AUTM on the Air

AUTM

AUTM on the AIR is the weekly podcast that brings you conversations about the impact of research commercialization and the people who make it happen. Join us for interviews with patent and licensing professionals, innovators, entrepreneurs, and tech transfer leaders on the issues and trends that matter most.  

  1. 23 hr ago

    Advancing Biopharma Innovation with Ruben Flores-Saaib

    Biopharma commercialization has always required more than a promising discovery. It takes the right team, the right timing, and often, the right kind of capital to move an idea from the university lab toward patients. My guest is Ruben Flores-Saaib, PhD, Senior Director of Investments and Business Development at Ligand Pharmaceuticals, a publicly traded biopharma company with a broad portfolio of partnered programs and approved medications. Ruben brings a rare perspective to this conversation because he has worked inside university tech transfer offices, life science companies, new company formation, and now the investment side of the industry. We talk about Ligand’s evolution from a traditional drug development company into one of the largest biopharmaceutical royalty financiers in the industry, and what that shift means for companies, universities, inventors, and tech transfer offices. Ruben explains how Ligand evaluates opportunities, why the company focuses on programs that address high unmet medical needs, and how non-dilutive capital can sometimes help late-stage biopharma programs move closer to approval and commercialization. He also shares what his time in university tech transfer taught him about the challenges of bringing academic innovation into the market. For tech transfer professionals, this is a practical look at how investment, commercialization strategy, and university innovation can intersect. Ruben talks through what makes a program a potential fit for Ligand, what universities should think about before exploring a royalty-based transaction, and why these conversations are really about matching capital needs with the right asset at the right stage. It’s a useful discussion for anyone thinking about how promising discoveries move beyond the institution and into the hands of companies, investors, and ultimately, patients. In This Episode: [04:24] Ruben Flores-Saaib explains how curiosity and a desire to add value have guided his career across industry, university tech transfer, and investment. [06:26] Time inside university tech transfer helped shape his understanding of how academic innovation moves through complex, sometimes inefficient commercialization pathways. [09:46] Ligand’s shift from traditional drug development to a royalty aggregator model created a more diversified portfolio with multiple shots on goal. [11:00] Royalty finance works by providing non-dilutive capital to late-stage biopharma companies in exchange for future royalties once products reach the market. [13:58] Programs that address highly unmet medical needs are especially attractive because they may have stronger clinical, regulatory, and commercial potential. [15:59] Ligand’s portfolio includes more than 100 partnered commercial and development-stage programs, with approved medications across several therapeutic areas. [18:56] A patient-centered investment lens is both a philosophical commitment and a business strategy, since meaningful therapies may face fewer commercial and reimbursement headwinds. [19:53] Ligand’s Captisol platform supports drug formulation and delivery, helping partners address solubility and bioavailability challenges across multiple approved products. [22:11] Capital can be provided directly to universities or academic centers in exchange for future royalty income, depending on the institution’s needs and the asset involved. [25:36] Inventors may also be part of royalty financing conversations, but Ruben emphasizes that these discussions should happen through the proper tech transfer channels. [26:03] The best first conversation starts with a clear look at the university’s licensed technologies, their development stage, and whether they address highly unmet needs. [28:15] Non-dilutive royalty capital can help late-stage licensees reach the finish line while potentially increasing future royalty returns for the academic institution. [30:06] One misconception is that royalty aggregators simply want to take a university’s best asset, when Ligand is also taking on substantial pre-approval risk. [32:11] Waiting until approval may lead to a better deal, but that choice comes with the major risk that the product may never make it through approval at all. [33:02] Royalty financing is gaining visibility as companies look for capital options beyond traditional venture funding and equity markets. [35:20] Ligand invests across royalty finance, M&A, project finance, and platform technology acquisitions while keeping a broad view across therapeutic areas. [37:15] Oncology, inflammatory disease, cardiology, pulmonary, kidney, and other areas continue to present opportunities where innovative treatments may meet major patient needs. [38:29] Ligand plans to keep focusing on new therapies that fill unmet medical needs, especially pre-approval investments under $100 million. [39:02] Researchers, inventors, and tech transfer professionals are encouraged to reach out if they have questions or potential programs that may fit Ligand’s model. Resources:  AUTM Fall 2025 Connect and Collaborate Ligand Ruben Flores-Saaib - Ligand Rubén Darío Flores Saaib - LinkedIn Ligand Pharmaceuticals Royalty Portfolio

  2. 15 Jul

    World Intellectual Property Report 2026: Technology on the Move with Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento and Julio D. Raffo

    A breakthrough can happen in one lab, but its real value depends on what happens next. How does a new technology move beyond its point of origin, reach the people and industries that can use it, and eventually become part of everyday life? The World Intellectual Property Organization’s “World Intellectual Property Report 2026: Technology on the Move” takes a wide-ranging look at those questions, drawing on 250 years of technological history and five decades of patent data to explore why some innovations spread rapidly while others take years, or even decades, to gain traction. Joining us are Julio D. Raffo and Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento, two members of the WIPO team behind the report and returning guests to AUTM on the Air. Julio is Head of the Innovation Economy Section in WIPO’s Department of Economics and Data Analytics in Geneva, where he led the team that prepared the 2026 report. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Université de Paris Nord and has conducted research at institutions including the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, the Institut Français des Relations Internationales, and the Pan American Health Organization. His work focuses on innovation, intellectual property, and development, and he has helped expand WIPO’s patent and innovation analytics capabilities. Intan is a Senior Economist in the same department and has contributed to the World Intellectual Property Report since its inaugural edition in 2011. She earned her doctoral degree in Economics of Innovation from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and holds advanced degrees in international economics and international law and economics. Before joining WIPO, she worked at the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. With more than 15 years of experience in innovation economics and international trade, her work has placed particular emphasis on intellectual property and less developed economies. In this conversation, we look at the difference between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers, and why those distinctions matter for anyone working to move research into the marketplace. We also talk about the role of patents as both a source of protection and a global repository of technical knowledge, the growing speed of international knowledge flows, and the challenges of bringing deep-tech discoveries from basic science to practical use. From agriculture and digital technology to absorptive capacity, leapfrogging, and public policy, the discussion offers a broader view of what it takes for innovation not only to travel, but to take hold and create lasting value. In This Episode: [04:20] We discuss why technology diffusion became the focus of the 2026 report and why widespread adoption matters. [08:02] The conversation breaks down the differences between technology diffusion, adoption, transfer, and knowledge spillovers. [11:16] Incorporated technologies can improve productivity even when users do not understand the science behind them. [13:31] Knowledge spillovers show how proximity, professional relationships, and informal exchanges help ideas spread. [16:49] The type of technology, available infrastructure, cost, regulation, and local adaptation all influence adoption. [21:06] A comparison between older inventions and digital tools reveals how dramatically the pace of technology adoption has accelerated. [24:15] Adoption lags and intensity of use help explain why first use does not always lead to widespread economic impact. [27:40] Intellectual property supports innovation incentives while also encouraging access to knowledge and technology. [31:00] Advances in patent databases and AI translation demonstrate how technology is accelerating access to information. [33:32] Patent repositories help innovators identify solutions, potential partners, and new pathways to technology access. [36:14] We examine how intellectual property policy can support diffusion without weakening incentives to innovate. [40:47] Different economies need intellectual property systems and innovation strategies suited to their capabilities. [43:40] Patent citations provide a way to trace technological knowledge as it moves across borders. [47:37] Strong innovation ecosystems tend to contribute more knowledge while also capturing more value from it. [49:30] Deep-tech discoveries often require a much longer journey from scientific research to practical application. [52:23] Key lessons for technology transfer offices include the need to balance speed, competition, patience, and long-term support. [56:16] Technology transfer offices can strengthen absorptive capacity by connecting university knowledge with industry needs. [58:02] Smart specialization aligns institutional strengths with industry opportunities, public policy, and available financing. [01:00:54] Leapfrogging can create opportunities when newer technologies bypass missing or outdated infrastructure. [01:04:28] We weigh the risks of ambitious technological jumps against the value of building from existing capabilities. [01:06:50] Repurposing technology can uncover new markets and practical uses beyond its original purpose. [01:07:45] Deliberate policy action can help firms and regions absorb technology and turn it into broader economic impact. [01:10:39] The discussion considers the promise of faster global adoption alongside concerns about concentrated innovation capacity. [01:13:18] Policymakers face the challenge of spreading the benefits of innovation more evenly across countries and regions. [01:14:10] The episode closes with resources for exploring the report, its interactive data, and future WIPO research.  Resources:  AUTM WIPO World Intellectual Property Report 2026 WIPO Intellectual Property Resources Intan M. Hamdan-Livramento - LinkedIn Julio D. Raffo - LinkedIn

  3. 8 Jul

    Why Communication Matters in IP Strategy with Stephen Hall

    University IP strategy can look straightforward from the outside. Protect the invention, manage the policy, move the technology toward the market. But anyone working inside a tech transfer office knows the process is rarely that simple. Faculty inventors, licensing teams, university leaders, outside counsel, and industry partners may all be working toward the same broad goal, but they often come into the conversation with very different expectations. That is where communication becomes more than a soft skill. It becomes part of the strategy itself. My guest is Stephen Hall, intellectual property team lead at Bricker Graydon Wyatt in Louisville, Kentucky. Stephen brings a rare blend of experience to this discussion. He began his career as an R&D chemist, spent 12 years handling medical malpractice and civil defense litigation, and later transitioned into patent, trade secret, and contract law. Today, he works with universities, companies, and independent innovators across fields including biotechnology, therapeutics, solar energy, catalysts, chemical sampling, healthcare, software, and more. He also advises universities on IP policy and best practices, serves as an adjunct MBA professor at the University of Louisville, and is a certified coach trained through the International Coaching Federation. That background gives Stephen a practical way of looking at the human side of technology transfer. We talk about what litigation taught him about telling a clear story, why faculty disclosures can create mismatched expectations from the very beginning, and how coaching skills have shaped the way he listens, asks questions, and helps clients see the larger picture. He also shares thoughtful guidance on making IP policies easier to understand, approaching AI-related inventorship questions with care, and building more meaningful engagement across the university innovation ecosystem. In This Episode: [05:32] Stephen Hall reflects on the patience involved in moving from medical malpractice litigation into patent law and how some career paths only make sense in hindsight. [06:42] His litigation background taught him the importance of giving every story a clear beginning, middle, and end, especially when presenting complex information to an audience. [08:31] Working with universities, corporations, startups, and independent inventors has shown Stephen how important it is to understand each stakeholder’s accountability and perspective. [10:20] One of the biggest communication gaps in university IP strategy comes from mismatched expectations between faculty inventors and tech transfer professionals. [11:30] Kentucky Commercialization Ventures offers an example of how universities can approach IP policy as an ongoing process rather than a one-time document rollout. [13:26] Tech transfer offices have to make IP policy make sense, especially when faculty awareness and engagement around policy expectations may be limited. [14:30] Stephen explains why effective IP communication starts with understanding the audience’s knowledge, experience, and level of interest. [16:00] Innovation stories become more compelling when they connect the technical idea to a personal experience, an unmet need, or something hiding in plain sight. [17:33] The conversation turns to university IP policies and why they can be sensitive because they touch academic freedom, faculty incentives, institutional values, and revenue expectations. [19:54] Stephen shares his framework that people are wired for structure, crave clarity, and need action to bring the process together. [21:00] Case examples such as Felana v. Kent State and Stanford v. Roche show how IP policy and assignment issues can create real consequences for universities. [22:15] Storytelling can reduce friction around IP policy by reframing it as a practical tool that helps people move forward, rather than simply a list of rules. [23:25] Stephen explains how the “expert’s paradox” led him toward coaching, especially as he thought about helping highly trained innovators communicate more clearly. [24:54] Coaching principles help Stephen facilitate better conversations by encouraging clients and stakeholders to generate their own insights. [26:00] The generation effect explains why people are more likely to act on ideas they come up with themselves rather than ideas simply handed to them. [26:55] Active listening means paying attention not only to what people say, but also to what is left unsaid. [28:12] Stakeholder alignment often starts by recognizing where people already agree before spending focused time on the areas where they differ. [30:00] Stephen shares an example of slowing down, asking more questions, and completing the picture before giving legal advice. [33:39] In his MBA teaching, Stephen helps future business leaders understand the difference between patentability before a patent is granted and infringement after a patent exists. [35:51] Teaching has sharpened Stephen’s ability to explain patent law by connecting unfamiliar concepts to ideas his students already understand. [36:45] Artificial intelligence presents both challenges and opportunities for university TTOs, especially as machine learning continues to influence research and invention. [39:17] Stephen cautions that inventors and institutions should be careful with anything AI generates, particularly when records could become relevant in future litigation. [40:53] AI-related discovery could add significant cost and complexity to litigation, even when the underlying inventorship or patentability arguments are still unsettled. [41:49] A simple way to improve meetings is to ask what one thing would make the conversation successful for the other person. [43:47] Stephen’s closing advice is that involvement leads to engagement, especially when faculty are invited into the IP process in meaningful ways. [45:37] Bringing faculty into policy conversations, presentations, or patent-related storytelling can create stronger engagement and professional development opportunities. [46:30] Reinforcing that strong IP strategy depends not only on patents and policies, but on aligning people around a shared vision. Resources:  AUTM Stephen C. Hall - Bricker Graydon, Wyatt Stephen Hall - LinkedIn Bricker Graydon Wyatt International Coaching Federation Kentucky Commercialization Ventures

  4. 1 Jul

    How Venture Philanthropy Helps Move Rare Disease Research Forward with Tim Brent

    Getting discoveries out of the lab is only part of the commercialization journey. At some point, a promising idea reaches the stage where investment decisions can determine whether the science moves forward, stalls out, or becomes something that can truly reach patients. That moment is especially important in rare diseases, where the path to market can be long, complex, and difficult for traditional capital to support. My guest today is Tim Brent, Venture Principal with Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Tim brings experience across patient advocacy, specialty pharmaceutical operations, and venture investment, along with a personal family connection to rare disease communities. In his role, he sources and evaluates investment opportunities, supports diligence and transactions, and helps manage relationships with biotech companies after investment. We also discuss the practical side of the work, including how Tim finds opportunities, what makes a founder conversation stand out, and where promising science can start to lose momentum. He shares what patient input adds to diligence, why clear milestones and a strong mechanism of action matter, and how venture philanthropy can sometimes help early-stage programs keep moving when traditional capital is not quite ready to step in. In This Episode: [02:06] Tim Brent shares how his nonprofit career led him into the bleeding disorders space and mission-driven life science investing. [03:05] How his long connection to the bleeding disorders community and his daughters’ diagnoses add personal intensity to the work. [05:20] How Pathway to Cures works with university spinouts, licensed technologies, scientific advisors, legal counsel, cap tables, and investment documents during diligence. [08:17] Why patient perspective is central to Pathway to Cures and how the history of the bleeding disorders community shapes the way new therapies are evaluated. [10:02] Risks traditional investors may overlook, including treatment burden, side effects, patient preferences, and whether a new therapy is compelling enough to replace existing options. [11:52] How patient engagement shows up in diligence through the National Research Blueprint, lived experience experts, and the newer Bleeding Disorders Research Collaborative. [13:33] The importance of engaging patients and community members early, rather than waiting until a company is close to clinical trials. [14:24] What makes university tech transfer offices easier to work with, especially when researchers are genuinely excited about the discovery and open to scientific discussion. [15:55] What can slow deals down, from scheduling the first meeting to unclear founder pitches, slow NDAs, missing data room reports, IP questions, and unclear mechanisms of action. [18:11] What the relationship looks like after Pathway to Cures invests in a startup, including milestone check-ins, consultant referrals, and support without becoming a distraction. [19:46] Why very early-stage companies often need more post-investment support than later-stage companies. [20:22] Post-deal challenges that can come up unexpectedly, including slow decision-making, sudden management changes, and questions about cash burn. [21:09] Where promising programs can lose momentum, fall behind on timelines, or run out of capital before reaching the next funding round. [22:10] How venture philanthropy can help bridge the “valley of death” by taking on more risk, supporting rare disease markets, and helping companies de-risk early science. [25:00] Advice for tech transfer offices that want to make early-stage opportunities more attractive to mission-focused investors. [27:15] The future role of patient registries, patient-reported outcomes, access for underserved communities, affordability questions, and stronger partnerships. [28:36] A personal way to think about science, investment, and patient impact by asking what you would want if someone in your own family had a chronic disease or condition. Resources:  AUTM Pathway to Cures Tim Brent - Pathway to Cures Tim Brent - LinkedIn Bridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey

  5. 24 Jun

    How Thermo Fisher Evaluates University Innovation with Hsiaoli Chen

    Industry partnerships can look very different depending on which side of the table you’re sitting on. For technology transfer professionals, the work often centers on preparing the opportunity, supporting the inventor, protecting the IP, and finding the right commercial partner. For companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, the question is slightly different: does this technology solve a real problem, fit an existing product area, improve on something already in the market, or open the door to a new capability? My guest today is Hsiaoli Chen, Senior Manager of Corporate Innovation Partnerships at Thermo Fisher Scientific. Hsiaoli brings nearly 20 years of experience in business development, technology scouting, and licensing across the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. and Europe. She started her career as a biomedical researcher, and that scientific foundation still shapes how she evaluates new opportunities, talks with inventors, and looks at the evidence behind an emerging technology. In this conversation, Hsiaoli shares how Thermo Fisher works with universities, startups, researchers, and tech transfer offices to identify promising technologies and build productive partnerships. We talk about what catches her attention in a technology offering, why benchmarking against an existing product can make a disclosure easier to evaluate, and how validation data helps industry partners understand what still needs to happen before a technology can move forward. We also get into the practical side of licensing, including timelines, royalty expectations, contract templates, and the flexibility needed to get deals done. Hsiaoli also shares her perspective on global differences in university partnerships, the technology trends she’s watching in AI, automation, proteomics, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy, and the simple things TTOs can do to stand out as strong, prepared, and collaborative industry partners. In This Episode: [02:03] Hsiaoli Chen shares how her path from academic biomedical research to a startup in Munich opened the door to business development, licensing, and technology commercialization. [03:31] Her research background still shapes how she evaluates new technologies, especially when looking at the science, experiments, and validation behind an invention. [05:12] Thermo Fisher’s university partnerships often begin through researchers who already use the company’s products or through introductions from tech transfer offices. [07:06] Benchmarking a university technology against an existing Thermo Fisher product can help the right internal team quickly understand where the opportunity fits. [08:42] Early-stage academic technologies may still be worth evaluating when inventors can clearly identify what additional validation or development work is needed. [10:02] Licensing conversations with Thermo Fisher often look different from biopharma deals because many technologies may reach the market within 12 to 24 months. [11:28] Royalty expectations, contribution from multiple technologies, and royalty management mechanisms can all affect whether a university deal makes commercial sense. [12:36] Flexibility around contract templates can help reduce friction and move licensing conversations forward more efficiently. [14:03] Global partnership structures vary, with U.S. tech transfer offices often taking the lead while some European inventors may have more direct influence over commercialization. [15:48] AI, automation, and predictive models for peptides, proteins, and antibodies are becoming increasingly important in chemistry and biology screening. [16:52] Proteomics, single-cell analysis, spatial biology, and cell and gene therapy manufacturing workflows are among the university research trends Thermo Fisher is watching closely. [18:39] Thermo Fisher uses a robust internal funnel to evaluate technologies coming from universities, startups, biotechs, and even other companies. [19:34] Product managers, R&D colleagues, IP counsel, business teams, and legal partners may all become part of the evaluation process as an opportunity advances. [21:07] A strong tech transfer partner often provides complete information up front, including benchmarking, publications, and public patent details when available. [22:21] Some promising technologies do not move forward because exclusivity is unavailable, consortium terms are limiting, or the deal structure does not fit the business needs. [23:38] A technology that looks strong on paper may still fail to advance if it does not perform well under Thermo Fisher’s internal technical evaluation conditions. [24:36] Hsiaoli’s advice for tech transfer professionals is to prepare clear, concise technology offerings, stay flexible on negotiation terms, and keep building relationships through conferences and direct engagement. Resources:  AUTM Hsiaoli Chen - LinkedIn Thermo Fisher Scientific

  6. 17 Jun

    Royalty Stacks: Turning Tech Transfer Into a Strategy Game with Guru Venkatesan

    Technology transfer is often described through patents, licenses, startups, and commercialization strategy, but rarely through the lens of a board game. In this episode of AUTM on the Air, we talk with Guru Venkatesan, a business development manager at Fred Hutch and the creator of Royalty Stacks, a tech-transfer-inspired game built around patents, licenses, and leverage. The game gives players a chance to take ideas, decide how broadly to protect them, and choose whether to bring them to market through startups, exclusive licenses, or non-exclusive partnerships, all while navigating knock-offs, hostile takeovers, shifting market conditions, and the occasional boost from a rich uncle’s seed fund. Guru’s own path into technology commercialization has been anything but linear. He grew up in a small town in India with an early interest in visual arts, but after a classic family plot twist, he studied engineering instead. He earned his bachelor’s degree in India, moved to Tennessee for a PhD in Biomedical Engineering, and later founded Tech Carnivol, a Coachella-style festival for science and engineering during graduate school. His introduction to technology commercialization came at the University of Minnesota, where he worked under Leza Besemann and quickly fell in love with the field. The conversation explores how Royalty Stacks turns the everyday decisions of tech transfer into something people can actually sit down and play. Guru shares how he designed the game to balance strategy, humor, and education, why accessibility mattered as much as authenticity, and how concepts like patent enforcement, licensing pathways, portfolio building, collaboration, and market risk show up around the table. He also reflects on AI’s growing role in tech transfer, the challenge of explaining the profession to people outside the field, and what he hopes players will better understand about the long, risky, and often creative journey from idea to product. In This Episode: [03:00] Guru Venkatesan shares how his early interest in visual arts, a missed medical school cutoff, and encouragement to pursue engineering eventually led him to biomedical engineering. [06:13] The idea for Royalty Stacks came during a late-night moment when Guru realized tech transfer naturally behaves like a strategy game built around patents, licensing, risk, timing, and market forces. [09:43] Student-led technology festivals in India inspired Guru to create Tech Carnivol, a U.S. event with competitions, hackathons, robotics, and other hands-on science and engineering activities. [12:18] The challenge of explaining specialized fields to broader audiences leads into how Royalty Stacks makes patents, licensing, and commercialization easier to understand. [15:02] Guru walks through the basic gameplay of Royalty Stacks, including idea cards, patent filing, development, launch cards, play money, and power cards. [18:57] Patent regions, licensing territories, and revenue payouts are simplified for gameplay while still pointing toward real tech transfer concepts. [21:50] Launch Knock-Off and Enforce Patent introduce competition, copycats, and patent enforcement, with rock-paper-scissors adding a quick and lighthearted way to settle disputes. [25:25] Hostile Takeover and Collaborate create both adversarial and cooperative paths, giving players a chance to attack, protect, partner, or take strategic risks. [29:23] Corporate Roulette brings advanced gameplay into the mix through market events, windfalls, risks, moats, and humorous cards that can help players or disrupt opponents. [31:25] New players often begin to understand that patents matter, but also that protection alone is not enough without enforcement and commercialization strategy. [34:12] The game’s two winning conditions create more strategic tension by allowing players to win through cash or through a diversified portfolio and a late-game acquisition. [36:25] Guru sees Royalty Stacks as a tool for the AUTM community, whether for family play, office team building, faculty engagement, or startup incubator education. [39:20] Guru reflects on the irony of being a tech transfer professional commercializing a product about tech transfer, while relying more on copyright, branding, and a possible trademark than patents. [42:33] AI could reshape licensing and portfolio management roles by reducing time spent on document review and creating more space for marketing, relationship management, and overlooked technologies. [44:40] Royalty Stacks is launching on Kickstarter, with the campaign planned for June 16 through July 17 and expected delivery to backers in January 2027. [45:18] Guru hopes players walk away with a better appreciation for the work, risk, and execution required to move an idea from concept to product. Resources:  AUTM Guru Venkatesan - LinkedIn Fred Hutch Royalty Stacks Creator Intro Royalty Stacks Kickstarter

  7. 10 Jun

    How Novartis Approaches External Research Collaboration with Dr. Yogesh Sharma

    University-industry partnerships often sound straightforward from the outside. A promising discovery is made, a company sees potential, and a collaboration begins. But anyone who has worked inside these agreements knows the reality is far more complex. Research goals, publication timelines, IP rights, background technology, data sources, and internal review processes all have to be understood before a partnership can move forward in a productive way. My guest today is Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Global Head of External Research Collaboration at Novartis. In this role, he works at the intersection of academic research and corporate R&D, helping shape the structures that allow early-stage research collaborations to succeed. With deep experience in technology transfer, licensing, IP management, alliance governance, research agreements, and term sheet negotiations, Dr. Sharma brings a practical view of what it takes to build partnerships that protect innovation while still allowing science to move. We talk about how Novartis approaches external research collaboration, where alignment and friction often show up between universities and industry, and why relationships matter just as much as contracts. Dr. Sharma also shares his perspective on background IP, publication review, AI, and data-source diligence, and the importance of keeping the tech transfer office and PI aligned from the earliest stages of a collaboration. In This Episode: [01:32] Dr. Yogesh Sharma defines external research collaboration at Novartis as work focused on early-stage research rather than clinical trials, with an emphasis on understanding disease biology and identifying new therapeutic possibilities. [04:30] Dr. Sharma explains how his background in academic technology transfer helps him understand pressure points on both sides of the table, especially when universities and corporate partners approach collaboration with different needs. [06:00] The conversation turns to friction around the use of research results, including why Novartis may need flexibility for research programs or regulatory filings while universities need to preserve academic research and publication rights. [09:11] Dr. Sharma describes the recurring issue of non-exclusive royalty-free licensing and explains why Novartis does not ask for broad rights in every agreement, but may need them when important clinical drugs or pipeline compounds are involved. [10:27] Strong collaborations depend on more than contract language, with Dr. Sharma emphasizing the importance of trust and communication between the PI and company scientists when research changes direction or results do not go as planned. [12:39] Dr. Sharma discusses the practical realities of review cycles, publication timelines, and internal approvals at a large company, including the importance of giving industry partners enough time for IP attorney review. [14:30] Background IP becomes a major focus as Dr. Sharma explains how Novartis may take an option and help cover ongoing patent costs when existing university IP is important to a proposed collaboration. [17:19] The discussion shifts to AI, platform science, and data ecosystems, with Dr. Sharma noting that AI is already shaping drug discovery, chemistry, target identification, data analysis, and research collaborations. [19:10] AI collaborations require careful diligence around data sources, existing tools, open-source licenses, and whether any restrictions could limit what Novartis can do with collaboration outputs. [21:35] Dr. Sharma offers advice to tech transfer professionals, stressing the need for early alignment with the PI around the research plan, diligence, data sources, deliverables, and what each side is bringing into the collaboration. [23:45] After a deal is signed, Dr. Sharma explains that larger collaborations require continued engagement, project management, kickoff meetings, and a reliable point of contact beyond the PI’s lab. [25:27] The episode closes with a look at how larger collaborations may involve structured alliance management, while smaller projects are often handled directly by scientists unless a problem arises. Resources:  AUTM Novartis Dr. Yogesh Sharma - LinkedIn Novartis Biomedical Research / Novartis Research Helmholtz Munich Launches Collaboration on AI-Driven Kidney Disease Research

  8. 3 Jun

    Bridging the Early-Stage Funding Gap in Innovation with Teri Willey

    There’s a stretch of time in innovation where things feel the most uncertain, when the science is promising but the path forward isn’t clear and the capital hasn’t quite caught up. It’s a space that can quietly stall even the most compelling ideas. In this episode, the conversation zeroes in on that early stage gap and what it really takes to move something forward when the usual funding sources aren’t ready yet. My guest today is Teri Willey, founding managing director of Pathway to Cures, the venture philanthropy fund of the National Bleeding Disorders Foundation. Teri has worked across nearly every part of the innovation ecosystem, from leading tech transfer offices to building venture funds and advising investors. That range of experience shapes how she thinks about translation, especially the less obvious pieces that influence whether a deal comes together or falls apart. We talk about how venture philanthropy works in practice and why it’s becoming an important tool for advancing therapies that might otherwise struggle to find early support. Teri also shares why understanding human behavior can matter just as much as understanding the science, how patient input can change the trajectory of a company, and what tech transfer professionals can do to better align with early-stage investors. It’s a grounded look at how progress actually happens and what it takes to keep it moving. In This Episode: [02:17] Teri Willey reflects on her career and the common thread of working between for-profit and nonprofit worlds to commercialize early-stage science. [03:13] Why science, IP, and funding alone aren’t enough, and how human behavior plays a critical role in getting deals done. [04:27] Practical advice on managing stakeholder dynamics and keeping negotiations focused on shared outcomes. [05:12] Defining venture philanthropy and how it differs from traditional venture capital and grant funding. [06:24] How Pathway to Cures reinvests returns to support future innovation rather than distributing profits. [07:08] Inside the fund: small team, targeted focus, and leveraging expert advisors and volunteers. [08:19] Reviewing hundreds of opportunities and acting as both investor and resource for companies in the space. [09:26] The value of deep scientific advisors and staying close to emerging, sometimes stealth-stage innovations. [10:53] Where therapies most often stall, especially in the seed and Series A funding gap. [12:07] Why early patient engagement is critical for clinical success and long-term adoption. [13:34] The structure of Pathway to Cures and how independence within a foundation enables flexibility. [14:57] How tech transfer offices can think of venture philanthropy funds as partners or potential licensees. [16:11] What investors look for and why understanding an investment memo can help TTOs evaluate opportunities. [17:23] The importance of speed and clarity in licensing negotiations to avoid losing momentum. [18:49] Strategies for anticipating capital needs across different types of technologies. [20:16] How IP is viewed as the starting point, not the endpoint, of building a company. [21:38] Defining success beyond returns, focusing on delivering real therapies and patient impact. [22:52] The growing role of disease-focused foundations in venture investing. [24:18] Why traditional investors value foundations for their patient access and domain expertise. [25:27] How TTOs can better collaborate by engaging early and asking what makes a project investable. [26:33] What keeps Teri optimistic despite challenges across funding, regulation, and commercialization. [27:41] Closing reflections on progress, persistence, and the growing impact of innovation. Resources:  AUTM Pathway to Cures Teri Willey - LinkedIn

See All (312)

About

AUTM on the AIR is the weekly podcast that brings you conversations about the impact of research commercialization and the people who make it happen. Join us for interviews with patent and licensing professionals, innovators, entrepreneurs, and tech transfer leaders on the issues and trends that matter most.  

Information

  • Creator
    AUTM
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    312
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © AUTM.net
  • Show Website
    AUTM on the Air

You Might Also Like