AUTM on the Air

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

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

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

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

Early detection is everything when it comes to Alzheimer’s, but for years, the tools available have made that nearly impossible at scale. Today’s conversation takes a closer look at a breakthrough that could change that equation in a very real way. My guest is Dr. Yuanbing Jiang, also known as Jason, a research assistant professor in the Division of Life Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His work sits at the intersection of neuroscience, proteomics, and large-scale data analysis, with a focus on finding practical ways to detect and understand neurodegenerative disease much earlier than we’ve been able to before.
We talk about the development of a 21-protein blood biomarker panel for Alzheimer’s disease, a test that’s reaching about 96% accuracy in detecting early-stage cases and has already been used in clinical settings in Hong Kong. Jason walks through how advances in high-sensitivity proteomic assays made it possible to measure thousands of proteins at once, and why moving beyond a narrow focus on amyloid markers has been key to improving accuracy. We also get into what it actually means to stage Alzheimer’s biologically, not just diagnose it, and how that changes the way clinicians think about treatment timing.
There’s also a broader story here about access and impact. This blood-based approach is faster, less invasive, and significantly more affordable than traditional methods like PET imaging, which opens the door for wider use in different healthcare settings around the world. We discuss what earlier diagnosis means for patients and families, how it could accelerate drug development and clinical trials, and why this kind of innovation is a strong example of what can happen when academic research, technology transfer, and real-world application come together at the right moment.

In This Episode:
[03:47] Jason explains why Alzheimer’s begins developing 10–20 years before symptoms appear and why patients often miss the treatment window.
[04:31] Traditional diagnostics like PET imaging and spinal fluid tests are effective but too expensive or invasive for widespread use.
[05:12] The idea emerges to create a simple blood test that could be faster, cheaper, and accessible to a much broader population.
[06:08] New high-sensitivity proteomic technology makes it possible to measure over 1,000 blood proteins with dramatically improved accuracy.
[06:56] His team identifies more than 400 potential biomarkers and narrows them down to a 21-protein panel for detection.
[07:43] Different biomarkers reveal distinct stages of Alzheimer’s, with immune system changes appearing earlier than neurological decline.
[08:37] The test doesn’t just detect disease, it helps determine what stage a patient is in, which is critical for treatment decisions.
[09:41] Early-stage identification becomes essential as certain drugs only work when intervention happens before major decline.
[11:03] Two key innovations drive the breakthrough: ultra-sensitive detection technology and a whole-body view beyond amyloid markers.
[12:06] Expanding beyond amyloid to include immune, metabolic, and vascular signals improves both accuracy and disease understanding.
[13:02] High diagnostic accuracy reduces misdiagnosis, which can significantly impact patient outcomes and care planning.
[13:58] Validation across Chinese and Spanish cohorts shows the test works consistently across different populations.
[15:02] The blood test reduces diagnostic costs by up to 88%, making early detection more feasible in resource-limited settings.
[16:07] Earlier diagnosis allows patients to access treatment sooner and gives families time to plan and prepare.
[16:53] Blood-based biomarkers streamline clinical trial recruitment by quickly identifying qualified patients.
[17:36] Pharmaceutical companies can now screen large populations more efficiently, accelerating drug development timelines.
[18:22] The next phase focuses on large-scale validation, regulatory approval, and expansion into global healthcare systems.
[19:28] AI is expected to enhance diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapeutic development using biomarker data.
[20:34] Jason shares optimism that earlier detection and better tools could significantly change Alzheimer’s outcomes in the next decade.
[21:12] The conversation closes with the broader impact, and how this innovation could reshape diagnosis, treatment, and patient care worldwide.

Resources: 
AUTM
Yuanbing JIANG - The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Yuanbing JIANG - Google Scholar