the Unite Innovation Acceleration Program grant.

And you can see this has been created in 2014, and we have here a list of.

Oh, this was highlighted a startup here created based on. Supporting those projects, and you can see that it's basically…

The outcome from this slide, it takes time. So it means not just one year, not two years, basically it's from 2014 to 2019, it took 5 years to have the first startup created from this program.

It will be shared with you, but it's a great highlight from one of our ORD, and it… we gave funding to Professor J9.

Uh, they were able to solicit and have the postdoc, the PhD graduate, uh, create their startups, Opera, and to receive, uh, funding and even participate in a big.

Ship Act, uh, grant. As part of their ongoing activity.

Oy, you talk about that. Uh, so LY here, our LY is $1 funded, awarded.

Has, as of end of fiscal year 2024, has generated $54, uh, in terms of full loan funding.

And it's what basically based on a 114 project awarded, and you can see the growth.

Back in 2020 to 2024 year. So it means more support, generate at some point to more outcome and impact.

In terms of, uh. Basically impact as well as a product, some of the products generated from the program. You can see, I will just talk about.

Uh, because it's different from what is being funded. The red chili that has been developed and is commercialized now, it's a tomato, by the way, it's not a pepper, it's a tomato.

That is a ship in red chili, and other products resulting from supporting projects for research project.

And to finish the lesson. So first, what we have learned from our GAF funding.

Securing strong leadership support. Uh, because… You need the leadership to, uh, to be able to understand your program, and also so you can champion your program.

And you need to invest in outreach and branding, and it's why I talk at the beginning of the history. Branding is very important, and targeted outreach is important.

Uh, the design of role and recruitment strategically, we need to… you need to recruit strategically, because I mentioned, is what Jens Me, a communication person, I was able to recruit, show.

That there is a need for more people, and recruit an outreach person and recruit also a person that works with me on the gap funding that is managing some of those programs.

And so that part is very important. And the last part, the programmatic level, leverage external reviewer, because you want to create credibility on your decision. You need to, uh, be flexible as well, in terms of the format, the process.

You need to accept feedback from either the applicants or committee members, etc.

To adapt, and also leverage the ICORP program, because basically you can see the difference between the applicant who have done I-Corp.

And those who have not. So I will stop here, and I will be happy to, uh, receive more questions later.

Thank you so much, Linda. I think we're going to jump to Doug, and… I could stay on for a couple minutes.

You know, after 2 as well, if folks want to ask some additional questions, if we go a little bit over, and I know this is going to be recorded, too, so… If there's any immediate Q&A that you want answered in that recording.

And you won't be able to be here, just make sure you get that in the Q&A section, we'll address it, um, either through email or in the Q&A.

Doug, um, I'm gonna bring you in now from Purdue to give the Purdue perspective more on the startup side.

Yeah, thanks, Jacob. Um, and I'll… I may breeze through a couple of these slides as it's been mentioned, obviously. We're happy to share these afterwards, or answer any questions that come up.

Um, if I can't get into any depths that may be of interest. So… Purdue Innovates, um, is under the, uh, Purdue Research Foundation, which is a separate, um.

Nonprofit from the university, and as a land-grant university, Purdue Research Foundation.

Manages a lot of different things for the university, such as the, obviously, land and land development, corporate partnerships, the endowments.

Uh, and a few other areas as well. So… I'm going to just give an overview, obviously, of Purdue Innovates, and while we have kind of a three-legged stool related to commercialization of technologies and intellectual property.

Um, as I mentioned as well, our… Um, uh, programming from the incubator side of things, and then, uh, also the third leg of that stool would be the venture investing arm.

That we also manage as well. So, not sure why I'm on a timer here with my slides, but it's keeping me fast. So.

Uh, just some impact related to the. Tech commercialization side of things. So, Purdue is obviously a large STEM university that focuses on a lot of different areas within.

Engineering, agriculture. Um, biomedical improvements, uh, computing, and AI as well, and we see a lot of different disclosures across the university.

On an annual basis, uh, as you can see, kind of rank high up there, and obviously, a lot of that turns into the translation of, okay, disclosures, and then into patents.

And then what do those patents go on to do? Or what comes out of those technologies that are developed here across campus. But there's also students and alumni that we interact with, and from a Purdue Innovates perspective, we kind of.

Put that as a Purdue-connected approach. So, if you are a student, faculty member, an alumnus, or you're licensing intellectual property from the university.

A lot of our services and programming and even some of the funding is available to those folks. So, our IP team, the Technology Commercialization team, is strong between.

Internal legal teams, our business development management team, and even licensing agents that we have on staff.

Do a fantastic job of trying to get as much. Of the inventions and disclosures and technologies that are being developed here across campus, um, out into the world.

Uh, to make an impact. So, really proud of the work that they've done over the last several years in particular, and, um.

2023 was the official start of Purdue Innovates. Um, but we have been around in some way, shape, or form prior to the branding of the Purdue Innovates, as Linda mentioned, branding is important, and um…

We've been beating that drum here lately. But, uh, the Startup Foundry and a few other functions within the Purdue Research Foundation have been around for several years, so… We'll talk a little bit more in depth about that.

As it relates to, um, our startup development, kind of. Maybe post-invention disclosure, but also.

Technology readiness level, the de-risking, and the development of those ideas, those technologies, and even those startup businesses.

Is really where our team lives a lot on a regular basis. So, a lot of that, obviously, from a faculty and staff standpoint, starts with the different paths that they take once they do disclose an invention or some new development.

Do they want to have that ready for licensing and to go out to the corporate partners and sponsors who may be interested, or startups who are interested in.

Licensing the technology that may be related to their businesses. Or do they want to create a business out of what they've developed themselves? And so, depending on those two paths that they choose, our team is ready to wrap our arms around them and help them.

Pursue whatever those paths are as best as we can, and then help make sure that they're set up for success for the long term as well. So… Our tech transfer side and the tech development aspects and the de-risking has a few different paths that we look at, and.

As Linda's mentioned with the Ignite Fund, um, we have similar, with the Trask Innovation Fund.

As being kind of one of those starting points for a lot of the.

University-owned IP, um, amount of tranches of money that they are able to do. We also do it in a couple of stints throughout the year, fall and spring cycles.

And we do bring in externals from an advisory board standpoint that help us review it from an industry perspective, technology perspective, and the like.

So that we can help those faculty members and grad students who are working on those projects or that research to continue to develop that tech readiness level, so that it could be ready for either startup or licensure.

Um, in some way, shape, or form. Some take advantage of that and definitely try to take that ride as far as they can.

Others continue to bolster it for their I-Corps, their SBIR programs, the other grant programs they may be trying to fund.

For the research. But the idea behind the Trask Innovation Fund is that it gets to commercialization status.

Um, so again, that licensor spin-out is definitely key. Um, we've had a lot of good successes through the years with that program and through that innovation fund.

Um, and it's something that we continue to explore and see how we can strengthen and expand in some ways, too, so… Um, a lot of good things happening from there.

Um, and as I mentioned, one of the newer elements that we've added here in this last year has been my colleague, Dr. Matt Dressler's.

Led the charge with the commercialization fellowships. Um, and you'll see that there is an opportunity to put graduate students who are working on certain intellectual property and research that want to advance that.

Maybe the professor or the faculty member has decided to move on to other things.

And rather than let it sit there on the shelf, they're trying to take a stab at continuing to build that out and de-risk the innovation just as much as.

De-risk the potential business and licensing opportunities and paths, so… That's been an early success. We've worked with several different colleges, five colleges in the first year here have joined hands with us. It's a shared responsibility as far as the funding goes for supporting that fellow.

As well as the programming that they are participating in through our incubator program, too.

Um, that's been an exciting development that's happened in the last year as well, and we see that continuing to grow and already have.

Um, some of the college is ready to, uh, continue that for, um, Round 2. So, really excited there on that end. Um, let me see, I'm going backwards here instead of forwards.

So then, on the incubator side, as I mentioned with our programming aspects, this is, again, some of it's not beholden to just IP only.

Um, some are student-only programming that we do, and they are ranging from an ideation.

To problem, uh, solution fit in that fire starter area, the market validation, kind of the passive, you think of, they're designed to have some sort of.

Sequence, but they don't have to be. We try to meet everybody that comes through our doors.

Where they are. Um, some that we interact with and connect with are in between these stages, or maybe the timing doesn't work, so we still try to be able to provide.

Ad hoc consulting as well. Um, the team of five of us on the incubator team have a variety of backgrounds related to biomedical engineering.

Um, to start up and entrepreneurship, as well as venture capital and everything in between. So.

Had a lot of good experiences working with startups and people that are students or faculty or alumni that maybe don't fit necessarily some of these buckets.

But we also try to figure out ways to keep the funding and the mentorship, which is, I think, a huge.

Key to hit on that. Mentorship is important, regardless of the stage.

And it should evolve. Um, so we definitely try to incorporate that in a lot of our programming, whether that be through, uh, kind of a mentor networking, uh, swarm type of session, or one-to-one lead mentors working with one company in particular.

Or ad hoc. So, a lot of that happens, you know, virtually and in person, depending on, you know, where we are. In today's world, obviously, post-COVID.

That has developed beyond just campus, so that we are able to reach more people virtually.

Um, and then the continued engagement and awareness that we try to beat the drum across campus, uh, across the student body.

Um, we have a lot of, uh, curious students, a lot of tinkerers, a lot of entrepreneurial-minded folks, and they are wanting to know where they can go and how they can get started.

Or where they can take their idea to the next level.

Um, just this summer, we interacted with a couple of freshmen, incoming freshmen, who were already working on their.

Their own startup ideas, and we're already chomping at the bit to get involved in some of our programming to see how they can continue to grow in that. And then the like with alumni awareness is continuing to grow and develop as well.

We have over 600,000 alumni across the globe, and so. Knowing that there's a small percentage that are entrepreneurial or maybe working on their own startups, we want to make sure that we're able to provide resources to them as well.

Um, whether that's collaborating back on campus, uh, if it's for students, trying to help them develop and find a team.

Or to develop their technology further, or to help de-risk and find out that maybe what they're working on.

It needs to pivot, or might not have the market landscape and the.

The high-growth capability that they think it might. Um, but we don't necessarily want to tell them their idea's good or bad as much as put a mirror up to them and let them see for themselves, and really have them asking those critical questions of their business.

To think holistically, um, both short-term and long-term. So we do that through a few of those programs. The most recent development on our team in this last year, in addition to the commercialization fellowship.

Was our investment-based accelerator. Um, and the investment-based accelerator was where we really started to.

Um, say, okay, we've helped a lot of companies and teams that are at the early ideation stage, and maybe even prototype stage.

What's next? Where can we help if they're beyond that? And a lot of that, obviously, was interconnectivity across the ecosystem to outside partners and firms.

As Jacob mentioned, we definitely have a mix of that, working with Venture Studios, if they're wanting to take some of the IP that we have… that is developed here on campus and.

You know, create a spin-out in their own studio environment. Whether it's, um, students taking that prototype and getting early customer interest.

Getting beyond that phase, how do we help them continue to grow, and as well as, if you've already generated some thousands or even a million dollars in annual revenue.

How do you get bigger? How do you scale that? And so, the investment-Based Accelerator was our attempt at doing that.

That was really something that… that was spun out of funds that we took from the endowment that we were able to cart off where.

I'll get into some more details in regards to how much that money was, and kind of how that was structured.

But we kind of see the same thing with a sequence of programming. We're trying to find people where they are during the times of year and during their stages.

As best we can, um, with a small team, obviously, we can't do it all on.

We're certainly looking at ways to scale up ourselves from an internal operations standpoint.

As we look at these programs and the impact they're making, but knowing that a lot of these are cohort-based, and we try to see where can we expand that so that we can still make an impact.

But also still keep the depth and the breadth of the programming and the content relevant and useful.

Not just, um, you know, to a small select few. So, we're always looking at ways to kind of expand and enhance that.

Um, there's a lot of different resources out there in the world at Google's and the ChatGPTs of the world that people are certainly able to take advantage of, so we know that.

It's not the programming as much as it is the connectivity, both on and off campus, across the ecosystem that is the Purdue landscape.

We're definitely looking at ways to continue doing that. Had a really successful first year, or first attempt with the accelerator program.

And a lot of it starts on campus from an idea pitch competition, which is our Moonshot Pitch Challenge.

Where students come to us with an idea. And they have, um, up to 2 minutes to present that idea, idea of the problem, what's the solution.

And maybe even some information around the market or their business opportunities, so… A lot of ideas have started there from the student base, um, and we give a little bit of prize money. There's no ties attached to it.

They can go and buy pizza for the team, they can obviously use it to put towards product development or prototyping.

So we give that to them as a kind of a way of saying, you know, it's a really good idea, we'd love to see you continue pursuing that.

Some of those turn into actual startups and businesses that we continue to work with those students, and others decide to move on to the next great thing.

Um, it's kind of a low lift and low entry point for a lot of our students, and then.

Obviously, beyond the moonshot pitch competition we have, um, in the spring semester, our new Venture Challenge, and there's some other universities that have done that.

And certainly, New Venture Challenge is synonymous with trying to help develop those startups, so… Um, that's another program that we run in the fall, or in the spring, that is a student-only program, where we do give out some prize money, again, to those, uh, winners.

And it's a really good opportunity to help really. Jumpstart those startups into the next level, the next stage.

Um, and then, as I mentioned, the accelerator program, where we selected 5 companies that were Purdue-connected.

They had an opportunity to get up to $100,000 in investment.

Uh, using a safe, uh, kind of using that YC model.

Um, where we connected them with not only programming and content throughout the 14 weeks that we ran the program.

It was a hybrid program, too, so we had an opportunity to bring them on campus for a couple of weeks.

And also do a lot virtually, because the companies that we had participate were from across the globe, from Chicago and Indianapolis to London and California.

And so we had a lot of people that were able to fly in a couple of times throughout that 14-week period.

But we were able to connect them to a wide array of mentors, some that were… many that were Purdue alums.

But also some that were just more interested in supporting Purdue University startups. So, um, that was a really great program that we ended with in June, a large pitch competition that we brought in a lot of people in person.

Um, and had a great time, and those are now companies that are starting to either start their fundraise because of that, and or.

Incorporate into their existing fundraiser that they had. Maybe they had started during the program. So, we're really excited to see the long tail that comes with that.

Our Cohort 2 is going to start in the spring. Of 2026, so we have applications open for that now. And then that's… that's a great opportunity for those that are at the later stage.

Of how we're able to help that. Um, and then I'll glance over a little bit with our strategic ventures. Obviously, those are open to Purdue-connected startups as well. They don't have to have gone through some of our programming.

Um, certainly, if they are at a point where maybe they're not quite ready for investment, we want to point them to a lot of different resources and options.

Um, but the idea behind that Ventures in the Community kind of approach is, um, similar to what I mentioned with our incubator programming. We want to connect them.

Uh, where they need help most, and where they need help now versus where they might need help 6 months or a year from now could be different.

Whether that's connecting them with talent across campus, if they need some project-based help, that campus and students and classes can help with.

Or if it's mentors and advisors in the industry that may have a Purdue connection as well.

In addition to other investors in the network. So, you know, we may not invest in everything. Since 2014, when our venture arm was started up.

We've been made over 70 investments. We've had 7 exits in that 20… in what it would be 11 years now.

Um, we've had 7 exits that have come out of those investments, which is really great to see, and a lot of our funding, we have 5 different buckets of funding that are based on an evergreen kind of standpoint, so any returns.

Get funded right back in there. And then, in addition to that, we've got 47, I think 47, last I counted, um, active portfolio companies.

Through those investments over the years. So. Really excited about where that's going, and certainly we look forward to trying to find ways to continue to expand and enhance that as well. A lot of that is based off money from the endowment.

Um, but certainly exploration of. Corporates and external donations and partners that might be interested in that are always on the table to at least explore and determine.

Um, here's a kind of a quick look of some of those funds that we manage. And the check size varies, obviously. There's never one just cut and dry, so… This is some of those examples, depending on pre-seed all the way up to a Series A.

Stage for a lot of the venture scale companies that we're interacting with and or investing in, so… Um, I will, uh, kind of end it there. I know we're kind of up here on time, Jacob, so happy to answer any questions offline, or…

Again, share this afterwards as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Doug and Linda. If you're okay with it, we'll stay on for a couple minutes. I'm looking at the Q&A, we've got some questions that are in there that have been unanswered. Doug, uh… And you could interpret this how you want. I can give some feedback too, but do you remove funding from a tech when it's licensed to one of your spin-out companies, or a startup?

So, maybe it's, like, there's two ways to read that, right? It's mid-project.

Do we remove… I'm sorry, what was your question? Yeah.

And it gets licensed, you cut off the project. The other way is, are you incorporating this.

Could go broadly to your licenses, too, as well, to corporations. Do you… Do you try to claw back or reimburse any of the funding in that license agreement?

Uh, it's a great question. So, with the licensing agreements, there… there can be those, um, force functions that do happen, depending on, um, the scenario. Uh, as it relates to the Trask Innovation Fund, as an example.

We definitely put a lot of milestones. Again, my colleague, Mr. Dr. Dressler, has done a good job of trying to enhance that as far as putting a little more teeth into it, other than just.

Here's a check, and go on about your merry way. So we certainly try to make sure that there's milestones associated with those, and sometimes we'll look at the tranches of those, that funding.

Um, same thing with the licensing agreements. Obviously, there's certain timelines, and there's certain types of licenses that our team.

Um, we'll utilize, and there have been a few rare occasions where that's happened.

Um, but also, the idea is not to necessarily penalize people, but it's really to figure out ways to make sure that they are.

By advancing that technology, or being able to do the work that's needed to advance the development of that technology.

For licensing, or for startup, for that matter, so…

Linda, maybe I'll give the question to you, too, both from the reimbursement side, but also.

Mid-project licenses.

Yeah, it's a good question, and in fact, we, uh, we see that also as the risk in the technology itself. So if it can help, even its licenses, it can help reach a certain milestone, where they will be able to move forward, uh, we won't remove the funding, because the goal is really to achieve, in addition to get a license, but also to the technology, if it can be done in the lab instead of waiting to have this transfer happening.

Uh, it's, I think it's preferable to keep the technology, uh, continue the development of the technology in the lab.

Awesome. And then, Linda, this came up a little bit earlier. I think you might have answered this, but maybe you can just give the headline.

How many fellows for your new ventures, and how many startups.

Projects per year do you typically award?

We have, uh, between 3 to 5 fellows per year each court. We have recruited recently our fourth court.

Of fellow, um, but before, it was 2 years. Now it's 1 year. We reduce it to 1 year, so if there were overlap before, now it will be, uh, on the co-op basis. It means one year, and then a new year, you have a new co-op. So four fellow, uh, between 3 to 5.

So you're in for the startup, we are awarded between 6 to 10, uh, startups per year.

Fantastic. I don't see any other questions in the Q&A. I'll give it a second here.

I don't know… is there an open… open Q&A, open mic Q&A, or should we just be looking at the Q&A?

Just the Q&A.

Okay, okay. Well, our direct contacts are up here. I know Ashley's gonna gather up the presentations and send those out to you all for review and follow-up.

I think all three of us are… totally open to any questions you might have, and to share resources with you.

On the topic of gap and accelerator programs, and just wanted to give a thanks to Autumn for having us in the panel and showcasing this important topic.

But also to Doug and Linda for taking your time today and showcasing your programs.

Thank you, Jacob, and thank you, everybody.

Yes.

Or your SOE?

Thank you, everyone, for being here. A recording of this will be, um, sent to, um, your registration and available on the, um.

Autumn website within a week, um, and please complete the webinar evaluation at the end.

That will, um, pop up as soon as you close this out, and I would like to thank again our panelists for their time and their expertise, and also our online professional development sponsor.

Marshall